Essential mental health services should be free
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 25 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I'm restarting this debate because it looked interesting, and the last instigator had to ditch the debate. I'll recycle some starting definitions from that discourse and modify some others.
mental health (noun): a person’s condition with regard to their psychological, emotional, and social well-being
services (noun): a) the work performed by one that serves, or c) contribution to the welfare of others -- the most useful M&W definitions for this context
free (adjective): not costing or charging anything
essential (adjective): of the utmost importance
A more contextually useful definition of essential health services might be: "health services that seek to treat a mental condition that dramatically reduces a patient's quality of life and/or services that are necessary to prevent that patient from experiencing a breakdown, or a period of self-harm or suicidality."
Feel free to amend that definition if you think you can make it more concise and workable.
In this context, free will specifically refer to the cost to the person receiving mental health services. The pro position is not arguing that mental health services should cost nothing to anybody.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 41.5% of U.S. adults exhibited symptoms of anxiety or depression in early 2021. Globally, seven in 10 people report that they are struggling or suffering, according to Gallup. [1]
not costing or charging anything
the state of a person who is held in forced servitude
How being in debt can make you feelThat everything is out of control and there is nothing you, or anyone else, can do about it.Hopeless, especially if your debt is getting worse.Embarrassed to talk to anyone about your financial situation.Guilty - that the problem is your fault, even though it's been caused by your mental or physical health problems.Depressed and anxious. [3]
While the link between suicide and mental disorders (in particular, depression and alcohol use disorders) is well established in high-income countries, many suicides happen impulsively in moments of crisis with a breakdown in the ability to deal with life stresses, such as financial problems, relationship break-up or chronic pain and illness. [4]
Thanks guys!
If it was a full forfeiture I would have. I just don't know enough about boxing to be a good judge.
Okay.
Could you vote on the Nicolino vs Floyd Mayweather debate too?
Full forfeiture. Please vote if able.
I tried to start a debate on this topic a month ago, but it fell apart. I'm interested to see how this one goes.
You asked if I think it's a truism. I would say no not a truism. The debate seems fair to me
I figured I should link you to this if you feel like I am full of shit.
https://www.mic.com/articles/85201/the-surprising-way-the-netherlands-is-helping-its-disabled-have-sex
For example you could say incels have a severe decline in mental health by not getting laid and now we are talking about a debate on whether the government should pay for prostitutes for incels.
It's that crazy either as some countries were recently debating helping handicapped people get laid with government subsidies for mental health reasons.
That is just one example of how it could go off course and then the debate is you defending subsidized blowjobs for autistic people. If that is what you want to debate, fine. I suspect you have a different way you envision the debate playing out though
severe decline would be what most of the semantics could come down to, based on what both parties mean by severe.
There isn't anything wrong with semantic debates and maybe your opponent won't care to debate semantics, but I could see it turning into that
Do you think it's necessarily a truism given the working definition of essential service I gave in the description? The debate is essentially "health care services that are necessary to prevent either death, crisis or a severe decline in quality of life as a result of a mental health issue should be free to the person receiving the care." I think you could argue either side of that.
Eh. Why not lol
It doesn't have to be a kritik but most of these people will argue that way because they don't view anarchist arguments as tenable
Agreed. Under common usage of "essential," this debate is a truism. I could Kritik it, but that would be pretty difficult with only 5000 chars.
This will likely devolve into a semantics debate about what qualifies as essential