I would like to thank my opponent for their first round arguments and for making this interesting debate.
Definitions
I would like to start by providing a few definitions of "disease" from a few dictionaries.
a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms
a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment
An abnormal condition of a human, animal or plant that causes discomfort or dysfunction; distinct from injury insofar as the latter is usually instantaneously acquired
We can see that these definitions broadly agree with each other. I would like to go the extra step of providing medical definitions, as that is what is most relevant here.
a definite pathological process having a characteristic set of signs and symptoms. It may affect the whole body or any of its parts, and its etiology, pathology, and prognosis may be known or unknown.
Merriam-Webster also provides a medical definition for 'disease' on it's page defining the word:
an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions, is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms, and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors
We can see that all these definitions broadly agree. For Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) to be a disease, it would merely have to cause some sort of disorder or impairment to some normal function(s) of the human body and have a set of signs and symptoms which identify it. It is easy to see that this is true. There are various screening tests for ASD.
One of the sources my opponent has provided lists several different screening tools used by healthcare professionals to diagnose autism.
As for whether ASD causes some form of impairment, it is also not difficult to demonstrate that this is true. While the presentation of autism varies widely from one person to another, some who have the condition are unable to live independently even as an adult as a result of autism. Autism is also considered to be a disability, as noted by the
Cleveland Clinic:
[H]ealthcare providers classify autism as a disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects people with autism spectrum disorder. This means they may receive certain benefits. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations in the workplace. Schools must provide accommodations to students. Depending on the level of support you need, you may also be eligible for disability benefits, including Social Security and Medicaid.
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disease typically diagnosed during childhood.
Thus, I have shown that even highly reputable medical sources classify ASD as a disease. I feel that I have met my burden of proof, but I would like to take the time to directly address some of my opponent's arguments.
Responses/Rebuttals
My opponent links to a source describing the difference between what healthcare providers refer to as a disease and what they deem disorder. I would like to quote this article myself:
A disorder might indicate that a specific disease is possible but there is not enough clinical evidence for diagnosis. It may be clear you have an autoimmune disorder of some sort, but it may take time to receive a specific diagnosis like [Rheumatoid Arthritis].
The distinction being made here is one between general dysfunction where the source is not clear and something that can specifically be diagnosed. As noted by Dorland's Medical Dictionary, the cause and function of a disease may be unknown. What sets it apart from general disorder of some bodily function is whether there is a set of symptoms that are used to diagnose the disease. As I have already established, this is true of ASD.
My opponent also notes that there is no cure for autism. While this is true, it in no way indicates that it is not a disease. Many diseases are lifelong and incurable. However, autism can be treated through therapy and behavioral interventions, as the Cleveland Clinic notes:
Autism treatment includes behavioral interventions or therapies. These teach new skills to address the core deficits of autism and reduce the core symptoms . . . As your child ages and develops, they may receive a modified treatment plan to cater to their specific needs.
My opponent also objects to the classification of autism as a disease on the basis that such terminology is in some way prejudicial towards those with the condition. My opponent claims:
Do you remember the time someone you knew was sick for three days with the flue and you tried to avoid them because you did not want to get sick as well even after they told you they were not sick anymore? Now, imagine that same scenario except this person now has autism and you incorrectly believed it was a sickness you could get yourself. That is exactly what would happen if autism was considered a disease.
This is simply not true. There are plenty of diseases that are not in any way contagious. Diabetes is a well-known disease, and it is well-understood by the general public that it does not spread from person to person (except in the case of genetic inheritance from parent to child).
While I recognize that the word 'disease' does have somewhat negative connotations, this has no bearing on the topic of this debate. It is merely about the medical definition of autism. Whether a word is defined a certain way and whether it ought to be defined that way are two entirely separate matters, and I have shown that ASD is, in fact, considered to be a disease by medical organizations.
With all that said, I now turn the debate back over to my opponent.
The autistic do endure a level of discrimination, but this doesn't always translate into being more likely to vote for democrats. Like in the 1950s, blacks were discriminated against by southern democrats; most black voters in the days of the 1950s voted for the southern democrats.
I would argue that most autistic people would be more left leaning because of how discriminative the right is, and people with asd are a very discrimated against group, but that’s just my way of thinking about it.
Not a problem. I just started the second round.
You're making very broad generalizations and comparing them to the behavior of a single person. Even if it is true that, in general, people with autism tend to act like Trump to a certain degree, that doesn't mean they're going to agree with his politics.
Autistics think in binaries, black and white, blunt, and accidentally unempathetic. Just like Trump.
Thanks for posting your Round 1 arguments. Sorry to have kept you waiting this long, I'll have my arguments posted by tomorrow.
"I've noticed pretty much every autistic person is very conservative or libertarian."
Really? Most of the autistic people I know lean liberal/progressive. Of course, I do hang out mostly in liberal spaces online and don't know a whole lot of people that have autism and have told me so irl, so I'm definitely biased, but still. I wonder if they have done any studies on if there's a correlation between ASD and political ideology. I feel like the correlation would probably be fairly weak tbh.
You are a conservative according to your bio. Your comment was very blunt (which I'm fine with as I'm pro free speech just like the stereotypical American). You proved my point.
I am an autistic retard, but still I would say it is a disease in a way, just the one that turned me into God.
You know what, looking at the medical definitions of disease, autism spectrum disorder, and developmental disorders, it seems fairly obvious to me that ASD would fall under the definition of disease. Perhaps you have some trick hidden up your sleeve, but the argument for Pro seems very simple and straightforward in my mind. I will accept this debate.
The term disease is a pretty well-understood term for anyone who is past the third grade. You can't cure stupidly. If people can't be bothered to do the research, then they are not worth debating.
You are just being discriminatory, which is interesting, considering the fact you claim to have the same disability. As someone who also suffers from Autism, I would say your blatant ignorance offends me, but I won't give you the satisfaction. Thank you for your (ignorant) opinions about Autism. I will be completely happy to (completely ignore) keep that in mind.
I have autism. I've noticed pretty much every autistic person is very conservative or libertarian. They like bluntness (like Trump), they lean in on stereotypes that apply to them (so for US autistics; it's American stereotypes), they like black and white thinking. Not empathetic (the left is more empathetic). Maybe a socialist who is blunt and black and white as well. But mostly conservative/libetarian. It's a surprise the left cares for us so much.
It would be helpful, and is generally a good idea, to clearly define "disease" in the description of your debate.