Instigator / Con
7
1515
rating
10
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#5682
Autism should be cured if possible
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Math_Enthusiast
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,450
Contender / Pro
6
1442
rating
47
debates
55.32%
won
Description
Autistic people often experience great challenges in our society. They may be socially ostracized, or may experience difficulty with tasks that those around them find easy. On the other hand, many consider the condition to be a key part of their identity, often viewing the challenges it poses as societal problems. Would curing autism be beneficial to society, or would it be a form of eugenics?
- It will be understood that autism is genetic. "Curing autism" will therefore be understood as eliminating this gene from the individual being "cured."
- It will be understood that the answer to the question posed in the topic should be for the net benefit for all people, not just a select portion of the population.
Round 1
Con
#1
First, let's be clear on what autism is. The following is a description of autism from ASAN (Autism Self-Advocacy Network) (1). This is both a representation of the diagnostic criteria (2) and the actual experience of autistic people:
- We think differently. We may have very strong interests in things other people don’t understand or seem to care about. We might be great problem-solvers, or pay close attention to detail. It might take us longer to think about things. We might have trouble with executive functioning, like figuring out how to start and finish a task, moving on to a new task, or making decisions.Routines are important for many autistic people. It can be hard for us to deal with surprises or unexpected changes. When we get overwhelmed, we might not be able to process our thoughts, feelings, and surroundings, which can make us lose control of our body.
- We process our senses differently. We might be extra sensitive to things like bright lights or loud sounds. We might have trouble understanding what we hear or what our senses tell us. We might not notice if we are in pain or hungry. We might do the same movement over and over again. This is called “stimming,” and it helps us regulate our senses. For example, we might rock back and forth, play with our hands, or hum.
- We move differently. We might have trouble with fine motor skills or coordination. It can feel like our minds and bodies are disconnected. It can be hard for us to start or stop moving. Speech can be extra hard because it requires a lot of coordination. We might not be able to control how loud our voices are, or we might not be able to speak at all–even though we can understand what other people say.
- We communicate differently. We might talk using echolalia (repeating things we have heard before), or by scripting out what we want to say. Some autistic people use Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) to communicate. For example, we may communicate by typing on a computer, spelling on a letter board, or pointing to pictures on an iPad. Some people may also communicate with behavior or the way we act. Not every autistic person can talk, but we all have important things to say.
- We socialize differently. Some of us might not understand or follow social rules that non-autistic people made up. We might be more direct than other people. Eye contact might make us uncomfortable. We might have a hard time controlling our body language or facial expressions, which can confuse non-autistic people or make it hard to socialize.Some of us might not be able to guess how people feel. This doesn’t mean we don’t care how people feel! We just need people to tell us how they feel so we don’t have to guess. Some autistic people are extra sensitive to other people’s feelings.
- We might need help with daily living. It can take a lot of energy to live in a society built for non-autistic people. We may not have the energy to do some things in our daily lives. Or, parts of being autistic can make doing those things too hard. We may need help with things like cooking, doing our jobs, or going out. We might be able to do things on our own sometimes, but need help other times. We might need to take more breaks so we can recover our energy.
With this in mind, here is why autism should not be cured.
Autism is part of a person's personality:
Point 1 in the ASAN's description would suggest as much, as would more rigorous scientific evidence. (3) Autistic people have very distinctive personality traits associated with their condition. With this in mind, what would curing autism mean for a person's personality? What personality traits would they have? Given what a defining feature of someone's personality autism is, it seems that if we were to cure autism, the person we would end up with would not be the same person we "cured."
Autistic people don't want to be cured:
Survey results suggest that autistic people, on the whole, do not want to be cured! (4) Even non-speaking and situationally mute autistic people with academic learning disabilities (commonly pointed to as the group which would want a cure) had virtually identical survey results to lower support needs autistic individuals. This would suggest that the struggles that autistic people go through in every day life are not a factor in their choice not to be cured.
Autistic struggles are a societal problem:
The description from ASAN makes frequent use of the word "differently," and for good reason. Take, for example, point number 5. Non-autistic individuals often perceive autistic people as struggling with socialization. In reality, autistic people have no problem socializing with each other. They have difficulty socializing with non-autistic people because of their difficulty with understanding what the ASAN calls "social rules." Here's a simple example:
A: Hi. How are you?
B: I'm good. How are you?
A: I'm good. Thanks for asking.
This interaction may not be intuitive for autistic people. Until explicitly told, they may not realize that if someone asks you "How are you?" you are supposed to return the question. This would not be an issue in autistic circles since autistic people will not be offended when social rules are not followed. Point number 2 in the ASAN description is also important here. Autistic people often experience their senses differently than non-autistic people do. Point 4 is another good example: Autistic people can communicate, but sometimes not how non-autistic people expect. With more awareness about these differences, there is no reason that they should be deficits.
Autistic people contribute to society in ways that neurotypicals don't:
There are plenty of cases of autistic people doing remarkable things. Often, subjects such as math and science are more intuitive to autistic people, although this is not universally the case. Some others create art based on their unique experience of the world. Nonetheless, out of all of these people, I decided to look at Jason Arday. Specifically, he challenges the notion that autistic people are on a scale of how well they function. Jason Arday could not speak until the age of 11. Many non-autistic people might think this implies that he is not as intelligent as the average person, but this is simply not the case. As you can see at the link I have provided, he is now a professor at Cambridge. (5)
Sources:
- https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/about-autism/
- https://repository.poltekkes-kaltim.ac.id/657/1/Diagnostic%20and%20statistical%20manual%20of%20mental%20disorders%20_%20DSM-5%20(%20PDFDrive.com%20).pdf
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122539/
- https://autisticnotweird.com/autismsurvey/
- https://blackwallst.media/from-non-verbal-autism-to-professor-at-cambridge/#:~:text=Jason%20Arday%20was%20diagnosed%20with,write%20until%20he%20was%2018.
Pro
#2
Here is my video argument to Con's argument. https://1drv.ms/v/c/a78f7b25976008df/EflILv1Io3VJmaajV2c0B0MBTxsMZuxY2CCxrw9SVHJDBg
Round 2
Con
#3
I will begin by clarifying a few things:
- The purpose of the rules that I set: As Pro points out, we do not have reason to believe that genetics are the exclusive cause of autism. I put a rule in place stating that autism will be understood as genetic for the purposes of this debate to prevent this from becoming a debate on what autism fundamentally is, (e.g. claims that autism is just a matter of bad parenting) or what curing autism would look like. (In particular, I clarified that "curing autism" would necessarily entail some sort genetic alteration for the purposes of this debate, although this has not been important yet.) The other rule was simply to make sure that the needs of autistic people, and not just convenience for neurotypicals, is being taken into account.
- What I am trying to demonstrate: I do not mean to suggest that autism does not cause significant struggles for those with the condition, or that it is "just a difference." My goal is to demonstrate that curing autism would not benefit autistic people or the rest of society, and that there are other solutions already at our disposal which are much more helpful to everyone. In particular, what I was trying to demonstrate under "autistic struggles are a societal problem" is that the vast majority of autistic "deficits" would not be deficits if these behaviors were accepted and better understood by the general public.
- I am autistic: I had originally intended to keep my own condition out of this discussion, but since Pro stated that they have autism, I decided that it could be important to clarify that I am autistic myself, and so I am participating in this debate with the hope that I will spread understanding of the condition for the benefit of myself and other autistic people. On the other hand, I encourage all of you voters to keep in mind that neither of us represent every autistic person. Pro cannot speak for the entire community, and nor can I.
My rebuttal:
- Pro begins their argument by stating that many autistic people face significant difficulties in every day life, with some not even being able to speak. They go on to state that because of the complexity of the condition, people have a hard time understanding it, and thus may discriminate against autistic people.
- As is mentioned in the ASAN description of autism, non-verbal autistic people often use other communication methods. Their inability to speak is not an issue of intelligence: They can understand language as well as anyone else, and are generally fully capable of writing or communicating using alternative methods. Saying that this is a reason to cure autism is like saying that we need to cure people who aren't English speakers. I anticipate that Pro will say that this is a bad analogy, but I will remind you again that non-verbal autistic people are fully capable of communication and language.
- Pro states that autistic people are discriminated against because people have difficulty understanding the condition, but complexity of a condition is no excuse to discriminate against a group of people. Non-autistic people do not need to fully understand every aspect of autism to simply accept autistic people for who they are. Pro actually reinforced one of my previous points for me here: Autistic struggles largely come from a lack of acceptance by the general public.
- Pro goes on to say that autism is a detrimental condition like cancer, and we would not refuse to cure cancer on the grounds that someone was born with it.
- When I say that autism is part of a person's identity, I do not say this simply because it is a condition that you are born with. I say this because as I stated in my original argument, it is part of a person's personality. Cancer is not part of someone's personality, and thus is not comparable here. For that matter, even with cancer being an often deadly condition, I think that a cure to cancer which fundamentally changed key parts of a person's personality forever could be somewhat controversial. Autism, on the other hand, is not life-threatening, but a cure would have these exact implications. How could this possibly be worth it?
- Pro then argues that any benefits autism might have are small compared to the disadvantages that it causes. Pro also claims that curing autism would not strip away any of the benefits of autism.
- My argument does not rely on the benefits of autism outweighing the disadvantages of autism. My argument only relies on the disadvantages of curing autism outweighing the benefits of curing autism.
- Curing autism certainly would strip away the benefits of autism. Curing autism obviously implies that the individual being cured would lose their autistic traits.* This would of course include positive traits. For that matter, many positive autistic traits (e.g. detail oriented perception) are not exclusively positive, and have a negative effect as well. (e.g. detail oriented perception causing "tunnel vision") I have no idea how Pro expects that these positive traits would somehow be completely unaffected while the negative traits entirely or almost entirely disappeared. They are all caused by one condition and are not separable as Pro seems to imagine.
- Pro claims that personality traits are learned, referring to this as a fundamental principle of human psychology, and then giving the examples of smoking and alcohol addictions. Pro then applies this to autism, saying that common autistic personality traits, such as being a loner, are merely indirect results of autism, such as how an autistic person may be a loner because of the discrimination that they face.
- Addictions are not personality traits. There are certainly examples of learned personality traits out there, so I am not sure why Pro chose two things that are not personality traits.
- Even though, as I just acknowledged, some personality traits are learned, this does not mean all of them are. Evidence would suggest that genetics have a significant impact on a person's personality, (1) proving that nature is a factor as well as nurture. Pro gives the example of being a loner as a learned personality trait that an autistic person might have. This example is valid, but this does not mean that all autistic personality traits are learned. For example, autistic people tend to be more honest. This cannot be explained as merely an indirect result of autism, since there is no reason that this would be reinforced more as a value in autistic people compared to non-autistic people.
- Pro then claims that the survey results I presented are potentially biased, since there is no existing cure, and people may anticipate adverse side effects.
- Even if these results are potentially biased, (which they shouldn't be if we trust that the survey was conducted well) it should still be noted that:
- "Lower functioning" individuals answered almost identically.
- Parents were more likely to want the condition cured than their autistic children.
- Pro's example of why the results may be biased is that people may assume that the cure would have adverse side effects. I encourage you, the voters, to look at the survey questions. (2) Participants were given the statement "If there were a cure for my autism, I would take it." and asked to choose anything from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Voters, ask yourself, if you saw this question on a survey, would you simply interpret it as "Do you want to no longer be autistic." as I did, or would you assume that you were supposed to take the possibility of side effects into account?
- Pro states that my argument titled "autistic struggles are a societal problem" is self-defeating. They then say that I assumed that all autistic struggles are energy related, which is false.
- My point was that a cure is unnecessary, because all autistic struggles could be solved simply by being more accommodating** as a society. My other points were to demonstrate the significant harm that could result from a cure. If a cure is harmful and unnecessary, why create one?
- I am very confused about where Pro got the "energy" thing from. Look back over this section of my argument, and you will see that I do not even use the word energy once.
- To conclude, Pro asserts that my arguments rely on "current theories" rather than facts, and that I cannot claim that autistic people are just different, because they have real struggles, with some having large cognitive delays.
- A scientific theory is a very well substantiated explanation for something, the highest standard of truth in science. (3) Our current theories are our best understanding of the world. Con has given my arguments some very high praise here.
- You can check my sources, and I do use fact based evidence. A number of my sources have specific numerical data.
- Let's clear something up: If an autistic person has a comorbid condition, (a condition occurring alongside autism) such as an intellectual disability, the resolution of this debate does not cover that condition. Curing an autistic person's comorbid conditions could be very helpful for them, but this is not the same as curing their autism.
Sources:
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7012279/
- https://autisticnotweird.com/autismsurvey/#cures
- https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory
*To be clear, non-autistic people can have some autistic traits. I only mean that a cured individual would lose their autistic traits to the extent that autism caused those traits, or possibly to the extent that the cure was effective.
**When I say accommodation here, I mostly just mean acceptance. It would not take much extra effort for non-autistic people to allow an autistic person to leave an overstimulating room without being considered "rude," understand that autistic people might not know all of the "social rules" and be patient when someone breaks one, etc.
Round 3
Pro
#6
Con acknowledges that autism can result in various challenges, not only physical but also social, economic, and psychological. Many individuals with autism may struggle with verbal communication or grasping complex concepts such as budgeting or basic hygiene. In some instances, they might grasp complex ideas yet overlook simpler ones, which can impair their social interactions and potentially lead to bullying and misunderstandings from others. All of these struggles are reasons why we should focus on curing the condition.
Con might say that it's better to understand the condition, but the same level of understanding can be achieved by curing the condition as well. So, when Con tries to say that curing autism won't help autistic people because there are a lot of better solutions already available. I challenge them to prove that. Because all they have argued so far is that autistic people are different from non-autistic people instead of something being wrong with them.
Furthermore, this argument does not make much sense, because it can be proven that autism is indeed harmful. Be it due to the developmental impairments that come with the condition or the psychological trauma that it can invite such as bullying or even just social difficulties as far as communication, and relationship building, then Con cannot say that curing the condition would not help society or those who suffer from it. preventing harm is always beneficial to anyone.
Rebuttal:
- As is mentioned in the ASAN description of autism, non-verbal autistic people often use other communication methods. Their inability to speak is not an issue of intelligence: They can understand language as well as anyone else, and are generally fully capable of writing or communicating using alternative methods. Saying that this is a reason to cure autism is like saying that we need to cure people who aren't English speakers. I anticipate that Pro will say that this is a bad analogy, but I will remind you again that non-verbal autistic people are fully capable of communication and language.
The argument that equating the inability to speak due to autism with the lack of English language skills is a flawed comparison. Being born with a condition that hinders verbal communication is fundamentally different from not knowing a language. Additionally, the argument that alternative communication methods for those with autism are sufficient misses the point. If one had a genetic speech impediment, it's unlikely they would decline the chance to speak as well as anyone else simply because the technology could offer a workaround. The majority would likely opt for the ability to speak normally.
Con suggests that I have reinforced their argument that autistic individuals face challenges due to a lack of acceptance. However, this seems to be a misunderstanding. My argument is that if autism were cured, and individuals did not have to contend with such a complex condition, discrimination would not occur. While it's true that having a complex condition does not justify discrimination against autistic individuals—a point on which I concur—it is impractical to expect society to cease the mistreatment of autistic people altogether. Nonetheless, it is practical to propose that curing autism would lead to a reduction in such mistreatment.
Con has no effective counterargument for why their survey would be considered biased. their only rebuttal is that lower-functioning autistics 'also answered it and a speculative claim that the parents want the cure more than their children. This does not counter the points I made that surveys do not reflect the majority of people and can only account for the subjective number of people who took the survey in question.
Con claims that they never claimed that the problems with autistic daily struggles were energy-related as opposed to the various reasons I gave in my video response. However, if you look into round 1, you will see Con state:
"It can take a lot of energy to live in a society built for non-autistic people. We may not have the energy to do some things in our daily lives. Or, parts of being autistic can make doing those things too hard. We may need help with things like cooking, doing our jobs, or going out. We might be able to do things on our own sometimes, but need help other times. We might need to take more breaks so we can recover our energy."
When Con claims they never used the word 'energy,' they do so twice. The crux of their argument is that the challenges autistic individuals face in society are due to the energy required to navigate a world designed by and for non-autistic people. My rebuttal is that the impacts of autism extend beyond mere energy depletion. Many autistic individuals require assistance because they struggle with self-care, often lacking an understanding of how to manage tasks such as paying bills or maintaining good health.
Conclusion:
Con simply does not have an effective argument against curing autism. Their sources rely on subjective opinions rather than facts nor do they represent the entire autistic community. They cannot medically or psychologically deny the harmful effects the condition has on its sufferers. Their main argument against curing it is the speculative claim that doing so would not benefit society or the subject to the cure themselves, for which they give no evidence. They also claim that instead of curing autism, they should be accommodated instead to better fit in society; not only is that unrealistic, but they offer us no ability to do so as well. Furthermore, they forget their arguments and claim they never said them.
The matter is rather simple: Does autism cause harm? If the answer is yes, then the answer to such an issue is to find the most successful and pragmatic solution to it. Said solution is to cure it so its harmful effects are not a problem. Accommodations are a nice thought, but there are limits to what accommodations can offer. A cure is the most viable and achievable answer to the problem that autism presents.
Round 4
Con
#7
Why Pro's main argument does not properly address my claim:
Pro has one very simple main counterargument: A cure would be more effective than any other solution. Believe it or not, I agree with this, but it is beside the point. The most effective solution is not always the best solution. To make this point clear, consider this cure for cancer: Simply remove the part of the body that contains the tumor. This solution would be very effective, but it is clearly not good. Similarly, curing autism would be a very effective solution for the struggles that autistic people face, but what my argument demonstrated was that it is not a good solution because it would be harmful in other ways.
Rebuttal:
- As is mentioned in the ASAN description of autism, non-verbal autistic people often use other communication methods. Their inability to speak is not an issue of intelligence: They can understand language as well as anyone else, and are generally fully capable of writing or communicating using alternative methods. Saying that this is a reason to cure autism is like saying that we need to cure people who aren't English speakers. I anticipate that Pro will say that this is a bad analogy, but I will remind you again that non-verbal autistic people are fully capable of communication and language.
The argument that equating the inability to speak due to autism with the lack of English language skills is a flawed comparison. Being born with a condition that hinders verbal communication is fundamentally different from not knowing a language. Additionally, the argument that alternative communication methods for those with autism are sufficient misses the point. If one had a genetic speech impediment, it's unlikely they would decline the chance to speak as well as anyone else simply because the technology could offer a workaround. The majority would likely opt for the ability to speak normally.
I admit I may not have worded this argument very well. Allow me to reiterate the concept of good versus effective: My point here is that non-autistic people would not have to go far out of their way to understand what autistic people are trying to communicate. While a cure would be the more effective solution here, this is one of the few places where I can see it having any substantial overall benefit. Curing autism is still simply not worth the harm of sacrificing this very unique part of society and erasing people's identities.
Con suggests that I have reinforced their argument that autistic individuals face challenges due to a lack of acceptance. However, this seems to be a misunderstanding. My argument is that if autism were cured, and individuals did not have to contend with such a complex condition, discrimination would not occur. While it's true that having a complex condition does not justify discrimination against autistic individuals—a point on which I concur—it is impractical to expect society to cease the mistreatment of autistic people altogether. Nonetheless, it is practical to propose that curing autism would lead to a reduction in such mistreatment.
We do not solve racism by making everyone white. We do not solve sexism by making everyone a man. We do not solve homophobia by making everyone straight. Similarly, we do not solve ableism by "curing" autism.
Con has no effective counterargument for why their survey would be considered biased. their only rebuttal is that lower-functioning autistics 'also answered it and a speculative claim that the parents want the cure more than their children. This does not counter the points I made that surveys do not reflect the majority of people and can only account for the subjective number of people who took the survey in question.
I agree that all surveys have a risk of bias. The reason I brought up the fact that lower-functioning autistics' responses were virtually identical to those of high-functioning participants is that it shows that there is no correlation between the struggles one faces with autism and how interested they are in a cure. Whatever separates the participants who said they did not want the condition cured must be something else, like being uninformed, having a lot of self hatred surrounding their diagnosis, or something else. (I encourage any autistic readers who feel that there is something "wrong" with them to check out the ASAN's website, as it may give you a new perspective on your condition.) The point is, the argument "What about the people who really struggle?" just won't cut it. The struggles that a person faces because of autism largely do not affect whether or not they want a cure. Regarding parents, the claim I made was not "speculative". Parents were also surveyed, and their results look very different. Autistic people don't want a cure, the people who "have to deal" with autistic people want a cure. Once again, hatred towards a group of people doesn't mean that group of people should change, it means society should change.
"It can take a lot of energy to live in a society built for non-autistic people. We may not have the energy to do some things in our daily lives. Or, parts of being autistic can make doing those things too hard. We may need help with things like cooking, doing our jobs, or going out. We might be able to do things on our own sometimes, but need help other times. We might need to take more breaks so we can recover our energy."When Con claims they never used the word 'energy,' they do so twice. The crux of their argument is that the challenges autistic individuals face in society are due to the energy required to navigate a world designed by and for non-autistic people. My rebuttal is that the impacts of autism extend beyond mere energy depletion. Many autistic individuals require assistance because they struggle with self-care, often lacking an understanding of how to manage tasks such as paying bills or maintaining good health.
To quote myself: (underline and italics added for emphasis) "I am very confused about where Pro got the "energy" thing from. Look back over this section of my argument, and you will see that I do not even use the word energy once." I did not say my entire argument. Pro was responding to the section of my argument titled "autistic struggles are a societal problem," which does not once mention energy. The only time I mention energy in my entire argument is the description of autism I got from ASAN. It wasn't even part of the argument itself. Pro claiming that the crux of my argument is that the challenges autistic individuals face in society are due to energy depletion is a blatant strawman.
Pro does not respond to any of these arguments:
- Pro goes on to say that autism is a detrimental condition like cancer, and we would not refuse to cure cancer on the grounds that someone was born with it.
- When I say that autism is part of a person's identity, I do not say this simply because it is a condition that you are born with. I say this because as I stated in my original argument, it is part of a person's personality. Cancer is not part of someone's personality, and thus is not comparable here. For that matter, even with cancer being an often deadly condition, I think that a cure to cancer which fundamentally changed key parts of a person's personality forever could be somewhat controversial. Autism, on the other hand, is not life-threatening, but a cure would have these exact implications. How could this possibly be worth it?
- Pro then argues that any benefits autism might have are small compared to the disadvantages that it causes. Pro also claims that curing autism would not strip away any of the benefits of autism.
- My argument does not rely on the benefits of autism outweighing the disadvantages of autism. My argument only relies on the disadvantages of curing autism outweighing the benefits of curing autism.
- Curing autism certainly would strip away the benefits of autism. Curing autism obviously implies that the individual being cured would lose their autistic traits.* This would of course include positive traits. For that matter, many positive autistic traits (e.g. detail oriented perception) are not exclusively positive, and have a negative effect as well. (e.g. detail oriented perception causing "tunnel vision") I have no idea how Pro expects that these positive traits would somehow be completely unaffected while the negative traits entirely or almost entirely disappeared. They are all caused by one condition and are not separable as Pro seems to imagine.
- Pro claims that personality traits are learned, referring to this as a fundamental principle of human psychology, and then giving the examples of smoking and alcohol addictions. Pro then applies this to autism, saying that common autistic personality traits, such as being a loner, are merely indirect results of autism, such as how an autistic person may be a loner because of the discrimination that they face.
- Addictions are not personality traits. There are certainly examples of learned personality traits out there, so I am not sure why Pro chose two things that are not personality traits.
- Even though, as I just acknowledged, some personality traits are learned, this does not mean all of them are. Evidence would suggest that genetics have a significant impact on a person's personality, (1) proving that nature is a factor as well as nurture. Pro gives the example of being a loner as a learned personality trait that an autistic person might have. This example is valid, but this does not mean that all autistic personality traits are learned. For example, autistic people tend to be more honest. This cannot be explained as merely an indirect result of autism, since there is no reason that this would be reinforced more as a value in autistic people compared to non-autistic people.
- To conclude, Pro asserts that my arguments rely on "current theories" rather than facts, and that I cannot claim that autistic people are just different, because they have real struggles, with some having large cognitive delays.
- A scientific theory is a very well substantiated explanation for something, the highest standard of truth in science. (3) Our current theories are our best understanding of the world. Con has given my arguments some very high praise here.
- You can check my sources, and I do use fact based evidence. A number of my sources have specific numerical data.
- Let's clear something up: If an autistic person has a comorbid condition, (a condition occurring alongside autism) such as an intellectual disability, the resolution of this debate does not cover that condition. Curing an autistic person's comorbid conditions could be very helpful for them, but this is not the same as curing their autism.
Pro
#8
I will make my rebuttals before ending with my conclusion.
Rebuttals:
Pro has one very simple main counterargument: A cure would be more effective than any other solution. Believe it or not, I agree with this, but it is beside the point. The most effective solution is not always the best solution. To make this point clear, consider this cure for cancer: Simply remove the part of the body that contains the tumor. This solution would be very effective, but it is clearly not good. Similarly, curing autism would be a very effective solution for the struggles that autistic people face, but what my argument demonstrated was that it is not a good solution because it would be harmful in other ways.
I have far more than just one main counterargument, but that's fine. It is pretty bad on the pros part to both admit that curing autism is very effective but then backtrack and try to say it's not good. If you concede that curing a genetic disorder is effective, then you cannot say it's not a good thing as that would be contradicting. For instance, you use cancer as a comparison saying that it's not good to remove the body part that contains a tumor. However, you give no reason for why that would not be a good thing except a vague, it can be harmful in other ways claim.
I admit I may not have worded this argument very well. Allow me to reiterate the concept of good versus effective: My point here is that non-autistic people would not have to go far out of their way to understand what autistic people are trying to communicate. While a cure would be the more effective solution here, this is one of the few places where I can see it having any substantial overall benefit. Curing autism is still simply not worth the harm of sacrificing this very unique part of society and erasing people's identities.
So, the same argument that I just debunked. Again, Con is confusing curing a generic condition to be the same as erasing an Identity. I proved back in round 1 of my video argument that personality is dependent on experience. Not innate at birth. Personality Development: How Does Personality Form? (verywellmind.com) The argument that curing autism would erase a person's personality is not supported by the accepted understanding of psychology.
We do not solve racism by making everyone white. We do not solve sexism by making everyone a man. We do not solve homophobia by making everyone straight. Similarly, we do not solve ableism by "curing" autism.
How is any of this related to the debate? We are talking about a generic disorder that impairs social development and even mental development at birth, with some even being born physically disabled from the condition. That has nothing to do with racism or sexism. These concepts are in fact behaviors that is generally taught by others or shaped by personal experience. Thus, they are unrelated to the current topic.
Once again, hatred towards a group of people doesn't mean that group of people should change, it means society should change.
How is wanting to cure hateful? If your son or daughter is inflicted with a disability, curing them of it so they cannot be denied anything in life is an act of love, not hate. Your sole reason for even claiming it is indeed an act of hate is because you mistakenly believe autism to be part of a person's personality when it in fact is not. Furthermore, how old were the people who surveyed? If they were indeed children, then your argument is moot as children do not have a full grasp of the condition to make that decision.
The only time I mention energy in my entire argument is the description of autism I got from ASAN. It wasn't even part of the argument itself. Pro claiming that the crux of my argument is that the challenges autistic individuals face in society are due to energy depletion is a blatant strawman.
You can lie Con, but the quote I got came from your first argument. And it proves you both did say that the reason many autistic people struggle is due to needing a lot of energy to handle a society made by non-autistic people and then you tried to deny every saying it. That's not a strawman, that is a fact.
I also deny your claims of arguments you say I did not address, but since I only have 5 thousand words left, I will write my conclusion instead.
conclusion:
Con has failed in their efforts to Mount a good argument for why we should not cure autism. Their main argument against it is that they incorrectly believe it would destroy an artistic person's personality, which I proved is not psychologically founded in fact. They even go so far as to accuse parents of hating their children for wanting to cure them of a disability notorious for having psychological and indeed physical impairments. Furthermore, they try to erroneously compare it to social concepts like racism and sexism when autism is neurological. Moreover, Con even admits that curing autism would work in removing the harmful effects of autism. Their only rebuttal for this self-defeating administration is that they believe it would not be good. However, their understanding of why it would be bad is based against the known about personalities and their development.
Con might try to defend their position by saying, "My survey shows autistic people do not want to be cured!" But ask yourselves this, if the people surveyed are mostly children, and thus lacking in education or experience to give an educated or thoughtful answer to the question the survey asked, is that truly a fair representation of how people who suffer from autism feel?
The fact of the matter is Con cannot deny the harmful effects of autism. Nor can they deny the effectiveness of curing it. The only real arguments they can make are that a supposedly small percent of autistics fear the ramifications of a cure and that Con fears (without evidence) that such a cure will destroy autistic personalities. These are hardly effective arguments for condemning an untold number of people, both now and in the future, the opportunity to live without a condition that is ultimately not to their advantage.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro forfeited one round, thus conduct point goes to Con.
I am leaving arguments as a tie because this debate is a bit too subjective to even be voted on by arguments, plus some arguments are in video link form which I cant weigh as they are not presented in a debate.
Both used sources, so sources are a tie.
Legibility was mostly fine, even with one round from pro being just a link to video and not an argument I can read.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote was not reviewed until after the debate window had closed, at which point it is impossible to remove.
Handling the unusualness of a video reply (without such being pre-agreed), is an area of voter discretion. It is however unfortunate that no voter weighted the arguments.
**************************************************
If it was possible of course it should be cured
I'll put a vote on this later today
That's fine. Hope to have you back this round!
My apologies for the round, I have been back in school recently and I was told by the system that I had at least a day left, clearly the system lied to me.
No, I am not interested. The causes of autism are not debatable. There is nothing to debate there anyway.
Would you like me to change this to a debate on the causes of autism?
I am just talking about what causes autism: bullying, sexual abuse, bad parenting and vaccines. Its strongly linked.
I would be happy to address issues of bullying and sexual abuse in the debate. Also, I hope you're joking about autism being caused by vaccines and bad parenting. If you are serious, though, that would be a separate debate.
"Children on the spectrum are up to three times as likely to be targets of bullying and sexual abuse".
Also, autism is not genetic. It is caused by vaccines and bad parenting proven to damage child's brain.
You can cure autism by watching entire World Conquest Zvezda Plot, and you must watch it 20 times.