Procrastination (Against Argument)

Resolved:  Procrastination is a form of sickness, not of the body but of the mind.

If you recall, last time I constructed the argument on the posotive or for side of this debate. Many great logicians have said that arguing both sides of an argument, especially one you don't agree with, is a powerful tool for increasing your potency with the double-edged sword that is logic. In addition, it ensures a well rounded opinion. A radical logician (gasp!) once claimed that a marraige could be kept much more intact by occasionally switching sides of an argument in the middle of heated debate, making you see the other's point of view. Don't remember who. Ironic if they weren't married, no? But they did have a point. In addition, check this: arguing for and against an abstract generality that is usually not intended for deep logical scrutiny ("God, he's as fat as a Panda!" for example, or th phrase "bear hug") also stretches the logical muscles (and admittedly sometimes leaves them sore) in a new and stimulating way. It's like fitting a gay guy with a lesbian. Or a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't work. Just doesn't. unless the peg's diagonal (corner to corner) is smaller than or equal to the diameter of the round hole. (See what I mean? Falls apart at first sign of actual logic) Anyway, now that I've rambled, (no, not Rambo'd, ladies, I'm still beshirted and non-lethal. Well, at least beshirted... so don't get to exited) on to the argument.


         My opponent attempts to make a case for the definition of Procrastination as a sickness by corralating small aspects of it to definitions, he neglects other neccesities for classification of an illness. The easiest of these to make is, of course, the idea that a sickness, in the infectious sense, is something BIOLOGICAL, in other words an organism. As far as modern medicine can discern, (and it can discern a lot) there is no such infectious agent. In addition, while my opponent cites that procrastination is a very infectious thing, he fails to cite that the infection, if it can even be so called, is something of an intellectual nature: procrastination begins and ends inthe psyche. My opponent cites procrastination as a psychological illness in the majority of his argument, however fails to keep this definition throught: if he had been reffering to only a psychological illness, he would have had no basis to make the point of infectioius properties: psychological illnesses are not infectious because their nature is in the psyche, not a biological agent foreign to the body.

          My opponent correctly corralates procrastination to the definition for a psychological illness, but fails to carry forward this argument: psychological illnesses are also caused, in part, by a chemical or physical alteration in the patient according to many psychologists, citing the imbalance of hormones, adrenaline, dopanine, estrogen/testosterone, and other mood/altering chemicals that are produced naturally as the source of illness. Also, all psychological illnesses are constant in their occruance: either they are literally constant, as with some schitsophrenics and many obsessive compulsive patients, or they are instead consistant within thier trigger: they are always or almost always turned on by a position that fits an event archetype, or a general style. Examples are shcitsophrenics who hear voices in crowded or noisy rooms (both a dance and a meeting fit the archetype of noisy crowded room), all phobics (whenever the object of phobia, whether abstract or physical, is near them they become deleriously afraid), or sufferers of strange diseases such a Koro*. All of these are very specific in the generality of their causes, but procrastination is not. It can have many causes, and in some cases the same thing doesn't cause it twice in a lifetime. This retracts greatly from its definition as a mental illness, as well as the important fact that it is, as of yet, not a mental illness even in a time when worry over healthy eating is considered one^. Thus my opponent's arguments, though a valiant attempt, are not valid.

In addition, I am much better looking than my opponent and can sing better too! (had to add humor somewhere...)


Thank you for listening to my awesomely unfollowed blog. (Total visits in the past week: 3! Total visits from me and Serena, 3!!! VWOOT!!!)

Which argument is the better? Email me! Have a better one? Email me, I'll post it. Do you actually read this? Follow me, or bookmark it, and come back! I love readers. No I don't make money, but contact me about donation, and I'll gladly accept. Soon I hope to have a donations page up. Thanks all!

            *Koro is a Japanese disease of the mind specific to only Japan, in which a man gains an irrational feeling that his penis is retracting steadily into his body, and for some reasons is convinced that once it does he shall die. Koro is known to cause patients to take various, often... extreme (god thats painful) measures to prevent this, from weights tied around it, tieing it to the leg, stapling it to the leg (GOD OUCH!!) hooking (yes hooking) weights to it, connecting it by tie or tied hook to the foot, routinely using something tied or hooked to it (what the hell is with all the hooks?!?!?!) and attempting extension in the same manner one might pull out a tooth, (eg. slamming a door, dropping a heavy object tied to it, etc.) with alarming regularity. It is a strange and elusive disease, and Koro patients often claim a cold or other sensation in the penis that they attribute to the "Lethal Retraction." (Sorry, couldn't stop myself from that particular movie-title-pun.)\

^ A recent release from the NPA (National Psychological Association) announced a new psychological disease defined as "worry over the health of food one is consuming" or something very similar.