Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Laughter is the best medicine

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 17:04, 4 October 2009 (edit)
Renergy (Talk | contribs)
(minor correction)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 20:07, 5 October 2009 (edit)
Renergy (Talk | contribs)
(category)
Next diff →
Line 112: Line 112:
[[Category:Underdeveloped debates]] [[Category:Underdeveloped debates]]
[[Category:Health]] [[Category:Health]]
 +[[Category:Debates for fun]]
[[Category:THBT]] [[Category:THBT]]

Revision as of 20:07, 5 October 2009

This House believes that laughter is the best medicine

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

There is a well-known saying almost everybody has heard of. Laughter is the best medicine. Of course, we can argue that laughter can't cure everything - but is really always the second-best option? Is it better to laugh or to take pills when depressed? Is there something medicine can't cure but laughter can? Does psychical health affect physical state? Do optimists live longer and lead healthier lives?

Economy: Is laughter reasonably priced?

Pro

  • Laughter is (virtually) for free - From the economic point of view, laughter indeed is one of the best medicines. While the process of laughing evidently takes some time and energy and one cannot do anything else while laughing, the costs of laughter are clearly negligible when dosed wisely.


Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here



Availability: Is laughter widely available?

Pro

  • Anyone can laugh, (almost) anytime - Except for rather rare cases of people suffering from facial paralysis, anyone can laugh. And while there clearly are places/situations where/when one really shouldn't laugh, laughter is generally widely available.
  • Laughter is renewable and sustainable - As long as there are patients, there can be laughter.


Con

  • Only conscious people can laugh - While people sometimes spontaneously laugh even while sleeping, it occurs rather rarely and randomly, hence evidently it is not a reliable option. For unconscious patients, laughter is clearly unavailable.


Ecology: Is laughter ecological?

Pro

  • Laughter leaves no high toxic waste - The only waste that can be directly attributed to laughter is perhaps the waste connected with the functioning of the human body.
  • The sound of laughter fades quickly - While it's true that laughter can be really noisy, as soon as laughing ends, the sound of it fades almost immediately (except for really special cases of reverberations in e.g. caves' resonant spots), leaving no trace of the fact that laughter ever occurred.


Con

  • Laughter is noisy - Some forms of laughter (LOLing being a good example) are accompanied with rather high sound pressure levels, in the worst cases making the vicinity of the laughing human temporarily uninhabitable.




Safety: Is laughter a safe medicine?

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

Con

  • Laughter overdose may result in a serious injury - While LOLing is generally harmless, ROFLing may easily lead to a fracture or bruise, due to the interaction with walls and/or furniture during the process. In the case of LMAOing or even ROFLMAOing, the results of overdose can be quite serious, in the worst cases leading to a permanent loss of parts of the gastrointestinal tract.



See also

External links and resources

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.