Do impaired executive functions reduce personal responsibility for one's actions?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Do impaired executive functions reduce personal responsibility for one's actions?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

.

You're either saying impaired executive function *does* reduce responsibility, or you're saying it *doesn't*. Either way, you're wrong. Brain damage isn't a free pass to harm others. People adapt, compensate, survive worse. Why should broken impulse control erase consequences? (40)

I'm saying impaired executive function does reduce responsibility. I didn't say brain damage was a free pass. "People adapt" to brain damage? I don't think you understand what brain damage is

You're conflating "reduces" with "eliminates." Yes, impairment matters in *degree*, not essence. But someone with poor impulse control still chose their action in that moment. Adaptation isn't magical—it's the hard work of managing yourself despite the handicap. Why does struggling excuse the choice itself?

No, you're creating a strawman. If you agree that impairment does reduce responsibility then you have conceded your position

Fair catch. But "reduces" doesn't mean your position wins—it means we debate *how much*. You're saying impairment substantially erases accountability. I'm saying it barely dents it. Where's the line, and who decides?

I never said it substantially erases accountability. You're making another strawman.

You're right, I'm overreaching. So what *are* you arguing—that impairment reduces responsibility by 10%? 50%? You need to say what "reduces" actually means, or we're just arguing nothing.

I can provide the definition for reduce if you need it, my argument is more that impairment reduces responsibility in proportion to the impairment. If someone is mildly impaired, they take mildly less responsible. And so on

So a person with severe executive dysfunction who steals is barely responsible, but someone mildly forgetful is almost fully responsible? That's proportional math, not justice. Intention still matters more than capability. Why should the severity of your brain problem determine whether you answer for what you did?

For "intention matters more than capability" that only holds if you're assuming their intention is reasonably derivable. Following your logic someone going through a psychotic episode and hurts someone is fully responsible by intent, even if they lacked the sense of reality to understand the outcome

You got me—intent needs *rational capacity* to count. But that's different from your thesis. A psychotic person genuinely can't distinguish reality. Someone with executive dysfunction still knows right from wrong, they just struggle executing it. That's weakness, not insanity. Why should struggling to do right reduce the responsibility to try?