The thing for me is that yeah, taking Adderall under the perception that you are cheating the system could be regarded in the way that some people would see it s cheating, hence why I said your view is justified.
However, the issue is that taking Adderall more often than not doesn't provide any net benefit. The perception that something is cheating, and the ability to actually gain benefit (enabling cheating to take place) are different.
I could think that me being able to see my opponent's controller is cheating (and some do, and provide visual barriers between hitboxes/controllers). However, if I don't gain any actual benefit from it, is it cheating?
Like you intend to steal something, but if you never leave the store with it, then its not stealing. Theres some legal terms called mens rea and actus reus, being the guilty mind and the guilty act.
To provide someone with a crime without one of those two won't stand up in a court, and thats where the problem lies.
If we consider it as the idea of gaining an advantage by taking adderall provides the guilty mind, and the taking of it as the guilty act, then yes its cheating in that regard.
However, at the same time one could say that while the idea remains, the lack of an actual advantage nullifies the act. The punishment is self-inflicted, so to say.
The reason I note the side effects is because it does promote your point, and your point is not per se wrong. Its good debate etiquette to admit when opposing views have valid stances.
The perception I have though is the idea of spam, humor me if you will...
The act of spamming (say full-auto jacqui) has some definite benefits, the old "isn't broke, don't fix it" type deal. However, using it as a crutch damages the player in the long run.
Likewise, spamming a good move does not automatically make one a better player, though it provides clear advantages in some matches, at the top level it won't get you far.
Now then, lets say someone (throwing out a random pleb name like xXxSasukeItachi420KillxXx) went to a tournament and fought another player, and spammed.
HE as the player, thinks that spamming is providing him with a clear advantage. In a way, his perception is spamming is cheating but can't be enforced.
Other people may try spamming to better or worse result, so spamming has differentiation between players and opponents.
However, the act of spamming (as many know or don't know) doesn't provide ACTUAL benefit in the competitive scene, the few marginal possible benefits against specific people or for specific people being outweighed by the detriments.
Now assuming this point, one would assume that the player is punishing themselves and that while they may regard it as cheating, it is not actually cheating because they don't reap any benefit from it.
Also assuming this point, if one were to replace the term "spam" with "Adderall" and subsequent related phrases with proper context, the case remains almost the same.
The act of taking Adderall (say XL 12 hour doses) has some benefits, the old "medically increases focus" type deal. However, using it as a crutch damages the player in the long run.
Likewise, taking Adderall does not automatically make one a better player, though it provides clear advantages in some people (people who need it), at the top level it won't get you far.
Now then, lets say someone went to a tournament and fought another player, and took Adderall.
HE as the player, thinks that taking Adderall is providing him with a clear advantage. In a way, his perception is Adderall is cheating but can't be enforced.
Other people may try Adderall to better or worse result, so Adderall has differentiation between players and opponents.
However, the act of taking Adderall (as many know or don't know) doesn't provide ACTUAL benefit in the competitive scene, the few marginal possible benefits against specific people or for specific people being outweighed by the detriments.
Yes, I do know spamming and Adderall are different at their cores, but do we punish one for attempting to cheat but failing and punishing themselves?
Is it cheating if the other person thinks its cheating, or is it cheating once benefit is drawn?
On one hand, we could regard a lot of things as cheating, even if they aren't beneficial, and thus this creates a big grey area. What do we punish people for, acts they haven't committed? Acts they try to commit but fail to do? Acts we perceive as cheating, even if they don't give you an advantage? Where does it stop?
On the other hand, players attempting to cheat the system create the issue that, if they succeeded somehow, then it would be definitively cheating. It is only by regards to their failure that they do not "cheat" but attempt to do so.