Assisted Suicide Laws should be Universal
This debate is closed. If you still can accept, it would be considered an immediate loss.
Assisted Suicide Laws should be Universal
Essentially, I'm arguing that Assisted Suicide laws (whether for or against) should not be limited to only the terminally ill.
If this definition is not clear to you, ask in the comments before accepting the debate.
This is a complex debate. I'm looking for a great debater to destroy me (in a nice way!). Voters must have more than 3000 Elo points. Sorry!
Assisted Suicide - Assisting a person to commit suicide. For example, someone (usually a physician) would prescribe or supply lethal drugs .
Law - The system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties .
Universal - Applicable to (almost) all people in a country or a jurasdiction
4 rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 characters, Voters: 3000 Elo Points.
For the sake of the reader, the format will be:
Round 1: Resolution, rules and Acceptance
Round 2: All arguments in this round (No rebuttals)
1. No forfeits.
2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments.
3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.
4. No trolling.
5. Feel free to run a Kritik if you want.
6. No deconstructional semantics.
7. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared
8. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
9. Failure to adhere to the rules above leads to an immediate loss
Their imagination of a better world is a continuation of the ascetic ideal. This association of all that is good as not of this world expresses a hatred for the only one we’ve got—turns case. Fantasizing about a world without suffering produces creative impotence---only our relationship to life can escape this paradox of resentment. Turanli:
Their benevolence towards the oppressed is a thinly veiled attempt to exercise power over the subjugated. Nietzsche:
Suffering is inevitable-the drive to abolish it holds life in contempt. The tension of the should in misfortune is what cultivates human greatness. Nietzsche:
The ultimate result of this negative orientation toward life is the inability to live life to its fullest. Instead, the affirmative holds life in contempt for its pains, never understanding that life is suffering, starvation, and dying. The desire to seek redemption from life through the creation of a future moral order annihilates life in the present. This is the worst possible danger: our existence becomes a dreary perpetuation of biological life, devoid of meaning, waiting only for passive death. Nietzsche:
The alternative is to embrace suffering as something positive and necessary to life. Reject the idea that suffering is something to be avoided. Wrisley:
1. The K negates the resolution in two places: a) it negates apriori because by allowing people to just opt out of their suffering and off themselves we decrease suffering in the world, which the K explains is bad. And this is apriori because before we can even address human rights we first need to understand what it means to be human. b) it negates by turning the aff case against him -- by advocating for assisted suicide to preserve human worth he violates the very thing he aims to preserve.
2. Violating human rights and worth only matters insofar as violating it results in some kind of harm which means he's in a double-bind -- either a) violating human rights results in some kind of suffering, which means that affirming bites into the K, or b) violating human rights doesn't actually have a bad consequence and there's no impact to the AC.
I ask that voters who are not familiar with Kritiks to refrain from voting on this debate. This is more to the benefit of my opponent.
On his Overview:
That's not actually how K's work. K's operate as a gateway to affirming the resolution and act on a higher level (in this case ontologically) than a normative case (in this case the AC). In order for you to be able to even access offense coming off of your case, the K has to be refuted. If you don't win on the K debate, I win straight out. But even if you're refuting the K, I can still win by refuting the AC.
His first response against the K is simply that there's no warrant to the K, but the warrants are all in the cards I read off. Pro's unwillingness to read the quoted text doesn't mean that the K lacks warrants.
His second response is that he doesn't link because his case doesn't long for a better world. There's a number of problems with this response.
a) He does. Insofar as he's trying to allow equality in assisted suicide to respect people's humanity and other positive impacts that are absent in the status quo, he's longing for a better world, a world that isn't the world in which we live in.
b) Turn this response against him. If the entire point of his case isn't to look for positive impacts of allowing equality in assisted suicide, then we have no reason to affirm the resolution. Look to his round one statement where he split the burden of proof - he has to be making arguments in favor of the resolution and be making positive impacts toward affirming the resolution. If he isn't doing that by this admission, then he can't actually win the debate.
c) Pro's constantly being a moving target with his case. By his own admission he's not arguing for the benefits of assisted suicide, but he's not also against getting rid of assisted suicide, he just wants "equality" which means that he can either argue in favor of assisted suicide or against assisted suicide at his own whim. This is entirely unfair to me because I'm forced to defend one side of the resolution whereas his case allows him to defend whichever one strikes his fancy, and he can change at will. Hold him to defending the benefits of assisted suicide.
d) Pro's flat out wrong in what his own case argues. He can't argue for getting rid of assisted suicide for everyone to "maximize equality" because by his own case it means that everyone is expendable and everyone's human value is being thrown into the trash which means that we ought to prefer the status quo where at least we're preserving some people's human value. Giving everyone the option to have assisted suicide is the only way he can actually access any of his impacts, which means he's biting into the K.
His next response is his attempt to be a moving target again by saying that he can just ban it for everyone to be equal. I've already responded to this in multiple places. Don't let him take this stance.
But even if you do let him take this stance, he still links to this argument. His entire argument revolves around the concept of making everyone feel equal and making sure that no one is more valuable than another person which, according to his case, preserves human value and worth. This is a direct link into Nietzsche 1 and Turanli. He's biting into the K no matter which goalpost he wants to take.
His next argument is a turn on Nietzsche 1 by saying that allowing assisted suicide increases our own power which...somehow affirms...?
The argument he makes doesn't make any kind of sense and is a misrepresentation of what the card is actually saying. Nietzsche's argument is that we give small little things to the people below us to make them more content with just being controlled by us and wanting to stay in our control, much like a parent would offer a child candy if they stop crying in a grocery store, the affirmative's attempt to give citizens equality is just their way of exercising control and dominance. There's no real logic behind his argument.
His response to Nietzsche 2 is his attempt to be a moving target again. And even in his attempt to be a moving target, it still applies insofar as he's trying to give equality to everyone. And his second point is literally the entire point of the K, suffering is something that can't and shouldn't be reduced.
And it doesn't matter if he's not arguing for ethics because I am. If anything this functions as another reason why the K operates apriori to the AC because ethics operates apriori to law - to say otherwise is the definition of the is/ought fallacy. I'm arguing for the ought while he's arguing for the is.
And his argument against the alt is just him trying to be a moving target (again).
This answers all of the direct responses to the K. The K stands as a rejection of universally allowing assisted suicide as a reduction of suffering, which leads to the harms of the K and a negation of human value and worth and makes life meaningless. Notice how his responses are only about how the K doesn't apply to his case or it doesn't apply to the "law" of assisted suicide. He doesn't address the impacts or doesn't actually address any of the warrants coming out of my K, rather rejects that it applies to his case. Insofar as I'm a) showing you how he's linking regardless of which side of his moving target he decides to hop to, and b) making him actually defend one stance instead of being constantly fluid in which he links regardless, the K applies. This means that I'm still winning the K debate.
On Death of the K
I've already responded to his first point in multiple places.
His second point is a misrepresentation and it's literally the definition of ontology. He keeps interpreting things in a normative sense whereas my case addresses human worth from an ontological perspective. The K functions apriori because of this.
His third point is irrelevant and a repetition of how he's being a moving target. Insofar as he's trying to advocate for assisted suicide/equality (since they're apparently able to be used interchangably now in the AC) as a way to preserve human worth, he violates human worth by trying to reduce suffering.
His fourth point doesn't make any f*cking sense. The entire point of my argument there is that the things he's trying to extend off as his impacts (equality/human worth/the right to such things/etc.) are only worth protecting in the AC insofar as having them is a good thing and violating those things causes the victims of the violation to suffer. It means that either a) he links into the K because by not affirming we cause suffering or at least prevent suffering from being reduced or b) there's no real impacts behind the affirmative case and no real reason to value the impacts he's advocating for, meaning he can't win. His point here isn't responsive to my actual argument.
And the argument isn't actually dependent on the K, it's not even addressing the K. This argument is specifically about his argument and how his impacts actually function as impacts.
On the "Counter-K"
First, this is all literally an appeal to emotion. His argument is that rape and violence and all these things are wrong because "cmon man! you're being offensive!" without any kind of warrant as to why these things are bad.
Second, this doesn't actually address the warrants coming out of the K as to why suffering is preferrable and why it actually allows for the furthering and transcendence of humanity as a race.
The only part of the Counter-K that I actually contest as not applicable to the K is the whole tangent about murder and genocide - we can only suffer insofar as we're still alive, meaning anything involving death isn't what the K advocates for because it means that there's one less person that can suffer. This is another way how the K negates the resolution just straight out - universally allowing people to acceptably kill themselves reduces the amount of suffering being experienced in the world which is a link into the K.
Pro's case is a moving target - he can either defend both allowing everyone to have access to assisted suicide and allowing no one to have access to assisted suicide at the same time. This literally means he can access affirmative and negative offense at the same time while denying me any kind of offense. Force him to just pick one side to defend.
Moreover, his case doesn't make any kind of sense unless he's advocating for allowing everyone access to assisted suicide because the flipside a) neglects the needs and worth of the terminally ill and b) makes the claim that everyone is usable and everyone's worth is open to violation, which is in direct conflict with his case. This means he *has* to defend giving everyone access to assisted suicide for his case to even make sense.
Regardless of which side he ends up defending, both link into the harms of the K. Given that 70% of his last round was spent trying to separate the K from his case, and virtually all of the warrants coming out of the K and impacts from the K get dropped, this is catastrophic to his chances of winning the debate.
This means two things - A) I'm still winning of the K by default because it's sufficient to negate the resolution just straight up. And B) it turns his case because the very things he's trying to protecting by advocating for equality are violated and human life becomes worthless and devoid of any kind of value.
I demonstrated that my argument is not about suffering, but about equality.
a) Con challenges that my resolution is about suffering because I want to "respect people's humanity" and that I am "longing for a better world". As I said earlier, my argument may increase suffering if all people are banned from Assisted Suicide, which I explained is permissible under this resolution. People who have the right to Assisted Suicide may lose that right because of my resolution. Con's claim is false.
b) Con argues "[i]f the entire point of his case isn't to look for positive impacts of allowing equality in assisted suicide, then we have no reason to affirm the resolution". There are positive impacts of allowing equality, but not every policy debate is about suffering. Con doesn't justify the link.
c) Con then argues that I am "a moving target" by not arguing for the benefits of Assisted Suicide, and not arguing against Assisted Suicide. Con apparently didn't read Round 1, so I'll rewrite what's already in Round 1.
"Essentially, I'm arguing that Assisted Suicide laws (whether for or against) should not be limited to only the terminally ill." 
I am not a moving target. This is essentially what I am debating for. Don't penalize me for Con's lack of effort to properly read the definitions of the debate before accepting it.
d) Con argues that I "can't argue for getting rid of assisted suicide for everyone to "maximize equality"". Con is blatantly wrong. I've already demonstrated that equality is an essential component of democracy, the constitution and the law. Therefore, it follows that maximizing equality is warranted and justified, and as such I uphold my Burden of Proof.
Con then says that "by [Pro's] own case it means that everyone is expendable and everyone's human value is being thrown into the trash which means that we ought to prefer the status quo where at least we're preserving some people's human value." That's exactly my point. You just proved to the reader that your link fails. As per Con's own admission, my argument states that we should uphold justice even if "everyone's human value is being thrown into the trash". That's because my argument is not about suffering, but about justice and equality.
Con argues that my argument is about making everyone feel equal. That's false. I didn't claim such a thing. I claimed that the law is blind, and basically doesn't give a damn about how we feel. So my argument is not about making everyone feel equal. What I argued is that the law must consider everyone as equal, regardless if they feel equal or not.
Con argues that we should increase other people's power "because in that way we increase ours". So I reaffirm that "increasing the power of people to Assisted Suicide would (according to Con) increase our power" which Nietzsche considers a good thing. While I find Con's logic very unsound, his logic suggests that just like a parent who offers a child some candy to increase our power, we should allow Assisted Suicide to everyone as it increases our power.
Con again claims that I'm a moving target which I explained is not the case, and it doesn't apply. My point regarding whether suffering should be reduce is addressed in the Counter Kritik.
There is no link between Con's argument and the resolution of the debate. And as I said earlier, I am not going to hold one position or another regarding Assisted Suicide, as I explained in Round 1. All that I am arguing is that it should apply to all people regardless whether it's warranted or not.
Con argues that I didn't "address the impacts" or I didn't "actually address any of the warrants coming out of my K". This is just nonsense. I explained the impacts in the Counter Kritik.
Death of the Kritik
1. I reaffirm that my resolution is not about suffering.
2. My opponent doesn't address this point at all. Con claims that "before we can even address human rights we first need to understand what it means to be human". He still didn't explain why that's the case. We know a lot about what it means to be human and we don't need to know everything to be able to address human rights. So while Con claims to address human worth from an ontological perspective, he still fails to explain why his ontological argument is valid.
3. Again, I reaffirm that my resolution is not about suffering. That's why Con's Kritik is dead.
4. Con claims that my fourth point "doesn't make any f**** sense". Really? I am irked that my opponent doesn't pay attention to the argument so I'll address it here again. Con states that "violating human rights results in some kind of suffering, which means that affirming bites into the K". I argued that this is irrelevant as illustrated below:
K: Resolution is about suffering, and reducing suffering is bad
V: Violating human rights results in some kind of suffering
P1: If K, Con wins
P2: If K and V, then Con wins
P3: If ~K and V, Pro wins
As you can see, Violating human rights argument doesn't change anything whether it's true or not so it's irrelevant. With all due respect, that should make sense.
Con says that "argument isn't actually dependent on the K, it's not even addressing the K"! Does Con read what he writes? In Round 2, Con stated that "violating human rights results in some kind of suffering, which means that affirming bites into the K" So it is very much dependent on the Kritik. So since I refuted the Kritik, then it's not biting into anything. Therefore, Con's argument is mute.
I argued that Con presented Nietzsche's philosophy without any justification. Con claims that "the warrants are all in the cards [he] read off", and that I am unwilling "to read the quoted text". The problem is that Con's cards explain what Nietzsche's philosophy is, and not why the philosophy is logical. So it's a bare assertion. There are other alternative theories shown below.
Anthony Appiah writes about Mill's harm principle and utilitarianism saying: "A central tenet of John Stuart Mill's moral theory is what is called the "harm principle", which says that the only justification for abridging someone's freedom is "to prevent harm to others." Although this was meant to be counsel to legislatures, the sort of utilitarianism Mill espoused, inasmuch as it aims to maximize well-being, must require us as individuals to try to minimize – or, at any rate, reduce – suffering" .
And there's no need to mention all the other religious philosophies that advocate for reduced suffering. Why should I agree with Nietzsche's philosophy? Con fails to explain. Furthermore, in response to Nietzsche's theory, Phillip J Kain writes that "But do we have to give suffering the ontological weight that Nietzsche gives it? Must it be taken as the primary reality? […] I think it acceptable to reject Nietzsche response to suffering and to push liberalism, socialism, feminism and Christianity as alternative responses to suffering. […] The point here is that it is legitimate to treat suffering as if it can be reduced even if we cannot prove that it can be." 
What's more interesting , even if Nietzsche was right, Kain explains why Nietzsche's view should be rejected: "After all, our construction has certain desirable consequences. Given the meaning we impose upon suffering, we do not have the slightest need for an Übermensch – he would not help us in the least to remove suffering. Furthermore, we would have no need for a doctrine of eternal recurrence – indeed, we should reject it as an abomination."
So in summary, Con fails to uphold his burden to show why we should uphold Nietzsche's point of view.
Con argues that I am appealing to emotion when I argued that rape and genocides are bad. I thought it was common sense, But since Con shockingly doesn't agree, I'll explain why that's the case.
I'll start with rape. H.E. Baber explains: "Rape is bad because it constitutes a serious harm to the victim. […] Virtually everyone has an interest in avoiding involuntary contact with others … Being raped violates this interest hence … it constitutes a harm. In addition, people have an interest in not being used as mere means for the benefit of others… Furthermore, rape … has a tendency to generate further harms – anxiety, feelings of degradation and other psychological states" . Rape victims are also prone suicide . I don't want to dwell too much into other harms, but they all inflict significant physical harms on innocents, and that's an abomination. The harm principle as I explained earlier argues that we should prevent harms to others.
This is really not a joke. A Montreal blogger was calling to legalize rape . This is a serious matter. That's why I argue that I should win as I best represent the role of the ballot.
Con argues that "suffering is preferable" and "allows for the furthering and transcendence of humanity as a race". That's a joke. Increasing suffering by killing each other, e.g. nuclear war, can lead to the extinction of the human race .
Con argues that murder and genocide doesn't apply to his Kritik. That's not true, and here's why. According to Con, we should embrace suffering. So someone killing someone's significant other should be allowed and embraced. The murdered may not be suffering, but other suffer for a long time. Therefore, Con's Kritik advocates for it which is quite disturbing.
My resolution is a very good argument and deserves a good debate. Con's Kritik fails as it doesn't link to the resolution. I've also shown that even if his Kritik is successful, the voter should still award me the vote as Con's Kritik is quite horrific and should be rejected altogether, and I best represent the role of the ballot.
Sources in Comment
Pro seems to find a lot of time to make new arguments in the final round. It's a shame he couldn't have thought to make a lot of these resonses earlier in the debate where we would've had more time to have substantive discussion over the resolution rather than just wait for the very last round to try and cheap his way through. Voters should keep in mind his new responses in the last round and my lack of ability to address them properly.
What this debate comes down to is pretty simple: Pro mishandles the Kritik and doesn't take it nearly as seriously as he should've. His case is a moving target that lets him unfairly take both sides of the resolution while excluding me from any kind of responsive position substantively (If I say why we shouldn't let everyone have Assisted suicide, he just flips to no one, and vice versa). It's also hilarious because his response to not being a moving target is to quote specifically where he explicitly says he's a moving target from the very first round. And because he lacks any kind of sufficient offense that can weigh against the K, you negate.
The K Debate:
A lot of the K debate comes down to if I link and should it really be something that voters look to or am I just a sh*tty person for arguing for this.
There's a major problem in trying to argue that the K doesn't link to Pro's case. In his attempt to argue that we should be giving everyone equality and not doing so is a violation of their human worth and all these other sorts of things that he's trying to extend out from his case, he kind of concedes that having these things violated is a pretty bad thing and it's not something we ought to be doing according to Pro. Pay attention kids because this is where he concedes the link to the K. If he's trying to argue that not giving everyone equality to ensure human worth is a harm to people (which is the entire point of his contention two and the general jist of his contention one, i.e. his whole case), then he's explicitly biting into the Turanli card of striving for a better, more ideal world that isn't the world we live in. That's the link.
The better part is that his attempts to sever the link undermine his own case. If he's trying to argue that the K doesn't, in fact, link, and that he's not actually trying to strive for a better world and improve people's standings in the world, then why are we even thinking about affirming in the first place? His response to this? Whining about how every policy debate doesn't have to be about suffering. You're right there, but this one is. Thanks for letting me run a K :D
He goes on to attack Nietzsche 1 with the same logic that I refuted last round. He doesn't respond to my defense of it. #shipspassing
Then the tangent about how I'm a horrible person for advocating for Nietzsche.
What my opponent fails to understand through his emotional appeal to "common sense" is that all of these "harms" to things like rape and torture and all these physical and psychological "harms", all of these things that he's arguing is bad is exactly what the K is calling into question. It's the entire flipping point of Nietzsche 2, which is saying that all of these things he says are "bad" are actually what make humanity great. Read through any and all of his rounds and you won't find a single response to this argument anywhere in his nonsensical understanding of the K. The entire point of the K is addressing why people not being equal is such a bad thing and he never questions this warrant. The entire point of the "Counter-K" is, basically, to call Nietzsche an a**hole. There's no response to the substance of the K.
And that whole section about Nietzschean philosophy? How convenient he saves all of this for the last round where I have the least amount of time and space to respond to all of this...even if it's not explicitly stated in the rules, voters shouldn't even consider these new arguments just out of fairness, but I'll cover them briefly.
His entire quoting of the harms principle is to say that the Harms principle is a thing, which doesn't do anything to say as why we ought to be reducing suffering over looking to Nietzsche. Says I make bare assertions and follows it up with his own bare assertion. #logic.
His quoting of Kain's response to Nietzsche is without warrant as well. Half of it is him just wordedly saying that I don't agree with Nietzsche. The actual substance of the card is the "The point here is that it is legiitmate to treat suffering as if it can be reduced", but doesn't actually back this up with any kind of reason why this is true or ought to be true. Another bare assertion.
Maybe he's just trying to use Kain 2 as a supplement to Kain to give it warrant. But Kane 2 doesn't even address the K: It's saying that having an all-powerful leader figure wouldn't actually solve for Nietzsche's framework because it doesn't actually reduce suffering, but that's never been the point of the K in the first place.
So in short, his attempt to address the philosophy behind the K just doesn't really...address...anything...at all.
But let's move over to Pro's side of the debate. Let's shed some light on exactly how unfair Pro's case is and how he misinterpret's his own ability to do things on the flow.
Pro's case is a clear example of what a moving target is. He gives himself two options for what he "can advocate for" in the debate: either giving everyone access to assisted suicide, or giving no one access to assisted suicide. Those are two pretty polar opposite positions, which makes the negative's job really hard for unfair reasons. If I start making responses for why giving everyone access to assisted suicide is a really bad thing, he can just negate literally the entirety of my rounds by saying "Okay, then no one gets it, affirm pls", and vice versa if I were to attack the other side. This means that we really don't ever get to discuss anything about assisted suicide in the first place, and instead I have to resort to running a K as the only real way I can address Pro's case without perpetually contradicting myself to try and respond to him.
This problem wouldn't really be that bad if later in the debate he picked a stance to defend: that way we'd just miss out on a round or two and then we could...y'know....actually debate. But he continually makes it unclear what he'd actually defend. You can see it clearly in his responses ("As I said earlier, my argument may increase suffering if all people are banned from Assisted Suicide, which I explained is permissible under this resolution. People who have the right to Assisted Suicide may lose that right because of my resolution." from round 4). His whole defense for being able to take both sides is "I made it clear in round one, you didn't read definitions clear enough", but the mere fact that I'm calling him out on being unfair should be a clear thing that I actually did read. His putting it in Round One doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to call him out on bad debate practices.
But let's actually examine his case closer to see if his claim to be able to do this actually holds up.
His first contention is saying that equality is super important to a democracy and only giving it to some people isn't making things equal. Okay fair. His second contention, though, is where things get interesting. His second contention is saying that how with things not being equal the terminally ill are just worth less as humans and viewed as expendable. He even goes on to say "However if the right to Assisted Suicide is applicable to everyone, the human value of every person would remain the same." But is that actually true. As his own case says people who are eligible for assisted suicide are being bullied into taking it. If we make this eligible to everyone, doesn't this open up the potential for everyone to be bullied into assisted suicide? Wouldn't that say that everyone is expendible and everyone's worth is being devalued? Pro never addresses this anywhere within the debate. This means that if he wishes to have giving everyone the option as a choice, he can't really access contention two as offense.
And let's consider the flipside again. Look at his contention one. Look at all those people who aren't terminally ill who are requesting the right to assisted suicide. He says that it's this loss of autonomy and dignity is what should be the decider of who ought to be able to request such things (said here "Anyone has the right to feel loss of autonomy and dignity and may wish to die. Preventing them from Assisted Suicide undermines their right to equality."). But that raises the question: wouldn't denying everyone the right to assisted suicide as you claim your case allows you to mean that everyone has a loss of autonomy and dignity since they can't actually make these decisions for themselves anymore? Again, there's no response to this from Pro. This means that if he want's to deny it to everyone, he can't actually access offense from contention one.
The debate breaks down really easily and it's a fairly straight-forward negative vote. The K easily stands and is the first place you reject the resolution. No matter which side of the field he wants to hop, he's doing it because he wants to make everyone equal and it's this not being equal that undermines people's value, which is the link into the K that stands.
Moreover, his case is a classic example of a moving target, even though he can't actually function as the moving target he wants to be.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|