The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/2/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,257 times Debate No: 81935
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (0)




I thank lannan13 for accepting this debate and I wish him the best of luck.

Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering from a terminal illness

== Rules ==

1. No forfeits
2. Sources may be provided in the comments
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)
7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic
8. The burden of proof is shared
9. First round is for acceptance only
10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss

== Definitions ==

Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide).

Legalized is to make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law (1).

Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and in formed decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind.

Suffering is when you are in unbearable pain.

Terminally ill is when a person who is sick is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life in a few months or years (2).




I accept this debate and I wish my opponent good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Libertarian Framework

Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere. Death is one of the few serious situations in which it is okay to view things subjectively. The family and friends will be mourning and if they believe that their loved one is in extreme pain and is suffering then the person clearly has the right to an assisted suicide, the state cannot and should not intervene on such personal matters. If they have successfully completed all the required mental health checks and they are clearly sane then they have the right to choose. People that choose to kill themselves because they are in pain and will die very soon can arguably be considered insane however this debate is about whether or not they are mentally capable of making a decision. If this person has decided to allow themselves to die, due to immense suffering and terminal illness then what is the argument to stop them? These are unique circumstances. The person will die and this is inevitable, they are in extreme pain.If you believe that suicide is the alternative then you are mistaken. Assisted suicide is painless, you have a higher chance of success and that it is a decision that your family must agree upon. Suicide is not always painless, it can be a slow death and sometimes you fail to commit suicide and end up increasing your current pain. The issue with preventing them from having an assisted suicide is that you are sentencing them to a life of torture and agony which nobody should deserve to live with.We have the option to put down pets both in the UK and US. Why should pets have greater privileges than humans? Pets get to die painless and peaceful death, on the other hand, we must die painful deaths when we know that death is inevitable. Both of these options are by far better choices than for a person to have to die slowly and painfully due to terminal illness. Essentially, you are the person indirectly sentencing an innocent person (in most cases) to a life of torture and misery. You may claim that the disease is the cause of their torture, which is true. However, you are an indirect cause and therefore you are the murderer. The torturer.

Contention 1 - The Right To Die

In...cases where there are no dependants who might exert pressure one way or the other, the right of the individual to choose should be paramount. So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions.

The Independent, March 2002

We clearly have the right to die (as stated clearly above). We are individuals that should have control over our own lives rather than letting the government to govern them. Rights works should work both ways. If we have the right to live then surely we should have the right to die. Do you wish to prevent an individual from possessing their basic human rights?

“The human right to die with dignity. The human right to spare yourself – and those you love – months and years of nothing but misery and pain. We watch our parents get old, and then we see them become ill, and then we watch them die. This is the everyday tragedy that touches all of our lives. But it is grotesque, inhuman and unnecessary that the dying should have to be humiliated and tortured by whatever is killing them.200 courageous Brits have ended their lives in Dignitas over the last ten years. They have been both young and old.There was Daniel James, 23, who was paralysed playing rugby.There was Sir Edward Downes, 85, and his 74-year-old wife Joan, who died within months of each other at Dignitas. Sir Edward was nearly blind and increasingly deaf. Lady Downes had terminal cancer. By ending their lives at Dignitas, they spared themselves needless misery – and they also spared their families needless misery, too.”

Many people (including me) think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so they should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing. People should care that this human right is restricted. By allowing the government to control your death, you are essentially putting your lives in the government’s hands and allowing them to dictate both your life and your death. The freedom to assisted suicide is special and should not be ignored, we have control over our lives and logic tells us that if we have control over our lives then surely we should have control over our deaths. And behind that lies the idea that human beings are independent biological entities, with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this. This is the principle that Assisted Suicide is based upon.

Contention 2 - Hippocratic Oath

Over time the Hippocratic Oath has been modified on a number of occasions as some of its tenets became less and less acceptable. References to women not studying medicine and doctors not breaking the skin have been deleted. The quoted reference to 'do no harm' is also in need of explanation. Does not doing harm mean that we should prolong a life that the patient sees as a painful burden? Surely, the 'harm' in this instance is done when we prolong the life, and 'doing no harm' means that we should help the patient die. Killing the patient--technically, yes. Is it a good thing--sometimes, yes. Is it consistent with good medical end-of-life care: yes.

"I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepios and Hygeia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses"

This is the opening statement of the original Hippocratic Oath. This is already unconvincing since sticking to this would require all doctors to follow the same religion and believe in the same Gods. However this is a minor issue compared to the absurdity of some of the promises that must be made. The Hippocratic Oath is sexist and here is an example of sexism within the original Oath:

- "What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men..."

The absurdity of the original Hippocratic Oath is evident and that is why modifications were essential in order for us to expand and progress in society. The modern Hippocratic Oath implies that we have the right to assisted suicide and euthanasia because, as I have said previously, prolonging inevitable death is causing pain. This is a clear violation of the rules within this modified document. The oath is extremely important and cannot be disregarded. The oath binds many doctors to use their ethical conscience and do what is morally right. This moral conscience is the essence of the original oath.

Contention 3 - Religious Concerns

“Guided by our belief as Unitarian Universalists that human life has inherent dignity, which may be compromised when life is extended beyond the will or ability of a person to sustain that dignity; and believing that it is every person's inviolable right to determine in advance the course of action to be taken in the event that there is no reasonable expectation of recovery from extreme physical or mental disability…”

Be it further resolved: That Unitarian Universalists advocate the right to self-determination in dying, and the release from civil or criminal penalties of those who, under proper safeguards, act to honor the right of terminally ill patients to select the time of their own deaths.

Be it further resolved: That Unitarian Universalists, acting through their congregations, memorial societies, and appropriate organizations, inform and petition legislators to support legislation that will create legal protection for the right to die with dignity, in accordance with one's own choice.

Contention 4 - Living wills

Living wills can be used to refuse extraordinary, life-prolonging care and are effective in providing clear and convincing evidence that may be necessary under state statutes to refuse care after one becomes terminally ill. The right to refuse care is insufficient not only because it puts the patients under even more pain but because there is clearly a much stronger, safer and painless option that could easily be used - assisted suicide.

A recent Pennsylvania case shows the power a living will can have. In that case, a Bucks County man was not given a feeding tube, even though his wife requested he receive one, because his living will, executed seven years prior, clearly stated that he did 'not want tube feeding or any other artificial invasive form of nutrition'...

A living will provides clear and convincing evidence of one's wishes regarding end-of-life care.

Contention 5 - Social Groups at risk of abuse

One concern has been that disadvantaged populations would be disproportionately represented among patients who chose assisted suicide. Experience in Oregon suggests this has not been the case. In the United States, socially disadvantaged groups have variably included ethnic minorities, the poor, women, and the elderly. Compared with all Oregon residents who died between January 1998 and December 2002, those who died by physician-assisted suicide were more likely to be college graduates, more likely to be Asian, somewhat younger, more likely to be divorced, and more likely to have cancer or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis... Moreover, although 2.6 percent of Oregonians are African American, non African American patients have chosen assisted suicide.


I have clearly demonstrated that Assisted Suicide should be legalized and it should not remain illegal. I have done this using facts and reliable university studies and sources. I wish my opponent good luck for the following round and am looking forward to an interesting debate.



I would like to thank my opponent for send out this challenge ahead of time. I wish him good luck in this debate.

Libertarian Grim Dark Framework

Throughout history people have been inspired to make inventions to help the masses and progress soceity. Though the sad fact is tha the government hasn't always used these inventions to the best of their use in order to help people. The Guillotine being one of the greatest examples of a doctor creating an invention for a more humane way for prisoner executions. He had no idea that the Revolutionaries would use this to execute thousands in the Reign of Terror. He had no idea that France would use this to silence their political opposition. Peter Jensen has seen his invention of the loud speaker to turn into a massive invasion of privacy and brainwashing as Hitler took the project and changed it to how he saw fit. Euthanasia. Even though there's a good intention behind the practice history has shown that if you give the government the power of the invention via legalization that it will be used for the wrong reason. Many great authors have already begun to forecast this. The best example is that of "The Giver" where the weak are killed off via infantcide and the old are euthanized. There is already a beginning of a mounting support for the practice of eugenics and if this becomes legalized then it will enlarge the government and allow them to infrindge on the rights of their citizens and even take their lives. In this debate I will show why it shouldn't be legalized as we are already seeing this fall from grace and it is our job of this generation to halt this trampling of our rights before we give the government another weapon like the Guillotine or even the Dark Net.

Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent.

I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1] Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. [2] A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent.

Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument

Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, “If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia.” However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. [3] .) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. [4]

The euthanasia’s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia’s have doubled since 2007 as well.

The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition.

""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?"
From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain."
From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases."
From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" [5]

You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia.

Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]:42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicidePhysician Characteristics:
79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicidePhysicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South[7] and [8]

Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness

Consent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia’s have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round)

Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. [9]

For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. [10]

Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, "“it is the
greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and
wrong.” [11]

This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society.

Due to me running out of characters my sources will be presented in the comments section.
Debate Round No. 2



He begins by attempting to demonstrate that the government doesn’t always make the best of inventions and they don’t always turn out like they are intended to turn out. He refers to the guillotine. My framework clearly states that the government don’t have a right to interfere in death, his claim that the government have made failed inventions is irrelevant because I did not say that the government would control assisted suicide (A.S), in fact I claimed the opposite. If A.S remains illegal then the government are interfering with our deaths. This contradicts possibly the most iconic libertarian view. The belief in a smaller, less powerful government. It will do the opposite of enlarging the government. Legalizing A.S will limit the government’s control over death and ultimately agree with the libertarian view. His framework goes against the libertarian belief in a smaller government and since his framework (supposedly) coincides with libertarianism it is self contradictory and my framework remains superior.


Euthanasia and A.S are different - it is possible for somebody to be pro A.S and con euthanasia. This is not the case for me but this debate is in regards to A.S - not euthanasia. In this section, I will clarify the definitions and show why his contentions are invalid since they are arguing against a different resolution to the one proposed in R1 by me.

I will restate the definition here; we can compare it to euthanasia.

Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide).

Let us compare this to euthanasia:

Euthanasia is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately killing a patient because the patient wanted to be killed (1).

The difference is clearly significant because in A.S the doctor is not a murderer. In euthanasia the doctor is. This is why there are issues with involuntary euthanasia since in this the doctor is ultimately the killer and so they sometimes make the decision to kill patients involuntarily. In A.S the patient is the killer so the only way that it can possibly be involuntary is if the doctor forces the patient to kill themselves rather than actually killing the patient.

The legalization of euthanasia would create a larger difference in the doctor’s job. Euthanasia empowers the doctor to carry out the patient’s wish to end their lives. There is a key difference between that level of empowerment, and acquiescing to the request of a patient for the correct and safe tools to commit suicide. Doctors prescribe regularly but they do not end the patient’s lives by their own hands in A.S. Thus, you are not expanding the role that they’re currently playing unlike euthanasia. This key difference that must be established. He is not arguing for his position.

This resolution is affirmed. I will now show how my his contentions do not impact upon the resolution individually.

R1: Unreported Euthanasia & Euthanasia without consent.

These statistics clearly show that many euthanasia occurrences are involuntary. I will now show you that this is not the case for A.S. Since euthanasia is a much larger issue than A.S is (and there is less controversy), there are more statistics regarding worldwide statistics. There are, however, smaller scale statistics regarding A.S:

“In Oregon USA it has been legal for terminally ill, mentally competent adults to have an assisted death for 18 years. In those 18 years there have been no cases of abuse and no calls to extend the law beyond terminally ill adults.” (2)

The key term that is most significant in this quote is that the cases of ‘A.S’ have been carefully monitored and regulated and after 18 years of Oregon A.S there has never been an incident of abuse. This quote should be considered preferable over his case since mine is relevant to the resolution whilst his refers to a different topic that doesn’t impact upon the resolution.

R2: The Slippery Slope Argument

This is also used in terms of euthanasia however I will still respond to this because the argument can be applied in terms of A.S. I have always viewed the slippery slope argument as a quite poor argument that can be applied in a number of circumstances in an almost identical way. Everything can go down a slippery slope. What we need to do is put down a clear boundary. You could argue that there is a slippery slope from eating a lamb chop to eating a human being. You could argue that there is a slippery slope from pushing somebody to killing somebody. The slippery slope argument is poor and can happen anywhere. I will use a relevant example. People murder. Does that mean that we never should have established rules against murder? The same applies to A.S. I doubt that there will be many cases of this right being abused. The chances of right being abused is low and there is evidence from places that currently have assisted suicide legalized - Oregon.

It is the continuation of this contention that is fatal to his case. He states that we are transforming the role of doctors into killers. I have ‘ironically’ come across that argument every time I have debated the topic. He is mixing up the terms A.S and euthanasia. In A.S the doctor provides the patient with access to a quick and effective suicide, which empowers the patient with the decision to use it, allowing the patient to then harmlessly kill themselves if they wish to do so. The doctor is not a killer, the doctor makes sure that the method is safe.

He defines euthanasia when it was agreed that we are arguing for A.S - this was clearly defined in R1.

I will provide a statistical rebuttal to this claim. From the same source as him:

“53% of physicians answered yes or probably yes to the question: "Would it have been all right, upon request from the patient, to intentionally prescribe drugs so the patient could end his or her life by overdose?" (3)

His statistics are not as clear as he stated them to be. It was specifically about the withdrawal of life support (3). This is not A.S.

R3: Self Ownership & Sickness

He seems to be interconnecting his contentions. This is a problematic since if one of the contentions that is interconnected is refuted the rest of it falls apart. His source is the right to life source. This is a bias source that evidently will not provide both sides of the argument. I refute his case.

As clearly defined at the beginning of my argument, A.S and euthanasia are separate issues and should not be generalized as the same thing. Euthanasia has been demonstrated as something that can lead to involuntary usage however A.S is different as I have demonstrated through my R2 contentions and in this rebuttal.

His incident is related to euthanasia so it is invalid. In A.S the patient ultimately kills themselves. The patient was in a vegetative state. In this state an A.S could not have been performed simply because the patient must be able to conduct this themselves. Also, the resolution uses the word: ‘suffering’. This patient was in a vegetative state and clearly was not suffering - merely unable to think or act. The resolution also requires the patient to be in a correct mental state of mind. This patient was clearly in no condition to be making an informed decision.

His self determination argument refers to euthanasia and it isn’t actually an offense to his case. He states the following:

“ when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death.”

This is not a reason to not legalize A.S. It is like abortion, many pro-abortion members of society won’t necessarily want the legalization of abortion so that they can have one. They usually advocate the legalization of abortion because they want women to have the option. If you put his argument into this context it makes more sense. In an abortion debate, you cannot say that abortion is not permissible because over 50% will choose not to have an abortion. This would be a weak argument and this is without the further mitigations that he has been restrained by, due to the fact that he is arguing against euthanasia rather than A.S. The option to A.S is important without the legalization of A.S the law treats the dying as irrational individuals who don’t know what they want, relegating them to the status of children. That is extremely problematic, especially for him since he is a libertarian that opposes government intervention.

He continues by quoting an anti-euthanasia advocate. The key word:


He has misunderstood the resolution of the debate and cannot differentiate between euthanasia and A.S. He states:

“Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no [regards] to others.”

This is a resolutional misunderstanding. The resolution in R1 says: ‘mentally stable’. His argument relies on the patient being mentally unstable however the resolution specifically says mentally stable. He continues:

“So it [matters] not the level of pain the person is [experiencing] as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society.”

This argument is unsourced. I have been provided with no reason as to how it harms society and I have been given no reason to believe that it does. Even if it does harm society, it is the typical libertarian view that humans should have the option to choose.


P1: To win this debate he had to prove that A.S should not be legal.

P2: He argued against euthanasia

C1: He is not winning this debate (meeting their BOP)

P1: To win this debate I had to prove that A.S should be legal.

P2: I argued that A.S should be legalized.

C1: I am winning this debate (meeting my BOP).

Sources in comments.



I thank my opponent for his response and this round shall be that I focus on my opponent's case.


My opponent brings up a right to suicide, but yet I would like to bring in the philosophy of Immunal Kant. He used suicide as one of his many example's when he was making his case for the Categorical Imperatives. Here he argued that the whole point of suicide was to create one's happiness by ending one's missery. He pointed out that this is a controversial issue and is something that actually argues for the opposite side as it is simpply arguing for creative destruction and by destroying one's life in an attempt to make their life better or perhaps the lives of others as well. This is shows outright that the people who are attempting to preform AS are not in a rational state of mind and are unable to make these decissions since it would not be for their best interest. Thus any attempt at this type of euthanasia would be a grave mistake.

Contention 1: Right to Die

My opponent mentions a key word in this first contention on choosing when they can die. That word is Lucid. Meaning that they are clear on the subject and easy to understand. Though the thing about that is under this situation it is that the individual is actually under an irrational state of mind where they are unable to make a clear decission. Kant viewed Suicide as a lucritive idea as it is a mere Hypothetical Imperitive vs. a Categorical Imperetive. By this we can see that in order for people to make these decissions they must be in the proper state of mind and the state that the person is in inpairs their state of mind. Without the proper state of mind they do not have the right to make that call as the illness that they are under is affecting the individual to the point where they are wanting death in order to create happiness and this is something that he argues should not occur as if the person was in a rational state of mind they would not wish upon themselves AS. [1] At this point we must realize that we have to protect those who are not in a rational state or soceity would fall appart at the seems.

My opponent actually brings up a great argument, but it is one that goes on my side of the argument. "By allowing the government to control your death, you are essentially putting your lives in the government’s hands and allowing them to dictate both your life and your death." I quite agree with this statement, but not in the way my opponent is going about this. We can see that continuously furthering this movement we will give government a new weapon. As I have shown in my previous round, the AS system in Europe has already begun to move towards Non-voluntary and Involuntary euthanasia which is a movement towards legalized murder of another individual and soon enough the government will be able to use this against their citizens in an attempt to silence their opponents or to establish eugeneics. Though I agree that we need freedom, going down the Road to Serfdom is not the way to do this as we will gradually become slaves to the very system we have fought so hard to protect. We can see that not only by legalizing this method we would be destroying soceity due to the care of the irrational people, but giving the government a new weapon.

Contention 2: Hippocratic Oath

My opponent's attack against the "old" Hippocratic Oath is something that is rediculious and not really needed in this debate and I shall discard it as such, however, there is one point that he has made that is relivant and that is where I will actually refute.

My opponent's "pain" argument is quite vague and this plays into the Grim Dark argument as it's vagueness can go towards the side of an oppressive government by getting rid of the homeless and beggers since they are in "Pain" due to their situation. This is something that had actually rattled NAZI Germany as they executed the sick and homeless. NAZI Germany used this as a beginning of their Hollicost and this is a very example of why we shouldn't allow this type of program as it will enslave the public. [2] My opponent even recognizes this vagueness by shifting it to the defense of those in pain from their illness. Though relate this back to the Kantian argument by showing that the individual is irrational and if we accept their plees then their murder will be unjustified since they were not in a rational state of mind and thus the individual is not really in the correct place and ability to make the decission for their own death. Thus by preforming AS we are causing more pain to soceity via the "For whom the Bell Tolls" argument by showing that the constant break down and the murder of this individual is felt by the entire human race and this method harms all of humanity as we are gradually chipping away at the very foundation of humanity.

Contention 3&4: Religious Concerns and Living Wills

I'll be grouping these two arguments together since they almost deal exactly with the same thing so they'll be addressed collectively.

My opponent here makes an interesting case as it is an argument that speaks about an advance notice for euthanasia, however, this still does not escape Kant's argument here. It still shows irrationality of a person as they are still irrational by trying to imagine something they hate of the illness. This is something that everyone hates and fears. Fear in itself is another aspect that creates an individual to not be in a rational state of mind. [3] An example is that of a recent Geico Commerical where it is of that of a scary movie. In that movie it shows the people always make bad decissions. This is something that Kant points out here, so this Petition still doesn't escape the relms of Kant.

Contention 5: Social Groups at risk of abuse.

Teddy Roosevlt, famed US President, was a strict advocate against birth controlls for whites but one of the number one supporters for birth controll usage by minorities in an attempt to keep "in check" the minorities and the movement has resurfaced today as a push for abortion to start to target African-Americans to do the same thing Teddy Roosevelt pushed for. [4] I have also brought up in Germany that Hitler used euthanasia to begin the Hollicost. We can see that by legalizing euthanasia we will not be helping minorities we will begin a program to erradicate the minorities and this is something that we should not do.

1. Cholbi, Michael J. Kant and the Irrationality of Suicide. 2nd ed. Vol. 17. N.p.: North American Philosophical Publications, n.d. 159-76. Print.
2. (
3. (
4. (
Debate Round No. 3


This final round should be used as a rebuttal to R3 and no new arguments should be introduced as per the rules in R1.


By opponent brings up the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. He claims that those wishing to perform an assisted suicide upon themselves are not in a correct state of mind. This is a semantics arguments and contradicts the full resolution of the debate. It states that an assisted suicide should only be performed only when the patient is suffering. Therefore, my framework still stands since it has not been properly addressed.

Defense 1: Right To Die

Again, my opponent fails to understand the full resolution. My opponent claims that people who seek an assisted suicide are not in the correct state of mind (again). The resolution specifically states that I am only advocating the legalization of assisted suicide for the mentally stable, suffering and terminally ill. My opponent is failing to understand that I agree that assisted suicide should not be allowed for those in the wrong state of mind. This is not a concession because as previously stated, my burden requires me to prove that assisted suicide should only be legalized for the mentally stable. I also agree that we need to protect those in the wrong state of mind otherwise society will crumble but this is besides the purpose of this debate as clearly stated in the full resolution provided in R1.

My opponent continues by reiterating voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The problem with this is the same problem that I had in my rebuttals. This argument does not stand, it argues for euthanasia instead of assisted suicide. I provided a case which I will repeat here (this is not a new argument):

““In Oregon USA it has been legal for terminally ill, mentally competent adults to have an assisted death for 18 years. In those 18 years there have been no cases of abuse and no calls to extend the law beyond terminally ill adults.””

The key words here are: no cases of abuse. This evidently shows us that if in 18 years there have been no cases of abuse there are clearly differences between euthanasia and assisted suicide. I will now reiterate the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia, and why they matter. In assisted suicide the patient ultimately kills themselves. In euthanasia the doctor kills the patient. It is evident that it is easier to be killed by a doctor than to be made to kill yourself by a doctor. In euthanasia a doctor can feel as if it is their duty to kill the patient who is terminally ill. The patient is unable to stop them or have any choice in the decision. In assisted suicide the patient kills themselves so the doctor cannot simply kill them because this would be a violation of the definitions. In order for this example to work my opponent must be referring to the scenarios in which doctors may force the patient to kill themselves. This is highly illogical because the much easier alternative that can be made is to just kill the patient themselves (ie. through euthanasia). Since we are not debating the morality and logic in euthanasia this rebuttal is invalid.

Defense 2: Hippocratic Oath

This isn’t a particularly long rebuttal however I will still address it. In this contention, my opponent refers to the : Holicaust’ I assume that he means Holocaust, so I will assume this especially because of the Nazi references. I do not support the acts of the Nazis in any way and this a big misunderstanding made by my opponent. Firstly, the Nazis did not ask for consent. Secondly, the Nazis didn’t necessarily know if they were terminally ill or suffering - they just executed the homeless and ill generally. Secondly, this is technically another reference to euthanasia. In assisted suicide the terminally ill person provides consent and ultimately kills themselves. I doubt that the Nazis made the patients kill themselves. My opponent supports this by saying that the Nazis executed the sick and homeless. Execution is very different to assisted suicide by definition. I will now define execution to remove any confusion:

“Execution is the carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person.”

Now let us compare this to assisted suicide:

“Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide).”
This is very different as we can clearly see. The patient kills themselves in assisted suicide and therefore it is extremely rare to find cases of involuntary assisted suicide occurring and that may be the reason as to why examples of involuntary euthanasia instead of assisted suicide.

I will not address the Kant argument that has been reiterated again because it is clear that the patient must be in the correct state of mind before making the decision (as stated in the resolution).

Defense 3 - 4: Religious Concerns and Living wills

My opponent brings up the ‘Kant Irrationality Argument’ again. The patient must be in the correct state of mind (as proposed in the R1 resolution). I will now show that irrationality does not make sense for the negative case since it evidently cannot be argued per the rules, resolution and definitions in R1. I will now present the definition of mentally stable (as stated in R1):

“Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and [informed] decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind.”

I will now highlight that the definition of mentally stable includes the words ‘justified decision.’ This is important because we will now observe whether or not this coincides with the definition of mentally stable which was presented in R1. I will present the definition of rationality but add edits in brackets [example].

“[Ir]rationality is the quality or state of being [un]reasonable, based on [no] facts or reason [at all].”

I have done this since the definition of irrationality contains the word rationality on multiple occasions which basically meant that the definition of irrationality would have been: ‘not rational’. Since refers to rationality and irrationality as being antonyms (opposites), this means that turning the definition of rationality into a negative is a reasonable change. The term unreasonable is a synonym to unjustified on and therefore this does not coincide with the definitions stated in R1. The definition of mentally stable specifically states that you must be able to make a : ‘justified decision’ and unjustified is the opposite of this.

Defense 5: Social Groups at Risk of abuse

I don’t want to go into too much detail on this since I have addressed it all before. Assisted suicide is not as dangerous as euthanasia for reasons explained in further detail in my first rebuttal. Minorities will not be eradicated because they would have to be killing themselves.


The only sources that I have used in this round will be for definitions. Due to the character limit I will link which is where my comparison arguments come from. The rest of my definitions that do not refer to can be checked by simply researching: defintiion of __.

I would like to thank my opponent for an enjoyable debate and I hand it back over to him.


After a recent occurance in the comments section my opponent, a few others, and myself have come to an agreeance that this debate will end in a tie and we will redo this debate at a later date. Upon the starting of that debate this one will be deleted.
Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by famousdebater 11 months ago
Yes, all votes on this debate will be reported and removed.
Posted by bsh1 11 months ago
I think you should apologize to Zaradi and Lannan and whomever else you used this case against. If you promise to actually identify what you're quoting in future, and cite from the original source (i.e. the source from which you took the information), not that source's sources, I don't think you should be penalized in either debate. But, as I said below: "he should offer a sincere apology to every single user against whom he has run this case, and he should promise--profusely--to never plagiarize again."
Posted by famousdebater 11 months ago
I will continue this discussion in a PM because right now we are probably clogging up lannan with hundreds of notifications on his account.
Posted by bsh1 11 months ago
You never put the parts you copied in quotation marks or italicized them.
Posted by bsh1 11 months ago
Did you ever look at the original sources?

Even so, you NEED to clearly state what you're quoting. But failing to italicize the portions you lifted, you misrepresented that work as your own. It's clear plagiarism.
Posted by famousdebater 11 months ago
Pro/con quoted those specific arguments that I used from the original sources so actually it was the original sources that wrote the arguments and I cited the original sources.
Posted by bsh1 11 months ago
Actually, the hippocratic oath stuff is quoted, not paraphrased. But that doesn't actually change anything.

You took all the information from Pro/Con, not from the original sources. You did plagiarize in that you took their work and gave them no credit for it. By "their work," I mean that you used their site to copy all your information, and you didn't accredit them.
Posted by famousdebater 11 months ago
You are completely missing the point. I didn't plagarize anything, citing the sources where the actual information came from is actually better than citing the original source because the original source lacks credibility whereas the sources that the pro,con website used to justify there arguments are still in relation to the arguments but they are more credible and still back up the arguments themselves.
Posted by bsh1 11 months ago
@Famous - There is no debate to be had. It is fact. You plagiarized, and you're attempts to assert otherwise border on the desperate.
Posted by bsh1 11 months ago
@Famous - You must cite the ACTUAL SOURCE. Much of what you quoted has different wording than the original source Pro/Con drew from. For instance, the Hippocratic Oath information is paraphrased by Pro/Con, and so you must cite Pro/Con if you are C/Ping that information, because it is Pro/Con's words, not the original source's words. IT IS STILL PLAGIARISM, and you should be ashamed.
No votes have been placed for this debate.