Brittany Maynard's Decision to Die is Cowardly
Debate Rounds (5)
As part of society's "commitment to care for the dying" which you also mention, it could be improved by also including an assessment as to whether or not a person is ill enough to be allowed to choose to die, and professionals giving these people advice and support throughout this difficult time.
Lastly I believe that you are in no position to call Maynard's decision cowardly. Have you suffered from a terminal illness in which suffering can become so severe that you would rather voluntary end your life? I believe that if you were ever in this position, only then would you would be able to truly assess if it would be cowardly to choose to die over a life of misery and suffering for you and your family. In no way are her actions immoral, what would be more immoral is denying her this opportunity and forcing her to endure suffering until her inevitable death at the hands of cancer anyway!
To your first counter argument, no, the decision to end one's life is not ours to be made. It is a decision which God only has the right to fulfill according to his divine plan for each of us. God gave us life, so we cannot take it. In other words, God allowed us to enter this life, so how can we choose or think it acceptable to throw it out before our time is finished? It is the duty of medical practitioners to uphold the Hippocratic Oath requiring the respect of human dignity of life (in all circumstances), not the dignity of suicide. And it is the duty of all of us to respect life until it's natural end regardless of how painful it may be for a person to live. This includes, as you said, giving as much support possible to the person who is terminally ill so that may have an easier journey throughout the hard time of suffering and death but it does NOT include assisting them in their own death. This would be the ultimate form of disrespect for a person.
Regarding an "assessment", if a perfectly healthy person walked into the hospital and asked to end their life, there would be no doctor in any state that would agree to do it. The person who requests euthanasia would have to fall under certain rules created by the medical field. This means that the doctor would have to agree that the life of the person is worthless. Can't you see the scary sort of conflict of interest we would now be encouraging? Imagine this. If you had a terminal illness, visited your doctor, and the patient before you (who had the exact same illness) was given a pill to end their life, how can you expect the doctor to do everything in his/her power to extend the same thing he just diagnosed as pointless? Then, medicine goes from prolonging life... to ending life. Hopefully now you can see the conflict that would arise with an "assessment" as you called it.
To your last question, no, I have not suffered from a terminal illness. But I can tell you, however, that suffering isn't completely a bad thing. Rather, there are many goods which can come from suffering. These include:
1) Enlightenment- (Recognizing that life is a gift (not to be taken by us) which was given to all of us by God, realizing that it ought to be lived and not thrown away due to the fear of suffering and natural death!)
2) Detachment- (Detaching ourselves from all things which lead us to view life as "meaningless" or pointless/monotonous)
3) Reparation- (To mend our life back to what it was meant to be.. a life without unhealthy thoughts, actions, behaviors, SIN!)
4) Character Building/Virtue
7) Drawing out love in others- (If Brittany would embrace suffering instead of choosing to avoid it and taking the 'easy way out', great love may be drawn from her family and friends through the former decision).
I am very happy to answer back to any further arguments or questions you may have!
I see you are using God and religion as a means to justify your argument. Now I am a believer in God, however who this "higher power" is a very personal thing that can differ from person to person, therefore making it irrelevant as a way to justify your point of view on this issue. Your beliefs about God"s divine plan for all of us are YOUR beliefs, and as a result should not be generalized to an issue which affects thousands of people around the world who may be suffering from a terminal illness or other related problems.
Now I don"t know what Maynard"s religious beliefs are, but she has the right to choose whether she wants to die and no "God" or their plan should deny her that right. You mention that it would be the ultimate form of disrespect to assist somebody in committing suicide; however it would be even more disrespectful not to allow them to make the decision themselves as it is THEIR life, not yours.
I do agree with you regarding the guidelines about assisted suicide, and certain parameters should be put in place to ensure that if a medical professional is assist somebody in voluntarily ending their life, they should be suffering from a terminal illness in which death is inevitable, like Brittany Maynard is currently.
Lastly, I do find your comments about suffering be a good thing quite disrespectful. You mention enlightenment and how life is a gift that should not be taken from us. Since you like to bring up religion, I would like to bring to your attention that yes God did create life, however when he did so, he gave us FREE WILL, which allows us to make our own decisions, even involving our deaths. The fact that you call Brittany Maynard, an unfortunate young women with terminal brain cancer a "coward, who should embrace suffering and not take the easy way out," is a cruel and ignorant comment. What about suicide? The people all around the world who suffer from problems so severe, such as depression, that they feel ending their life is the only way out. Are you suggesting that these poor people are cowards also? What gives you the right to say they are taking the easy way out, and then hide behind an antiquated Bible with a hypothetical "divine plan" for all humans as a means to justify your opinion?
I respect your religious beliefs, however I respect Brittany Maynard's right to die with dignity more, as it is a right that every human being should have.
I will try my best to explain my position more clearly because I do not believe you fully read and understood my last argument completely...
Let me begin by explaining the truth of dignity and the problem with the phrase "dying with dignity".
Dignity is defined as the "high value" which is intrinsically part of every human being and does not depend on the quality of a person's life. Please understand that suffering in no way could ever reduce human dignity but could rather "intensify" it through the fruitful goods that can come from suffering itself. (Which I previously listed).
Also, no where in my arguments have I said that suffering is a complete good thing but it is not a completely evil thing either... (Read carefully) It is both good and bad, but the goodness or badness of it can be increased through one's view of suffering. One who believes suffering is a completely bad thing will fail to see the fruit it can bear and thus will make their suffering pointless. However, one who chooses to recognize the goodness suffering can bring to themselves (and to their family) will be able to more easily endure the suffering because of this end goal in mind. If Brittany would choose bravery over cowardice and trust in the plan of the "higher power" to provide for her until her natural death, her and her family would be able to grow deeply as persons and experience the goods that would come from the unfortunate situation of suffering of cancer. The second intrinsic quality of the human person (which distinguishes us from any other creature on earth) is our "intellect." The human "intellect" is defined as the quality all humans possess which enables us to truly "know" things, to be conscious of ourselves, to be able to grasp concepts, problems, the Truth about Natural Law, the Truth about a "higher power". See, the intellect and free will cooperate hand in hand in the way that intellect "forms" the will. Since the intellect is able to know Truth, it is naturally bent on enabling our wills to love (rather than kill). This allowance of cooperation leads us to the climax of our dignity!
In your first paragraph, I disagree with everything accept for the unfortunate reality of what Brittany will have to endure if she chooses to embrace suffering instead of death. It would be far more loving for Maynard's family to endure suffering with her than to cooperate and allow Brittany (their own daughter) to kill herself. There is no argument for the extremely unfortunate situation of cancer but the choice (again) is not hers to make. She is able to make the decision, but this does not mean that it is a morally good decision! I have to challenge you to answer this, if we are unable to choose the time of our birth, then how can you believe that we have the right to choose the time of our death whenever we feel like it is time? My second question is: Society has never condoned euthanasia until the modern century, so why do we all of a sudden believe it to be acceptable? For a second, I would also like to add that if it is any person in this conversation who has based her beliefs on anything but her own opinion, it is me. If you truly believe that there is a God then you would trust in him completely to provide for all people's lives (including your own) through suffering until their natural end. You would not be here arguing for the "right" people have to end their own life. This brings me to my next truth about "rights".
A "right" is not freedom. Rather, a "right" is a duty (also a "moral claim") that is owed to others, society, the "higher power" (God). I have a feeling that you may be confusing a "right" with freedom so let me try and explain the difference in a more practical sense. No person on this earth has the duty to kill themselves or to kill someone else. Would you agree? It may sound silly but this is exactly what you have said euthanasia is. You argue the euthanasia is a duty for us to fulfill, it is a duty for us to kill ourselves and help others do the same. "Freedom", however, is different. "Freedom" is defined as being able to choose between two or more things. We can choose to take a shower everyday or we can choose to not take a shower. We can choose to eat breakfast in the morning or we can choose to start off our day with an empty stomach. We can choose to kill ourselves or we can choose not to kill ourselves. These are all choices we (as humans) are able to make because (as you said) we all have a free will! However, just because we have the "freedom" (not the "right") to do all of these things, does it make them all morally good to do? I surely hope you don't think so. You are correct that God gave us a free will, "which allows us to make our own decisions, even involving our own deaths" but this does not make it right for Brittany to take her own life or for anyone to do so.
In your third paragraph, you argue that it would be disrespectful for me to not allow "them" (meaning an individual) to make their own decision to end their life... this is partially true and I will explain why. It would be wrong for me to try and hinder a person's ability to choose (though we always have a choice!) but it would also be wrong for me to completely ignore their decision to kill themselves. For example, if my husband wants and is planning on killing himself because he has just been diagnosed with a terminal illness, it is my duty as a loving wife (and a person in general) to help him realize the evilness of his desire as well as try my best to lead him to embrace his remaining time on earth rather than choosing death. I would do the exact same for any other family member, friend, or peer whom I know but I am not morally responsible for making trips to a hospital in efforts to convert and lead every terminally ill patient I can to the Truth. Disregarding God for a moment (Sorry God...) the truth of euthanasia is that it is gravely and morally evil according to natural law. According to natural law, we should not murder. Can we agree on this law? This is because euthanasia is the direct (or indirect, aka "enabling") killing of a human being and that is a fact! Euthanasia IS murder.
Regarding your fourth paragraph argument, I never said that there should be any "guidelines about assisted suicide" nor did I say that there should be "certain parameters put in place". I believe you misread my argument or mistook that section as my argument where as it was really "benjaminimuffin " who stated that. I would be very grateful if you would re-read my position on that (in my previous argument) explaining the corruption and conflict that is bound to occur from an "assessment" as "benjaminimuffin" and you are both bringing up. Should I re-state my opinion on the matter just to be clear? Not only should there not be parameters/guidelines set up for euthanasia, there should be NO euthanasia period!
Regarding your final argument, because I already addressed the goodness and the badness of suffering as well as the fact that the gift of our free will allows us to choose to do anything we want in life, I want to focus more now on your question regarding people who commit suicide and try my best to explain it in conjunction to the logical and moral reasoning behind the evilness of murder. (Read carefully) Any person who suffers from severe problems such as depression and chooses to commit suicide (this is directly similar to euthanasia) is finding a permanent solution for a temporary problem. Do you see the problem with this? See, although killing yourself may technically "end" the suffering you are enduring it is actually prolonging the suffering of the ones who are affected by your death. This is why suicide in a sense is "more bad" than euthanasia because (in most cases) it is done without the knowledge of family, friends, peers...
I look forward to hearing your thoughts/questions and hope I have led you to a more complete understanding of the Truth!
When we are sick, or ill we take medicine and seek treatment to ensure we recover from our illness as quickly as possible. Well in the case of terminal illness, in which Brittany Maynard has been given only six months to live, there is no recovery! There is the inevitable occurrence of death which happens to end suffering, just like medicine does when we try and cure a non life threatening ailment or disease. Killing herself is Brittany Maynard's medicine, and a way to cure her inevitable suffering!
I can't lie, I am incensed by your comments that she should "choose bravery over cowardice and trust in the plan of a higher power." It is clear that your arguments revolve around the one constant of "God and Religion." Well god and religion are personal beliefs which differ between individuals and to be frank, should not be used in criticizing her decision. But since you love to fall back on religion so much, what is the main story in the New Testament of the Bible? Was it not Jesus sacrificing himself for the sake of mankind? Would you refer to him as a "coward"? You are in absolutely no position to say that Maynard is a coward, and when you break this issue down into it's simplest form, you have:
1) Brittany Maynard is suffering from terminal brain cancer in which she has six months to live
2) To avoid prolonged suffering, she along with her husband have decided to plan her death
3) Your version of God has nothing to do with this, it is her life, and she has the right to go out on her own terms!
"If you truly believe there is a God then you would trust him completely to provide for all people's lives through suffering until their natural end." Please stop with this whole God argument. My interpretation of what God is might be completely different to yours. In fact, my version of God is one that would welcome somebody who kills themselves with open arms, into a life free of suffering. Everybody's interpretations are different, which is why religion should not be used to call her a "coward."
Your comments about suicide continue to frustrate me as like in the case of a person with terminal illness, you have no right to say suicide is "bad" because you are not in their position. Suicide is a tragic and unfortunate event and it is completely wrong of you to suggest that the people who do it are taking the easy way out.
I do like forward to your response, however you have not led me to an understanding of the complete truth, but a further example as to why hypothetical religious beliefs should not be used in a real world debate.
1) The fact that goodness can come from suffering
2) The truth of dignity and the problem with the phrase "dying with dignity"
3) The truth that euthanasia is murder
4) The meaning and power of the human intellect & will
5) The fact that suicide is a permanent solution for a temporary problem
Before I begin, I asked you to answer two questions in my last argument but have not gotten a response. I challenge you again to answer them this time!
Question 1) If we are unable to choose the time of our birth, then how can you believe that we have the right to choose the time of our death whenever we feel like it is time?
Question 2) Society has never condoned euthanasia until the modern century, so why do we all of a sudden believe it to be acceptable?
I hope you are not suggesting that "challenges" directly mean the same as "positives" but yes, you are very right, suffering in and of itself IS a challenge! Not only is it, but it can and usually yields many difficult challenges throughout the life of a person and this is why it is so vital that we learn how to view suffering as a positive thing, not as a reason to end our live or the life of another person. I believe you are misunderstanding me when it comes to "encouraging" suffering. Suffering should never be encouraged but it must be dealt with (when it occurs) in a positive light. For example, it would be corrupt and morally evil to believe lighting oneself on fire is a good thing to do because it would be an act of direct harm to the body; thus, it would be practically pointless to do so. However, someone who survives a house fire and is badly burned could use their suffering as a way to receive the "positives" of suffering as I have already explained.
It is very logical (and a good thing) to reduce suffering; however, it is so to a certain extent. "Reducing" suffering should never be translated into "eliminating" a person because of it. In fact, the act of killing a person would be an act of false compassion and love. The fact about euthanasia is that it is an act which completely contradicts love and dehumanizes the person who is killed because of it. It also cheapens the love between the subject and his killer in the way that it is merely conditional and is not a love worthy of a human being. It is important to realize that Brittany"s husband is actually degrading her to the point where Brittany does not feel worthy enough of a human to live as she suffers in front of him and her family. Whereas Brittany"s husband believes he is loving his wife by allowing her to make the decision to die, he is actually dehumanizing her, and failing as a husband (ultimately as a man).
Regarding your second paragraph, it is very important to know that death was not created (rather, it was a result of sin) to end suffering. Suffering and death were never even part of the plan of our world from the beginning of time. Suffering and death would be far worse today if Jesus never sacrificed himself on the cross to allow us eternal life with him. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was the ultimate form of love and compassion for humanity and is everything opposite of cowardice. In fact, It was actually the climax of Jesus' human dignity while on earth and was something we will never fully understand in this world (it is a mystery); but we have to be careful not to equate a "sacrifice" to euthanasia because both are drastically and completely different! (I can explain the difference in greater detail next round if you would like). See, it is very difficult to extract God completely out of the argument against euthanasia because God is so much a part of life and death. Regarding your "interpretation" of God, as I do respect it, it would go against God's very nature for him to allow and welcome the destruction of a life which he created. I hope you can see the deeper problem here and understand that I have not argued completely from a religious point of view; rather, I have included truth from both Natural and Moral Law.
Regarding suicide, I do have the right to judge the action of another and say that the act of suicide is in fact gravely wrong. (Read carefully) I do NOT have the right to judge the state of a person's soul from the actions I know they commit and therefore could never judge the knowledge a person has about the morality of suicide. Also, I do appreciate the breakdown of Brittany Maynard's situation but I have done my research already...As I said before, I am very pleased with the knowledge you have mentioned to me about religion but I am clueless as to why you are so aggressive towards it..almost hateful if I must say! Another question, since I don't have the right to say that suicide is bad, how do you have the right to say it is good? I am not understanding the logic or basis of any of your arguments. I am sorry if I have caused you any frustration but it is not my job to be "politically correct" when proclaiming the truth to you or to anyone. I also suggest you re-read the information I provided on "rights" and how they differ from "freedom" as I don't think you read it fully in my last argument.
Now to answer your questions, yes you are correct in saying we are unable to choose the time of our birth. But how do human beings reproduce? Through sexual intercourse between a man and a women, not through God. God does not choose the time of our birth, it is our parent"s actions that determine this. Secondly, to say society never condoned euthanasia until the modern century is a generalisation, but assuming that this was the case, you must recognise that society"s values change over time! In the 20th century, it was generally considered acceptable for parents to physically beat their children, and nowadays it is not. In the early 20th century, homosexuality was illegal in most countries, and nowadays, only a small number of countries still regard this as a crime. As we have moved into the 21st century, our values have evolved, hence why many people now view euthanasia (under appropriate conditions) acceptable. I suggest that you allow your values on the subject to evolve as well. In fact, your originally statement was incorrect anyway, as in the sixties which was a time of social change, the public began to support euthanasia.
"It would be corrupt and morally evil to believe that lighting one on fire is a good thing to do"
Have you ever heard of Thich Quang Duc? A Buddhist monk who in protest to the Vietnam War lit himself on fire while meditating. Not only was this in protest against the capitalist ideologies of America and South Vietnam, he used mediation techniques which are part of his culture and religion so he would feel no pain. Given that practically all of your arguments revolve around religion, I don"t think you can afford to make comments about this when he was acting on his personal beliefs.
"It is the duty of medical practitioners to uphold the Hippocratic Oath" (do no harm)
You mentioned this earlier in the debate, however wouldn"t a doctor be doing more harm by keeping them alive and suffering, instead of alleviating it?
As for comparing Jesus" death to euthanasia, I am not comparing sacrifice with euthanasia but the fact that humans can choose when they want to end their life to euthanasia, due to our FREE WILL which I mentioned in the previous round.
Apologies if I sounded "aggressive" towards your religion, and I fully respect that you can believe whatever you want to believe, however it is SUBJECTIVE and therefore not a reliable way to back up your argument. You mention that you see no logic in my arguments, though I don"t understand why. I have clearly outlined my view and don"t have to rely on my religion to do it.
"In fact, the act of killing a person would be an act of false compassion and love. The fact about euthanasia is that it is an act which completely contradicts love and dehumanizes the person who is killed because of it. It also cheapens the love between the subject and his killer in the way that it is merely conditional and is not a love worthy of a human being. It is important to realize that Brittany"s husband is actually degrading her to the point where Brittany does not feel worthy enough of a human to live as she suffers in front of him and her family. Whereas Brittany"s husband believes he is loving his wife by allowing her to make the decision to die, he is actually dehumanizing her, and failing as a husband (ultimately as a man)."
Throughout the entirety of this debate, you have used your personal religious beliefs to make judgements such as the one above. How is the act of killing out of mercy false compassion? If anything it is the complete opposite, if you really loved somebody, you would want to end their suffering. In no way is Brittany"s husband dehumanizing her or failing as a husband, he is instead respecting her choice and holding her hand until the end, letting her go on her own terms. This issue in its simplest form:
1) Let the person continue suffering until they die
2) End their lives early to stop suffering and to cause a slow, painless death which is inevitable anyway
There is the option to suffer, or the option to die on your own terms, and I know which one I would choose.
To conclude this round, I ask you this question, when somebody is left in a vegetative state after say a heart attack; families often make the decision to turn their life support machine off. Is this any different to the case of Maynard and if this happened to somebody around you, would you let them live of a machine while being brain-dead just to abide by God"s divine plan and a book written thousands of years ago?
You begin by saying that you never stated euthanasia is murder but instead the opposite. I am curious, what is this opposite you are mentioning? You can see the confusion your argument brings. Euthanasia is killing; we have already agreed on this. So why are you saying it is now the opposite of killing? Remember, even though a person may consent to their own killing, the act of euthanasia is still killing; specifically it is murder. Also, regarding the "logic" you wonder why I fail to see in your arguments, you should of re-thought statements such as "you have no right to say that suicide is bad" because that begs the question: how do you have more of a right than me to say that suicide is good? It is quite silly if you don"t mind me saying.
I hope that you can understand that even though human beings can physically fulfill all of the necessary requirements to give life to another human being, God is the ultimate decider of whether that person will be born or not. However, this leads many people to wonder why God could allow persons with severe imperfections, deformities, syndromes, etc. to be born; but in the end, it is all part of the divine mystery of God. Suffering is related to this in a very similar way; the goods and redemptive qualities suffering can bear are all part of a larger mystery we can only trust in God to understand when pass one day (hopefully by his own will, not by ours). It is my fault if I was incorrect on the specifics regarding the time condoning of euthanasia in modern society had taken place but I was ultimately hoping that you would use both of the questions I challenged you with in rhetorical way to view euthanasia differently, to see the act is one which is gravely and noticeably wrong on so many different levels (such as the example of society only condoning it until recent times).
To be progressive and open to the changing of one's morals and values (most unfortunate to the point to view that life is not worth living when suffering occurs) can be gravely detrimental to our soul (Keep in mind, the word "soul" is not a religious term in and of itself, but rather an intrinsic and unique quality of every human being given to an individual during conception). You are very right, as our society has changed throughout so many years so to have the views and morals of so many people! However, is this necessarily a good thing? This is where the slippery slope begins. (Read Carefully) When a society accepts the killing of those who suffer, it is only a matter of time until that same society will accept the killing of those who do not suffer. I encourage you to keep this is mind with your inclination to be progressive because, although we may have to decide by our own good conscience & intellect whether the implementation of new civil laws/procedures are just or unjust ones, matters such as our values and morals are best to be kept unchanging unless they are evil (as they are the keys which should be used to dictate the "goodness" of all of our actions, thoughts, and behaviors but unfortunately can dictate also the "evilness" of them - specific to this argument: choosing to accept the killing of a suffering human as good. See, when it comes to our morals and values, "evolvement" (unless evolving towards goodness) can be a very dangerous and tragic thing and (if not soon) will eventually lead to the downfall of the human person and society as a whole. It is important to recognize the great worth of morals and values (which we choose to take on and develop ourselves) and how they can either build society upwards (example: by recognizing the true worth of all humans who suffer and not condoning euthanasia) or destroy society"s view of the worth of the human person, regarding him as not worthy of life as soon as he begins to suffer (temporarily or terminally); and eventually not worthy to live at all if morals and values continue to "evolve" as you say they ought to.
I am thrilled to know that you are not comparing Jesus "sacrifice on the cross to that of euthanasia".. you had me scared last time!! On a more serious note, I invite you to re-read the truth I gave you regarding the power of the human will and the grand consequences it has on each human being's life. In short, YES! We DO have a free will. In fact, this great gift allows us to do whatever we want, whenever we want, in however way we want to do it! This does not mean that whatever we want to do (like killing someone else) is a good thing to do! This is only common sense. The extremely difficult aspect, which makes euthanasia, such a controversial topic is the emotion embedded within it. Emotion in a case such as Brittany's can go so far as to blind all people involved (her, her husband, family, etc.) to the truth that the act of euthanasia IS wrong. My previous statement explaining how Brittany's husband is actually dehumanizing her and failing as a husband is no assumption. Whether or not Brittany's husband recognizes that he is truly dehumanizing his wife and ultimately failing as a man is something I will never know but that does not change the fact that he his (also, there was nothing religious about that statement). As I said in one of my previous arguments, never does anyone have the right to judge the knowledge a person has about the sin he is committing, but we CAN judge whether his actions are morally good or morally bad. This is the same with Brittany and all of her family. I could not and would never assume that they are all evil people who don't have the capacity to love Brittany. Rather, I can say that the decision they are encouraging for their daughter is gravely evil and one truly not loving; it is one, which is of false compassion! (Read Carefully) The end does not justify the means. In other words, Brittany and her family's good intentions of ending her suffering by killing Brittany, do not make this choice a morally good one! Love can be harder to live for than to die for. It is far more easy for Brittany's family to allow her to kill herself than it is to live through her suffering by her side until her natural end (not be her decision). If her family truly loved her, they would recognize that she still has the same (un-changing) dignity that she has always had (now intensified due to her suffering) and that suffering is and should never be an excuse to eliminate her life.
Moving on to your question, I find it sort of ridiculous that you are the one that is assuming now my beliefs on a matter which actually differs than that of euthanasia. In short, the truth regarding patients (who are in a vegetative state) and connected to a life support machine is that the machine is an extraordinary means to allowing their bodies to survive. (Read carefully) We are only required to provide ordinary means of living to a person (examples: food, water, clothing, shelter, ordinary medication, etc.) We are NOT required to provide extraordinary means to prolong the life of an individual such as the life support machine which can be very expensive and useless if the person will never be truly regain consciousness again. Therefore, in a situation such as this, the family has the right to decide to 'pull the plug' if they wish to do so.
Please understand that I am not trying to technically "win" this debate. That is not my intention. Rather, my goal is to purely explain to you the truth regarding the conflict and moral evilness of euthanasia and any other topics that we have discussed even though you may never see it as I do. My job is to plant the seed of truth in discussion with you and hope that you will allow it to grow within yourself. Lastly, I do understand that this concludes my chance to further post in this debate, but if you have any other questions or wish to discuss/debate further on any of these issues, I am very happy to do so! Feel free to contact me.
With Love Always,
Messi-09 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.