The Instigator
fire_wings
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Choose any Topic!!!!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 340 times Debate No: 95094
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

fire_wings

Pro

I made this possible to accept, so if you want to accept, just click accept.

When you accept, you need to list 10 topics. I will pick one.

Structure

1. Pro makes the rules/ Con lists 10 topics
2. Pro chooses the side, and makes definitions/ Con accepts
3. Pro and Con makes arguments (No rebuttals)
4. Rebuttals from both
5. Defense from both and Conclusion

Just because it says that I am Pro doesn't mean I am Pro, I can choose Pro or Con.

Structures are part of the rules.

Rules

1. No FF's
2. Follow Structure
3. No trolling
4. No kritiks
5. Sources can be posted in an external link
6. No follwing rules= loss

Now, let's start!!!
lannan13

Con

Resolved: The USFG should return to the Gold Standard. (Con)
Resolved: The USFG should privatize Social Security Pension Plan based on the Chilean Model. (Pro)
Resolved: The USFG should increase taxes on Stock Gains. (Con)
Resolved: The USFG should abolish Capital Punishment. (Pro)
Resolved: The USFG should legalize Euthanasia. (Pro)
Resolved: On balance, civil Asset Forfeiture should be illegal. (Pro)
Resolved: Apple should unlock iPhones of suspected terrorists for the FBI. (Con)
Resolved: The USFG should bring back waterboarding. (Con)
No-Fly-No-Buy (Con)
Resolved: The US ought to introduce military conscription. (Con)
Debate Round No. 1
fire_wings

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. My opponent clearly doesn't even *look* at the rules. It showed that I get to choose the side, but he chooses the topic, the 10 topics. He must have not read the part that I get to choose the sides. In the structure, and in few other places I have shown that *I* get to choose the side, not my opponent.

If my opponent still desires to debate this with me, even though he misread the topic, he can. But I give him the option to just tie this debate, and go on with it, as he mis-read the rules. But if he stills wants to debate, (the topics are topics I don't like debating...), then I will be choosing Euthanasia the topic, " Resolved: The USFG should legalize Euthanasia." I will be Pro on this topic, and lannan will be Con on this topic. (Sorry lannan, but I agree or don't know the topics of all the things you gave)

Euthanasia: the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering [1].

Legalize: to make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law [2].

So to rephrase the resolution, it is this. "Resolved: We are allowed, and it should be legal to kill to prevent any more suffering."

Now let's start the debate, or tie the debate? Another choice for Con!!!!
lannan13

Con

As I stated in the comments section, I put my perfered stance on the topic. I wasn't selecting the stance despite my opponent's slanderous statement.

I accept this debate and wish my opponent good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
fire_wings

Pro

I thank my opponent for his acceptance on the topic of Euthanasia. Seeing he said nothing about the definitions, I believe that he accepted all of them. I will now make my opening arguments of the debate. This is the second debate I am doing with lannan (the first one is on edeb8), so I hope it will be proven enjoying, as this one has more characters to write to. And I am sorry for being mistaken that my opponent misread the debate, when it was actually his preffered stance.

Framework

My framework will be based on Libertarianism. Libertarians seek to maximize automny, and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment [1] [2]. (Quoted from Wikipedia [3].)Also, America, in it's Consitution says, ""to secure these rights [:]... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [4]." So I will be showing about all these things, from Euthanasia. I will be talking about some laws like the Harm Principle also. And I will be talking about Util for a bit also. I think this will be enough for my framework, I can extend my framework if my opponent has any contradictions, or misunderstandings with the framework.

C1: Right of Life

My first argument and second argument will be basically the same thing, my first argument will be about the Right of Life. All people have the right of life (and the right of death). People have the right to live and die because, if they don't, then that means that one's life is dictated by someone elses's life, which harms their liberty. America, in it's Consitution says, ""to secure these rights [:]... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [4]." If we ban Euthanasia, then it shows that we are harming the liberty of a person. I will be giving some premises for this.

P1: If we are banning Euthanasia means that people will no longer have liberty

P2: If we are harming liberty, that makes that we are making him/her not secure.
P3: If people are not secure, it is harming his or her life.
C1: Therefore I have shown that we should legalize Euthanasia just on this alone.

But that wasn't the main point of the argument anyways. People have the right to die. Like the people of Euthanasia *want* to die to get less pain. Why are we stopping them from doing their wish? If we are harming this, we are harming liberty, which I already shown. Like dying because they want to, they have their liberty, they can die if they actually want to. Ones who want to ban Euthanasia are basically saying that we are not letting them die when they *want* to die. That's really unreasonable, they have the right to die if they want to. Because they have the right to die, and we ban Euthanasia, we are basically banning their liberty, and all the things I have shown above. For this argument alone, you ought to vote for Pro (though I will make more arguments then this)

C2: Liberty

I've already explained most of this in my last argument. We have the liberty to do what we want [5]. The people on Euthanasia want to die. Why do they want to die? Because they don't want to suffer pain, that's why they are dying. If we ban them from wanting to be dying, then that means that we are banning to do what they want, which harms their liberty. Now, my opponent might say that they wish to bomb the entire universe, and we should let them for their liberty.

That's why I made this argument, to also talk about the harm principle. John Stuart Mill, who made the harm principle says, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others [6] [7]." To paraphrase it, John Stuart Mill is saying that we have the liberty to do what we want unless it harms others. What harm does someone dying give? They are suffering, and they want to die. Then they die because they don't want to suffer. This doesn't harm anyone, even the family members, because they know that the person was suffering. So, it doesn't harm the harm principle, so we should legalize Euthanasisa.

C3: They can if they want to

My argument will be about that they can if they want to. I won't really go on the part of liberty, as I already said that a bunch of times in my last few arguments. So I will be talking about Util. They are killing themselves to not feel the pain from the surgeries they are doing for example. Why are they doing this? Because of Util, or maximizing happiness.

Util: the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people [8].

Now, Euthanasia helps the ones that want to kill themselves because it helps them from getting more pain. It doesn't help anyone if we ban Euthanasia. Happiness is a moral good action that helps, so I will be saying about Happiness also. Euthanasia maximizes happiness because first of all, they are killing themselves for less pain. Pain= bad, obviously, because breaking your arm hurts, so if less pain, then more happiness. So, if we legalize Euthanasia, then there will be more happiness. Just for happiness, please vote for Pro.

Conclusion

I have shown that Euthanasia is helped by the Libertarian framework because banning Euthanasia will cause liberty to be harmed, which makes the Libertarian Framework come on my side. I also showed liberty, the harm principle, and Util to bring up my case, and make it stronger. Because of this, vote for Pro. Onto my opponent in the debate.

Sources

[1] Woodcock, George (2004). Anarchism: A History Of Libertarian Ideas And Movements. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press. p. 16. ISBN 9781551116297. for the very nature of the libertarian attitude—its rejection of dogma, its deliberate avoidance of rigidly systematic theory, and, above all, its stress on extreme freedom of choice and on the primacy of the individual judgment

[2] "Libertarianism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2014-05-20. libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value

[3] http://goo.gl...

[4] http://goo.gl...

[5] http://goo.gl...

[6] http://goo.gl...

[7] http://goo.gl...

[8] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

lannan13

Con

I thank my opponent and as per rules, I shall be goin on my Opening Case this round.

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 suicide
  • 31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide
  • 21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide
  • 5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicide

Physician Characteristics:

  • 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide
  • 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide
  • Physicians 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.

As per rules, and character limitations, my soures will be in the following debate link. (http://www.debate.org...)

Debate Round No. 3
fire_wings

Pro

We agreed to tie. Don't vote, y'all
lannan13

Con

Reaffirming what my opponent said.
Debate Round No. 4
fire_wings

Pro

Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by fire_wings 2 months ago
fire_wings
miss, I C&Ped that :(
Posted by fire_wings 3 months ago
fire_wings
lol @ taj
Posted by tajshar2k 3 months ago
tajshar2k
Your font sucks Fire Wings.
Posted by lannan13 3 months ago
lannan13
I know. I put my perferance in parenthesis.
Posted by fire_wings 3 months ago
fire_wings
I don't care about what topic you give. You should have read the rules correctly. I choose the sides, not you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by missmozart 3 months ago
missmozart
fire_wingslannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Debaters agreed to tie. Petit advice to Pro: try not to waffle too much. I can't count the amount of times you said "Lannan misread the rules", "he did not read that part" etc. Also, please don't write 'spam' like a million times. I actually felt slightly sick and dizzy when I scrolled through it and moreover, it's a waste of your own time :(