The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
13 Points

Euthanasia COOLDUDEBRO's 20th DEBATE!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 881 times Debate No: 43513
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)




First round is for acceptance. Good luck!


I accept this debate challenge. Since my opponent has failed to set guidelines for the debate, allow me to.

Euthanasia: the act or practice of killing hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. [1]

I will only be arguing for voluntary euthanasia for humans, but both voluntary and involuntary for animals.

This applies to both animals and people. For example (true story):

My guinea pig was only two years old, but suffering from a breathing issue and a brain tumor. My doctor said that he was in a great deal of pain and that we should put him down. So I watched as we committed euthanasia. My guinea pig went to sleep painlessly. My doctor said it was the right thing to do.

With that said, let the debate commence!!!!!!


Debate Round No. 1


I will be using my arguments from my previous debate. This is only humans. No animals included in this debate.

Thank you!

Case 1: Slippery Slope

Scenario 1:

Jennifer has hated her mother in law for 10 years. However, her mother in-law is in very poor shape. She is missing a lung and does not have long to live. One morning, the mother in-law wakes up, and finds Jennifer having an affair! She goes to the phone to call her son, but before she could, Jennifer kills her by suffocation. Jennifer then goes to court and says, since the new euthanasia law just past, that her mother in-law didn't want to live anymore, so she helped her commit suicide. the court believes her, and she walks out Scott free. Without an euthanasia law, Jennifer would have been charged with murder, and sentenced to either life in prison, or death.

As stated in my scenario, Jennifer got away Scott free because of a law that passed that made euthanasia legal. This would be common if euthanasia were allowed.

Case 2: Wrong Diagnosis

Scenario 2:

Jimmy goes to his doctor for a routine check up. His doctor performs many tests, and thinks he has advanced cancer. Jimmy is very scared and irrational. He asks his doctor to help him by doing euthanasia. Sadly, the doctor helps Jimmy commit assisted suicide. Jimmy then gets taken in for an autopsy, and they find he does not have advanced cancer. The doctor that didn't mean to kill Jimmy, is charged with murder. He is then sentenced to life in prison.

This would not have even been an issue for Jimmy and his doctor if the euthanasia law is not passed. Jimmy would have went in for further tests, and would've been shown he does not have HIV. The doctor would also not go to jail. This would be common if a law that allowed euthanasia was passed.

Case 3: No Hope

Scenario 3:

Yolonda is diagnosed with cancer. Over many months, it did not get better. Yolanda's daughter come in to give her flowers and visit her. During the visit, Yolanda becomes depressed, and asks her daughter to perform euthanasia. Her daughter denies quickly! But with hours of convincing, she performs euthanasia. The doctor comes in with her test result to find her dead with her daughter. The daughter explains everything to the doctor. The doctor seems sad. "It's all my fault." says they doctor. The daughter then asks why. He opens the folder to show that much of the cancer has been eliminated, and a few more doses of kemotherapy would have gotten her back to normal. "If I would have gotten here quicker, she would still be alive." says the doctor.

This is probably the saddest of the three scenarios. Because she lost hope, Yolanda convinced her daughter to do euthanasia. If a law is not passed, Yolanda would be great and alive. Happily spending her time with her daughter.

These are three scenarios that would be common if euthanasia were to be allowed! I hand the debate over to


I thank con for challenging me to this debate.

I am arguing that euthanasia is O.K in practice. I am not arguing for the legalization of it. Right off the bat, scenarios 1 and 2 are not euthanasia that I am arguing. Nowhere in the acceptance round did my opposition say that this was only for humans, yet he batted away the animal request. Please consider this in the conduct section of the voting.

--Rebuttal 1a: Scenario 1 and 2--

In my opponent's first scenario, he makes something that is obviously not euthanasia. It is not even close to euthanasia by definition. Euthanasia means you die painlessly, very, very close to death, and give someone else permission to kill you. Neither of these three things are apparent at all in the given scenario.

Even if this was euthanasia, the federal court and local policemen are not dumb. People, while clearing the body, would EASILY see the strangle marks that Jennifer gave her, and launch an investigation that would label Jennifer the killer. Do your REALLY thing the court would let her off scott-free just by saying the words "it was euthanasia?" Also, the court would realize it was not euthanasia by definition becuase the mother-in-law did not die painlessly.

Furthermore, this is involuntary euthanasia (not even euthanasia at ALL), which I am not advocating for. Plus, the mother may not be close to death, as you can live with one lung (1).

Now, we face the same problem with scenario 2. It is not euthanasia, as cancer is "not on verge of death." The patient is also not in extreme pain. It takes years and years of suffering for cancer to become suicidal. One would not want to commit suicide RIGHT when they found out they had possibly (and likely) treatable cancer...

Furthermore, this scenario is (I'm sorry for this) DOWNRIGHT STUPID. A doctor would not kill a patient when he is not even sure that the patient has cancer, without permission from family, without looking further into his life, and without notifying anyone else. A certified doctor would easily know what else to do before euthanasia in this situation.

And, come on... Are you saying a certified doctor went to jail when a probable teenage girl didn't? The teenage girl had many facts stacked up against her that would lead to people seeing that it was not euthanasia, while the doctor has evidence, and likely some eyewitnesses that it was euthanasia. He would not have been arrested.

...Common? Are you kidding me? How common is it that a certified doctor that is not sure of a disease kills the patient without anyone else's permission (besides the patient) that he hasn't looked in to? If anything, it is one in a million billion.

Also, you said that further tests reveal he would not have HIV. However, you stated he has cancer. He could easily still have cancer. Having HIV doesn't mean you have cancer... voters, please consider this in the spelling and grammar section of the voting (if it was a typo). Thank you.

--Rebuttal 2a: Scenario 3--

This scenario is the closest thing to euthanasia (out of the other two scenarios) but it is still easy to poke holes in it. Yolanda is not in hopeless scenario, and is not on the verge of death, so it is not euthanasia by definition or in practice.

Now, to poke holes in the scenario. What are the chances that the doctor walks in the door about two minutes after Yolanda was killed, after the two mother and daughter had spent HOURS of talking?! What are the chances that Yolanda's daughter (we'll just call her Emma) finds a piece of equipment that she can use? Wouldn't Emma go to a DOCTOR before committing euthanasia? With all of the commotion in the hospital, don't you think that at least SOMEONE would've checked on them?

To say this is common is just absurd, as pointed out above. After showing that all three scenarios were invalid to this argument, I (finally) can start my arguments.

--Argument 1a--

I'm pretty tired, so excuse me if this argument is shorter than you wished for.

So, my first argument is that euthanasia actually does not shorten life drastically, like murder. Euthanasia is usually performed days or even hours away from certain death. In fact, an astonishing 86% of the time, this is the case (2). Is it better to live in severe pain or die painlessly? I believe it is better to die painlessly.

If a person wants out of their life due to severe pain and will die within a month's worth anyway, who are we to deny the will of this person? A person's life is a person's life, and only that person can make decisions. The decision that is made by this person is to tell someone to "pull the plug" or kill them. Once again, why should we morally deny that if a person is in a great deal of pain?

Now, I would like to dig deep into your mind with this argument. Euthanasia, in correct practice, can actually improve life. First, it improves life as an average. Committing euthanasia means one less suffering person in this society. And Lord knows we have too many suffering people in our society today.

Also, it actually can eliminate fear. If you know how you are going to die and are in control of it, you can put a perfect ending to a perfect life. For example, an author had this to say (3):

“As I have said, I would like to die peacefully with Thomas Tallis on my iPod before the disease takes me over and I hope that will not be for quite some time to come, because if I knew that I could die at any time I wanted, then suddenly every day would be as precious as a million pounds. If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice.” -Terry Pratchett on Euthanasia

In conclusion of this argument, euthanasia can not only improve the quality of life (shown by Terry Pratchett) but also eliminate fear. It can also put suffering people out of their misery.

Next, I would like to point out that Euthanasia is actually a better alternative than a normal death. Death is usually slow and painful, while euthanasia is fast and painless. If a person is in so much pain and only has a week left to live, why not commit euthanasia so they can die peacefully and without even more pain? Why should they have to live another WEEK of hell before finally dying while very sick?

Now, for my final argument, I would like to take in that Euthanasia is not only morally acceptable- it is LEGALLY acceptable. The Hippocratic Oath (4) that doctors take actually supports euthanasia. The famous line in there is "do no harm." An underlying way, and a most likely correct way, this means "do not keep one on life when death is preferable." Since the illness and pain is HARMING the body, it would be best to commit death, which is actually not harmful. Not as harmful as agony from your body slowly destroying itself.

I thank my opponent for his time and hand over this argument to con. Thank you, the voter, for reading. Please, have a nice day!

Debate Round No. 2


Sorry man. You forfeit. You have to support all types of euthanasia to debate this. Sorry! You forfeit.



Where in the rules does it say that I have to do ALL types of euthanasia? I put out a sound argument.
Debate Round No. 3


This is euthanasia in general. Even with animals. I am still against that. You are not for in-voluntary euthanasaa, therefore you concede.


I decline this movement due to the invalidity of it. "Forcing" me to commit forfeiture is a somewhat cowardly act, meaning you do not want to debate me.
Debate Round No. 4


dude why is your account inactive?

You do not agree with in voluntary euthanasia. Sorry man. You forfeit.


Short break. You know how school is.

I'll let the voters decide if I REALLY forfeit.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
I think this can be explained, unfortunately for con.

Look at the first round. Notice how Pro is the one who provided the *only* definition which Con obviously agreed to. It read:

"the act or practice of killing *hopelessly sick* or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for *reasons of mercy*."

Not reasons of malice. If you claim he forfeits, you are changing the definitions half way through the debate. Could you justify this please?

I also see that scenario 2 is the one that does not fit with the definition,

Scenario 3 is highly unlikely. They spent hours talking, and the doctor strolls in a few seconds later? If the cancer is getting worse, it would not be getting better as well...

Scenario 1 assumes we would simply take people's word for it... Which would be really stupid. Of course signatures and Judge approval or whatever will be applied- You know, things to prevent the stupid stuff from happening.

I also would be a bit suspicious if the "peaceful way of death" is strangling.
Posted by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
Can't wait until voting.
Args- Pro
Conduct- Pro
S/G- Tied
Sources- Pro

You can't claim the other side forfeits for breaking a rule that you made up half way through the debate.
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
:) :p
Posted by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago
Posted by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago
I'm sorry, Con. The fact that you claimed a forfeit by Pro for not following a rule you had never posted is pathetic and shows complete desperation in winning this debate. I REALLY sound rude right now, but I REALLY feel sorry for Pro.

You're first scenario is murder, NOT involuntary euthanasia. That could easily happen whether euthanasia were legal or not. Realistically the killer would be arrested either way.
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
cooldudebro, You can't equivocate murder to Legal euthanasia. It isn't the same. Saying that someone commits murder in the name of Legal euthanasia is not the same as being against legalized euthanasia. Anyone can see that your scenarios are false claims of what euthanasia is. In most cases assisted suicide is self administered, so do some research on what you're talking about before you start spouting off random impossible scenarios. Even if Pro doesn't add another argument, I will vote for him in this debate based on your insensible, improper identification of the topic you are debating.
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
whoops I meant cancer on the second scenario.
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
This is for people not animals.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: claiming that the other person forfeits is poor conduct. The information that Con presents is not in the context of the resolution. Con seems to have no idea what euthanasia is. Pro does understand the resolution, and provides good argument against con's erroneous claims even after the accusation of forfeit. Con also did not put a comma between 'sorry man' and 'you forfeit' in round 3.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited!