The Instigator
smithk96
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BA_BA_BA
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Euthanasia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
BA_BA_BA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 853 times Debate No: 23245
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

smithk96

Pro

The definition of euthanasia is the act of putting to death painlessly. I feel like this would be the right thing to do for the reasons that, if a person can no longer function and put forth what they are worth, they should no being living. But, then there is the argument that what if there is a 1% chance of this person living. I understand also that family want to have their loved ones here, but don't you think that if they can't even breathe on there own, or think, or feed themselves; that you making them stay here remaining useless is just a tad bit selfish. I feel that if a person has it in there will, that they should be allowed to tell there family to "pull the plug".
BA_BA_BA

Con

I accept the challenge and will post my arguments in the next round
Debate Round No. 1
smithk96

Pro

smithk96 forfeited this round.
BA_BA_BA

Con

BA_BA_BA forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
smithk96

Pro

smithk96 forfeited this round.
BA_BA_BA

Con

BA_BA_BA forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
smithk96

Pro

smithk96 forfeited this round.
BA_BA_BA

Con

BA_BA_BA forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
smithk96

Pro

smithk96 forfeited this round.
BA_BA_BA

Con

Well, this argument was bad so I will just do rebuttals to her arguments to close. I will first say that euthanasia does not have to be at the consent of the patient, by definition and so it could be abused with doctors killing patients because they are to expensive or their family wants them dead. I will say that 1% chance of life is a chance and we should try to save as many lives as we can. Supposing that 1 million people had euthanasia. According to your stats, that means that we could have saved 10,000 lives that were lost. Also miracles do happen. A boy in Europe survived a strain of e-coli that nobody else had lived through. Sure he suffered but he lived and life is precious.[1] Here a few pictures of the boy: during treatment and illness and after.

during:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk...

after:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk...

sources:
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BA_BA_BA 4 years ago
BA_BA_BA
the time limit is too hard to do. I want a rematch
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
"The definition of euthanasia is the act of putting to death painlessly."

Poor definition of euthanasia makes it far too easy for Con to win. I think murdering people painlessly is not the morally right thing to do.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Make it 8000 characters and at least 24 hours to respond and I'll accept.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
smithk96BA_BA_BATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con had sources and forfeited less