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


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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,008 times Debate No: 32355
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Euthanasia is about killing someone who is greatly suffering and has an incurable disese and there is no hope for recovery, so he can decide that he can die with dignity, no suffering anymore. The point is that who is he to have decision to take his life, he is not the responsible for taking or granting lives, he is only responsible for protecting his life. the most aspect we notice to what point did the life quality diminished, nearly it becomes like animals life. There is someone asked that they kill horses when they get sick when i asked him about this topic to support his claim of accepting Euthanasia, is there a comparison between human life and horses life? This is really surprising to find such these claims. The life of a man, no matter what he is suffering or did, is priceless, and there is no one who can decide whether the life is taken or left.


First off, I would like to state that I am actually AGAINST Euthanasia, but I am trying to sharpen my debate skills right now. A good debater can see both sides of the issues and figure out what their opponent to say next. So this is just me experimenting a bit.

Now that I have explained my real position, let me start off with some reasons why Euthanasia should be legal.

1. Dying with Dignity: If they are able to speak for themselves and they say that they would like to go ahead and peacefully die, then they should get that as their last wish.
2. Suffering: Would you rather somebody suffer for days with an imminent fate, or would you just let them be peacefully put out of their misery? I don't think that they should have to suffer.
3. Free Will: I think that if the patient is in his right mind and wants to go ahead and end it, they should have the free will to have their wish.

I look forward to hearing your response and/or counter-argument. I am glad that I accepted this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


First: where is the dignity in dying killed not your normal death? and where is the wish in taking a life from anybody? or who is he to determine that he wants no longer his life, it is really a silly desire !! I want to hear your answer.

second: what in suffering? is there any solution for sopping suffering except killing? Doctors are best to answer this question, but simply they can give him some treatments that can relieve his pains.

Third: ok ok free will is available for everyone, as they are free in taking their own decisions, but is there a free will in stopping a man from life ? or taking a human life ? is he an animal ? Even animals have rights to live, so the humans don't ?

you said that you are against in the beginning of your argument, so are you convinced by your words ??


1. The dignity is getting his last wish, not laying in a hospital bed suffering from terrible illnesses that will most likely end his life in a few days. If they are without a doubt going to die in a few days and there is no way to ease the pain, do you want them to suffer? Nobody should want that. Just let them go out peacefully without the pain and suffering.

2. There may not be any other solution to the suffering. That may be the only way to ease the pain. Our medicines and doctors aren't as good as you think they are. Some pains cannot be eased.

3. The free will should not have anything to do with the doctors or the ones performing it. I think that the family and/or the patient should have that say if they want to go ahead and end it. Some things cannot be eased. If that is their will, then they should have the free will to do that.
Debate Round No. 2


Is the last wish wanting to die, or accurately to be killed? Even he is greatly suffering. i have an example that support what i try to say: someone is given a poison that stop all the functions of the body, he reached to an extent that he was getting some drugs that may refresh his energy and idrenalin because his heart beats had decreased to a sign that he must die, and went to a doctor that suggests to give him an injection that can make him die in peace because there is no hope that he can continue his life, and although he was suffering he refused that and left the doctor and continued to suffer and have more drugs to challenge himself, so what i am trying to say that for the last second in our life we want to live despite the suffer we have.

you are not sure about what you have said "Our medicines and doctors aren't as good as you think they are. Some pains cannot be eased." There are a lot of alternatives that can ease the pains. our medicine has developed to a very wide extent. we are in the age of medical revolution.

The free will is provided to anyone, but in an ethical way not in any way. There are no religion that support what you say, no religion can say that anyone has the right to kill someone to ease his suffering or anyone can decide to lose his life.


To answer your first question, the last wish is both and neither in a way. It is to die in a peaceful manner. Now to your example. If that were to happen, I would completely be fine with that. If the patient wants to live, then they have that right. They should not be forced to be killed, as that would be murder, not euthanasia. In the last second in our lives, there may be people that don't want to live and suffer. There may be people that want to just go peacefully with as little pain and suffering as possible.

You are correct that we are in the age of medical revolution, but that is the point. We are in the MIDDLE. We are not done yet, and there are still things that are yet to be discovered, so let's say that the person was suffering from something that there was no possible way to ease the pain. I'm sure that that has happened before.

Free will is provided in any way that they want. They should have the free will to lose their life, ONLY if it is imminent very soon and are suffering.

In my closing statements, I would like to point out a few things. Here is my list of things that I would like to point out:

1. The definition of Euthanasia is at this link:
Painless death. That sums it up. So, if you don't support euthanasia, then you support painful death. Why the heck would anybody support that?

2. Please read this story:
These guys thought that they had absolutely nothing to live for when they found out that they were going blind. That could have meant possible years of suffering. That would be absolutely tragic.

3. Yet another story:
Even the woman's husband was so glad that his wife was able to go out the way she did. THAT is dying with dignity.

4. Just look at my opponent's capitalization and grammar errors. How can you vote for that?
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago

Firstguy had the burden of proof, but he never made his case. He asked questions, but that isn't arguing. Much of what he wrote was hard to decipher, but it doesn't look like there's an argument in there. There are some unsupported claims, like life being priceless no matter how much pain you're in, or like nobody wanting euthanasia anyway, but there are no actual arguments, no persuasion.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.