The Instigator
Cooldudebro
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
24 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 5 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,665 times Debate No: 43515
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

Cooldudebro

Con

First round is acceptance. Good luck!
imabench

Pro

Accepted.

State your case
Debate Round No. 1
Cooldudebro

Con

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 HIV. 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 HIV. 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 imabench!
imabench

Pro

Let me start out by saying that it took me all of 11 seconds to figure out that con has absolutely no idea what on Earth he is arguing about.... To prevent any potential readers from losing brain cells from reading con's arguments allow me to explain what is SUPPOSED to be debated here

Euthanasia is the act of of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, either by lethal injection from a doctor or by cutting off medical treatment that was sustaining the person in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There are 3 different types of Euthanasia which con also didnt seem to care to distinguish before making his idiotic scenario's. Here are the three different types of Euthanasia:

1 - Voluntary Euthanasia, which is permitted in many countries and US states where the person who wishes to die has given explicit permission to be put to death

2 - NON-voluntary Euthanasia, which is banned in all countries all around the world and is treated like an act of murder.

3 - Involuntary Euthanasia, which is also considered murder and not only is illegal, but also treated as if someone did in fact murder someone

By legalizing Euthanasia, you are advocating for the legalization of voluntary Euthanasia, not non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia...... Idiot

That being said, its also painfully obvious that con also has a very idiotic idea of what the word 'common' means.... 'Common' by definition means something that actually happens on a regular basis to the point where when it does happen, its not newsworthy in any way at all since its quite a normal event. That being said, none of Con's 3 idiotic scenarios are even close to what would be 'common' if Euthanasia became a legal practice.

Con's first scenario is involuntary euthanasia, which is completely illegal and therefore the daughter would not get away with murder....

Cons second and even dumber scenario is gross mal-practice and mis-use of euthanasia since euthanasia is reserved for those who truly are at the end of their line and are suffering painfully, not for someone who just got (mis)diagnosed with HIV.....

Cons final scenario, the stupidest one of all, entails a completely implausible tragedy of a daughter killing her own mother just seconds before the doctor walks in with the good news that the mother is going to be perfectly fine, even though the mother and daughter literally just spent HOURS talking about euthanasia when the Doctor conveniently wasnt around.....

=================================================================================

Point is: Euthanasia is perfectly reasonable to legalize FOR ITS INTENDED USE: Which is ending the life of people who are already on the verge of death, are experiencing a great deal of unnecessary and avoidable pain, and have given explicit permission to be euthanized by a doctor or other medical professional...... None of Con's 3 asinine scenarios comes even close to the reality of when euthanasia is even an option, let alone would be 'common', and thus he has not provided a coherent and non-idiotic argument against the legalization of Euthanasia

Hopefully in the next round con will give some actual half-decent arguments against legalizing euthanasia, though I wouldnt be surprised if he continued to not get a clue over what he is arguing over, and instead resorted to eating crayons or doing whatever it is stupid people do before arguing about something without doing a shred of research over what he is actually arguing.....

Over to you con.
Debate Round No. 2
Cooldudebro

Con

1st off, my 1st scenario are examples of FAKE voluntary Euthanasia. Where they faked like they had permission. idiot.

"Con's first scenario is involuntary euthanasia, which is completely illegal and therefore the daughter would not get away with murder...."

very possible. a person can say they had permission, or forge their signature to make it seem like they did. Also, they may have a note from the doctor, saying that if the patient wanted to, they could perform Euthanasia Here is how easy it is to fake a signature.

http://www.wikihow.com...

"Cons second and even dumber scenario is gross mal-practice and mis-use of euthanasia since euthanasia is reserved for those who truly are at the end of their line and are suffering painfully, not for someone who just got (mis)diagnosed with HIV....."

well, lets change that to nice wad of cervical cancer shall we?

"Cons final scenario, the stupidest one of all, entails a completely implausible tragedy of a daughter killing her own mother just seconds before the doctor walks in with the good news that the mother is going to be perfectly fine, even though the mother and daughter literally just spent HOURS talking about euthanasia when the Doctor conveniently wasnt around....."

My best work. A masterpiece. It's a scenario! Not a guideline how it is all goanna happen!

"Point is: Euthanasia is perfectly reasonable to legalize FOR ITS INTENDED USE: Which is ending the life of people who are already on the verge of death, are experiencing a great deal of unnecessary and avoidable pain, and have given explicit permission to be euthanized by a doctor or other medical professional...... None of Con's 3 asinine scenarios comes even close to the reality of when euthanasia is even an option, let alone would be 'common', and thus he has not provided a coherent and non-idiotic argument against the legalization of Euthanasia"

Avoidable pain. I don't know if that was a mess up or your just plain stupid. Also, they would probably have notices from the doctor because they are close to death. Again, here are the people who are on the verge of death in my scenarios.

Scenario 1: "However, her mother in-law is in very poor shape. She is missing a lung and does not have long to live"

Again, DOES NOT HAVE LONG TO LIVE!

Scenario 2: "His doctor performs many tests, and thinks he has HIV. Jimmy is very scared and irrational. He asks his doctor to help him by doing euthanasia"

Lets just change HIV to advanced cervical cancer shall we? Now he is on the verge of death.

Scenario 3: "Yolonda is diagnosed with cancer. Over many months, it did not get better."

Over many months, it didn't get better means her cancer is advancing.

"Hopefully in the next round con will give some actual half-decent arguments against legalizing euthanasia, though I wouldnt be surprised if he continued to not get a clue over what he is arguing over, and instead resorted to eating crayons or doing whatever it is stupid people do before arguing about something without doing a shred of research over what he is actually arguing....."

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM YUMMY CRAYONS!!!! THEY ARE SO RED! Oh someone here. *coughs* Okay.

Next rebuttal, Stop talking out of your @$$ and read dip sh!t.
imabench

Pro

"my 1st scenario are examples of FAKE voluntary Euthanasia. Where they faked like they had permission. idiot."

That doesnt change the fact that its still completely implausible since they could never get away with it as you were insinuating though. The scenario is still completely idiotic and you are still a massive idiot.




"a person can say they had permission, or forge their signature to make it seem like they did."

They still cant perform the actual euthanasia themselves though, legalized euthanasia requires a medical professional to do that, so your dumb scenario still is not in any way based in reality.




"well, lets change that to nice wad of cervical cancer shall we?"

No stupid, being diagnosed with something doesnt put euthanasia on the table, you have to be suffering from it for years and years, suffer an immense amount of pain, and be on the verge of death for euthanasia to become an option.

Were you dropped on your head as a child a lot or did you just naturally turn out to be a complete idiot on your own?




"It's a scenario! Not a guideline how it is all goanna happen!"

Your scenario is still something that only a brain-dead aborted fetus could have come up with and thought would be a common occurrence under euthanasia laws.




"Again, here are the people who are on the verge of death in my scenarios."

Being just diagnosed with HIV doesnt count as on the verge of death idiot.




"Again, DOES NOT HAVE LONG TO LIVE!"

For the love of all things holy, not having long to live is only one of the qualifications that need to be met for euthanasia to become an option, as I have already mentioned that you once again failed to comprehend.




"Now he is on the verge of death."

Being diagnosed with cervical cancer does not = on the verge of death.




Con has clearly opted to continue being an irrational idiot talking out of his own anus rather then actually research what he is debating about, since he again clearly has no idea what the hell he is even talking about..... The case still stands that con has not presented anything even close to a rational argument against euthanasia.

Debate Round No. 3
Cooldudebro

Con

That doesn't change the fact that its still completely implausible since they could never get away with it as you were insinuating though. The scenario is still completely idiotic and you are still a massive idiot. "

where is the proof? Let's read on.

"They still cant perform the actual euthanasia themselves though, legalized euthanasia requires a medical professional to do that, so your dumb scenario still is not in any way based in reality. "

People would push for private euthanasia because of privacy. It would be possible for that to happen. But again, that would only render scenario 1 useless. You just gave me an idea for another scenario! Also, have you ever thought that private Euthanasia would be possible if there was a signature? The debate is do you agree with Euthanasia in humans. You obviously do not agree with all types of Euthanasia. Therefore, I think you forfeit.

Scenario 4:

Frank is terminally ill, and qualifies for Euthanasia. However, frank still has a shot at recovery, and does not want to go through with it. However, his money hungry daughter knows he there is still a chance, and wants to make sure she gets her part of the will before he removes it. While he is asleep, she forges his signature for the Euthanasia form, and puts special guidelines. She states that he should be put to sleep at her house, with a doctor's supervision. When frank is asleep, the doctor comes, and they perform Euthanasia.

This is very sad and possible if Euthanasia would be legalized.

" No stupid, being diagnosed with something doesn't put euthanasia on the table, you have to be suffering from it for years and years, suffer an immense amount of pain, and be on the verge of death for euthanasia to become an option.

Were you dropped on your head as a child a lot or did you just naturally turn out to be a complete idiot on your own?"

This I found very insulting. You can suffer immense pain and be near death, but still have a shot at living. Also, you are the one making guidelines for this. The government might have guidelines very different. I will also argue that it may advance so much, that Euthanasia will be allowed for people who aren't even terminally ill.

" Your scenario is still something that only a brain-dead aborted fetus could have come up with and thought would be a common occurrence under euthanasia laws."

No this is just pure insult. I don't have to refute this!

"Being just diagnosed with HIV doesn't count as on the verge of death idiot"

Again, I changed it to advanced cervical cancer. Read man read!

"For the love of all things holy, not having long to live is only one of the qualifications that need to be met for euthanasia to become an option, as I have already mentioned that you once again failed to comprehend."

You basically give me my point on a sliver plater. She would qualify for Euthanasia. Thank you.

"Being diagnosed with cervical cancer does not = on the verge of death."

Refer to my other rebuttal for that. Again, I state, ADVANCED CERVICAL CANCER!

Here are some of my arguments you dropped

You failed to refute my claim that, in scenario 3, Yolanda had advanced cancer. You did not try to refute this.
You failed to refute there was avoidable pain. Why perform Euthanasia if the pain is avoidable?
You have not successfully refuted that Euthanasia could cause murders and let the people get away with it.
You failed to refute that private Euthanasia could be legal with a signature.
You also stated you are not for all circumstances of human Euthanasia. Does that mean you forfeit since, when you argue for Euthanasia, you have to argue for all human types of Euthanasia?

Thank you ladies and gentleman for reading! Vote con!
imabench

Pro

"People would push for private euthanasia because of privacy. It would be possible for that to happen."

Except it isnt because private euthanasia ISNT EVEN A REAL THING



"The debate is do you agree with Euthanasia in humans. You obviously do not agree with all types of Euthanasia. Therefore, I think you forfeit."

I am not forfeiting, you're just too god damn stupid to know what Euthanasia actually is and what legalizing it actually entails.





"When frank is asleep, the doctor comes, and they perform Euthanasia. This is very sad and possible if Euthanasia would be legalized."

Seeing as how con has continued to rely on asinine scenarios not grounded in reality for his arguments, I request that whoever makes the first time machine go back in time and convince con's mother to abort him and save us all this trouble.

You cant secretly plot to have someone euthanized without them finding out about it, and the fact that con is stupid enough to think that only shows how little he knows about euthanasia. Euthanasia isnt set in motion just by filling out a form, the victim himself/herself has to give explicit permission to be euthanized to the medical professional.




So in other words, its impossible for some asinine conspiracy theory that con is idiotically proposing to be real or potentially happen.




"You basically give me my point on a sliver plater. She would qualify for Euthanasia. Thank you."

Maybe instead of going back in time and having you aborted you should just be stabbed in the face instead, because you are clearly too stupid to allow to live.

Being on the verge of death does not automatically qualify someone to use euthanasia as an option..... There also has to be an immense amount of pain being experienced by the person who is ill, along with zero chance of recovery. You cant seem to wrap your impossibly small mind around this fact, and it is why all of your scenarios up until this point have been as idiotic as you are.




"ADVANCED CERVICAL CANCER!"

Yelling things in all caps only makes you look stupider then you alreayd are, which isnt a good thing for you since youre already displaying an IQ of about 12.

Being diagnosed with advanced cervical cancer doesnt put someone on their death bed and in an immense amount of pain, which means someone who is just diagnosed with advanced cervical cancer would still not be able to use euthanasia as an option.....




"Yolanda had advanced cancer. You did not try to refute this."

I did refute it by pointing out that your idiotic logic didnt account for the fact that only a licensed professional can perform euthanasia, not someones daughter.




"Why perform Euthanasia if the pain is avoidable?"

If the pain is avoidable then Euthanasia isnt an option that the ill patient can pursue, and that disqualifies another one of your asinine scenarios




"You have not successfully refuted that Euthanasia could cause murders and let the people get away with it."

But I have, you in response just kept inventing increasingly idiotic scenarios without realizing why all of them wouldnt happen if Euthanasia would be legalized.




"You failed to refute that private Euthanasia could be legal with a signature."

I did refute that by arguing that Private Euthanasia isnt even a thing. Its just something invented by an idiot (you) as a last ditch attempt to try to manufacture an argument against euthanasia.




"Does that mean you forfeit since, when you argue for Euthanasia, you have to argue for all human types of Euthanasia?"

^ And here is where we find out why Con is such a massive idiot in the first place.

Arguing for Euthanasia does NOT mean you have to argue for ALL types of Euthanasia. Arguing for Euthanasia means you are arguing for the actual definition and common practice of what Euthanasia is, which is ending the life of someone who is terminally ill, suffering immense amounts of pain, has no chance of recovering, and an act that is performed by a doctor or other medical professional.

========================================================================

Con has not given a single logical argument against euthanasia because con is too stupid to understand what Euthanasia actually is. It is for these reasons that I apologize to everyone who lost brain cells reading cons arguments, and ask that everyone vote Pro
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Imabench was hilarious. Very funny debate.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
And what of the people who do suffer greatly? Are they really "faking" anything? Who are you to decide that they have not the right to die? If we have the right to speech, why not the right to silence? If someone has the right to a life, they must also have the right to a death.

We can fix your problem of not having the persons consent by having a better system. Maybe adding more requirments to make it better. When a terrorist attacked an airplane, did we did not just throw away and automatically give up using airplanes. We just made it safer to fly with more security systems.

If you're afraid of something happening, prevent it. Do not just run away causing less good things and more terrible, painful suffering to happen. (The good things are that the family members aren't put into situations where there father may be breathing with a f*cking can full of air! but they can't relieve him because of the law. Think about how it will destroy people morally.)

I deem con's case refuted. I like to argue, so pm me or write a comment if you disagree with what I just said.
Posted by TheAntidoter 2 years ago
TheAntidoter
I think that wouldn't be a headline: Too long.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
Its pretty desperate and pathetic if you really start resorting to the comments section to try to win a debate that you got whipped in.....
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
Think, would you want to vote for euthanasia now if your vote was responsible for this headline?

TOP STORY: DOCTOR KILLS MANY ELDERLY PEOPLE, AND ACTS LIKE HE PERFORMED EUTHANASIA. IT SEEMED THEY HAVE QUALIFIED, BUT DID NOT WANT TO GO THROUGH WITH IT.
Posted by Orieles 2 years ago
Orieles
Con, I couldn't feel prouder to have read your arguments this day and laugh hysterically at your attempt to make reason out of the unreasonable.
Posted by Orieles 2 years ago
Orieles
This is hilarious. Please, keep the rebuttals coming con.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
THE BENCH

nac
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
One*
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
I wish I had seen this won...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by PeriodicPatriot 2 years ago
PeriodicPatriot
CooldudebroimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: There are obvious resons why, even from looking at the arguments.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
CooldudebroimabenchTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't have to resort to the name calling. You had enough opportunity to do your research and determine con's intelligence level prior to accepting the debate. Also pro obviously had the more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
CooldudebroimabenchTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters need to learn some decorum. Pro shouldn't be engaging in so many ad hominem attacks, even as a joke, and Con shouldn't have risen to the task of doing the same. Pro did start it, so Con gets conduct. Beyond that, Pro is dominant. If the best Con can do is say that misuse can lead to harms, it's simply not enough, nor do these possible cases make a lot of sense in linking to legal euthanasia. I can see where Con's concerns come from, but they're simply not sufficient to garner my vote.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 2 years ago
Josh_b
CooldudebroimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I am inclined to vote for Con in this argument because of the gross misuse of Ad Hominem by Pro. However, Con's argument is based on The Unicorn Fallacy and calling it common which completely unreliable and outside of the regulations imposed for euthanasia already legal is states such as Oregon and Washington. Pro's wiki link and definition should have shown Con that his scenarios were off track, but Con continually defended his Unicorns with such resolve that I have No other choice than to vote for Pro in the area of convincing argument and reliable sources.
Vote Placed by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
CooldudebroimabenchTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither sides really produced a winning argument. Both if them had terrible conduct to each other, but pro was the one to lash out first. I found some mistakes in pro's writing, but that does not compare to using cash symbols instead of S's. Also, con failed to capitalize the beginning of his sentences. It was not very rare to find a mistake in con's writing. I also award pro sources. He provided the only definition, which debunked some of con's claims. I didn't exactly find any good arguments from both sides, nor did I find any humor from con. Pro wins this debate for the reasons listed above.