The Instigator
Rockylightning
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
CrysisPillar
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Euthanasia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 8 votes the winner is...
CrysisPillar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 20,070 times Debate No: 11359
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (8)

 

Rockylightning

Pro

Euthanasia: "Good death" painless death that is sometimes is categorized as assisted suicide. Includes Passive and Active forms
Incurable Disease: A disease that has no known successful cure.
Painful disease: A disease that inflicts extreme amounts of pain.

1. "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court's recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death.

A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained."

2. "At the Hemlock Society we get calls daily from desperate people who are looking for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives which have lost all quality... Americans should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights -- the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent."

3. Individuals have a right to die when life becomes excruciating or undignified Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future ahead of them: the gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to ‘control' their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and die with dignity.

Chantal Sebire, a 52- year-old Dijon schoolteacher, suffering from a rare disease that has left her disfigured by facial tumors, said in 2008 to Time magazine: "I no longer accept this enduring pain, and this protruding eye that nothing can be done about. I want to go out celebrating, surrounded by my children, friends, and doctors before I'm put to sleep definitively at dawn."[2]

From the Time article, "Making a Case for Euthanasia". Mar. 15, 2008, "Sebire and her backers retort that preventing her from getting medical assistance to end her life swiftly and painlessly ensures months or years of additional torment from pain. Her death will come, they say, after a long coma that will reduce her to being nothing but an inanimate burden on her family."
Forcing a person to stay on life support in excruciating pain is cruel French President Nicholas Sarkozy said in a 2007 campaign speech, "when I hear debates on euthanasia, I tell myself that while I respect the principles, the convictions, at the bottom of my heart I still say there are limits to the suffering that can be imposed on a human." Euthanasia can be appropriate when a person is no longer themselves. The most sacred element of a person is their identity as individual and a soul. Once this is lost, much of the sanctity and fulfillment in life is lost. While this is not a full justification for euthanasia, it is a salient factor.

4. Individuals have a right to hasten death, not merely to refuse treatment Compassion in Dying v. Washington. United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. March 6, 1996 - "While some people refer to the liberty interest implicated in right-to-die cases as a liberty interest in committing suicide, we do not describe it that way. We use the broader and more accurate terms, 'the right to die,' 'determining the time and manner of one's death,' and 'hastening one's death' for an important reason. The liberty interest we examine encompasses a whole range of acts that are generally not considered to constitute 'suicide.' Included within the liberty interest we examine, is for example, the act of refusing or terminating unwanted medical treatment...

5. * Removing life support causes an excruciating death; euthanasia is more humane The Terri Shiavo case is illustrative of the situation created by the illegality of euthanasia. A choice was made that Terri Shiavo's death was imminent and that should should be allowed to die. Without the option of euthanasia, her feeding tubes were removed, and she was starved to death. How is that more moral than euthanasia? Forcing patients to starve to death or go into cardiac arrest, simply because the option of euthanasia does not exist, is a cruel alternative.

* Euthanasia is better than non-treatment ways to shorten lives and end suffering Doctors are allowed to make non-treatment decisions in special cases in order to shorten the life of a patient and end their suffering. This is a roundabout form of "euthanasia" that causes patients far more harm than a real euthanasia would. Doctors should be allowed to use euthanasia to avoid having to make these Non-Treatment decisions.

* Life can be prolonged unnaturally; euthanasia is a necessary cut-off option Life can be kept "alive" for longer and longer periods with modern technologies and techniques. Is this natural? No. Is it excessive? It certainly can be. When keeping life "alive" becomes an excessive exercise in medicine and technology, a cut-off point become necessary. That cut-off point is euthanasia. This argument will become increasingly relevant into the future, as human-beings are kept alive with dozens of test tubes and transplants.

Sources:
http://www.time.com...
http://www.euthanasiaprocon.org...
http://www.dignityindying.org.uk...
http://euthanasia.procon.org...
http://euthanasia.procon.org...

Conclusion: Imagine you have some type of incredibly painful disease where you feel like you are being skinned alive and burned, would you want to end your suffering? Or would you want to want to live it out in extreme pain and suffering, then die. In any case, it's either die now and not live to see a few more days of your life and have a painless death, or die later, see a few more days of a hospital wall, then die painfully. Which would you choose?
CrysisPillar

Con

Firstly, I would like to point out that my opponent has copied and pasted a majority of his arguments; everything except for the conclusion. I am not accusing him of plagiarism because of the sources listed and the quotations, but I would like to say that this debate would be a fairer and stronger one if my opponent put a little more effort into his arguments against mine than only what is available on the web. It will give you a better understanding of the topic and an easier path to refuting my points clearly.

Thank you for challenging me to this debate; I accept your definitions.

Because the Definitions state that Euthanasia "is sometimes is categorized as assisted suicide," I shall expand on that as a point after I refute my opponent's.

Again, I urge you to take more time with this debate than copying and pasting; it is not of any benefit to you so far.

Refutations to my opponent's main points:

1) "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

According to Dictionary.Reference.com, the definitions of these words are as follows:

Terminally: "occurring at or causing the end of life: a terminal disease."
Illness: "unhealthy condition; poor health; indisposition; sickness."
Suicide: "the intentional taking of one's own life." [5]

These three definitions date back before the 15th century.

In this case, depression would be considered a terminal illness, and suicide would be the result of depression, which causes death. If suicide is considered a negative act, then why isn't pulling the plug between the same concept of life and death? Suicide and Euthanasia is the same thing in a sense that it is a type of suicide. I shall expand later on in my main points.

2) "At the Hemlock Society we get calls daily from desperate people who are looking for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives which have lost all quality... Americans should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights -- the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent."

I ask you this: when did the European Declaration of Independence have anything to do with America?

About 200 years ago, America declared independence from Britain. We went to war with Britain; it wasn't a religious war, or a war between ethnicities; it was a war over ideas. Why is this important? [4]

America has different ideas than those of Europe, and in the American Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [3]

According to the American Declaration of Independence, no body, including the government body, has the power to take away the right of life. Making euthanasia legal is directly violating this right. If my opponent dares to challenge one of the most important documents in American history, be my guest. This point has been completely refuted.[3]

3. "Individuals have a right to die when life becomes excruciating or undignified."

Stated clearly in my last refutation, there is a right to life; a right to death would contradict the American Declaration of Independence. [3]

As I shall state later in my pain points, depression is a state when life becomes excruciating, but this does not give the individual a right to die. It is justified for them to feel this way, but they should seek help.

4) "While some people refer to the liberty interest implicated in right-to-die cases as a liberty interest in committing suicide, we do not describe it that way. We use the broader and more accurate terms, 'the right to die,' 'determining the time and manner of one's death,' and 'hastening one's death' for an important reason."

According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, the definition of "Importance" is
"Marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence: valuable in content or relationship."

Nowhere in this definition does it state that the importance of a choice between life and death is judged by its positivism; in conclusion by the definition, the choice is by consequence. Considering that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, this is what euthanasia is. I will also expand on that later.

5) "Removing life support causes an excruciating death; euthanasia is more humane. The Terri Shiavo case is illustrative of the situation created by the illegality of euthanasia."

According to CNN, Terri Schiavo originally collapsed from lack of potassium in her body; she was bulimic and may have lost potassium through binging. According to her mother and father, she had not received physical therapy for over ten years before her death. According to the University of Miami, her husband had heard her say that she never wanted to be kept alive in any artificial way. However, what she said was never written down on paper. There is no proof that she actually said this. According to the definition of artificial in the Merriam Webster Dictionary, Euthanasia is artificial, meaning man-made and unnatural, which includes giving medications to the suffering patient to stop the beating of their heart or stop their breathing. Therefore, the Terri Schiavo case is a whole other story unrelated to this debate.

Now, I will head into my own points.

1) There is an alternative to euthanasia in terms of its purpose.

Many doctors are against the idea of euthanasia, including Dr. Peter Ravenscroft of Australia. "He believes that when people have an incurable illness, they should be given palliative care. That means care that lessens their pain and suffering, and helps them to feel less afraid." Euthanasia is an act of giving medication or treatment to a suffering patient knowing that it will make them die. Palliative care, however, is an act of giving medication or treatment to make the suffering patient comfortable, but not to intentionally kill them. [2]

2) It contradicts the meaning of the job of a doctor.

The Merriam Webster Dictionary states that a doctor is "a person skilled of specialized in the healing arts." [1]

Giving someone medication to intentionally kill them is definitely not considered a healing art. I will expand on this in my second constructive speech.

3) Euthanasia is a form of suicide in every way.

Refer to the definition of suicide listed in my refutations. I ask my opponent to give me an argument of how euthanasia is not assisted suicide. The patient asks to be killed, and the doctor gives them something to end their life! If a suicidal person suffering from an illness (as stated in my previous definitions), and they asked to be killed, a doctor would not prescribe them a treatment to do so. They would prescribe a treatment to help them cure this. According to my opponent's definition of terms, a person considering euthanasia would be suffering a disease that is currently incurable. However, I have stated a legit alternative to euthanasia, which is palliative care.

4) Euthanasia violates the American Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence of America states "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [3]

Euthanasia takes away the right to life.

For these reasons, euthanasia should be illegal.

Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.newint.org...
[3] The United States Declaration of Independence
[4] History
[5] http://www.dictionary.reference.com...

Thank you. Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Pro

As I have said before, it's not the words you use, it's how you use them, and I'm sorry if copy pasting but I had little time to do this argument. In the first constructive it really dosn't matter at all so really, just stop being cry babies.

Refute my opponent's refutations:

1) Lets get something straight here, suicide (in this debate) is taking one's own life. Euthanasia, is taking someone's life with their consent, especially if they are in excruciating pain, I think that it is justified.

2) This debate is not about America or anything, it's just about whether or not you think Euthanasia is right according to the definition! That point is down.

2a) //no body, including the government body, has the power to take away the right of life. Making euthanasia legal is directly violating this right.// Let's get something straight, so we're saying that, "We can't end your extreme misery because a law says so" First of all, all laws can be changed, and what they meant by that law was "We can't kill you for no apparent reason" the government CAN kill WITH reason. For example, death penalty.

4) //here is a right to life; a right to death would contradict the American Declaration of Independence.// If there is a right to life, why isn't there a right to life, may I remind you that this debate is not necessarily about AMERICA, just on the topic of Euthanasia.

5) Since when did saying things never happened be a debate strategy? Though I do not understand this point could you explain in the next round please?

Refute my opponent's points:

1) //Palliative care, however, is an act of giving medication or treatment to make the suffering patient comfortable, but not to intentionally kill them// So let's let the person with a disease eating away at their brain die comfortably... hmmmmmm isn't that the same thing as Euthatnasia, exept without the painless part? Just because you're comfortable dosn't mean you're feeling no pain. I would like you to expand on this "palliative care".

2) //Giving someone medication to intentionally kill them is definitely not considered a healing art// First of all, Doctors don't only specialize in the healing arts, in fact the second definition of doctor is "someone liscensed to practice the use of drugs" obviously to euthanize someone is to use drugs. That point is down.

3) //The patient asks to be killed, and the doctor gives them something to end their life! If a suicidal person suffering from an illness (as stated in my previous definitions), and they asked to be killed, a doctor would not prescribe them a treatment to do so// Here's the difference between a suicidal person and a person who is suffering from an illness: A suicidal person may have more to live for in life, a person suffering from an incurable, painful disease obviously doesn't. The suicidal person may discover the next day that he has a new hope. The ill person will not, and cannot. It's sad stuff, but it happens.

4) //Euthanasia takes away the right to life.// I would only agree with this if we were debating homocide... Euthanasia is with the consent of the patient, who is going through a painful, incurable disease, who WANTS his right to live taken away, it's like you have the right to protest, but not everyone does. It's like forcing the right to life on EVERYBODY. If there is a right to life, as I have stated before, there should be a right to death. When we get ill should not be the only time when we accept death, people should be able to accept death when they feel it is their right to die, they have nothing more in life, exept pain and suffering. They just want to get to the afterlife quicker and not have to endure this extreme pain.

For all these reasons, and the reasons my opponent has to refute, the pro side of Euthanasia has won this debate

VOTE PRO!
CrysisPillar

Con

If the first constructive speech doesn't matter to you, then I wonder why you even wanted to debate me in the first place. It is quite foolish for you to call me a "cry baby" for bringing up a point that will better strengthen your arguments in the future, Rockylightning.

To refute my opponent's refutations:

1) "Lets get something straight here, suicide (in this debate) is taking one's own life. Euthanasia, is taking someone's life with their consent, especially if they are in excruciating pain, I think that it is justified.

Considering that your definitions in your first constructive speech did not include suicide, and I have stated a definition for suicide with a legit source, I will go with my definition. Taking someone's life with their consent is like hiring a man to shoot them because they are chronically depressed. Some patients who want to go through the procedure of euthanasia don't know what they're doing – ending something that cannot be reversed. You may argue that euthanasia is painless, but assisted suicide and euthanasia have the same purpose – to kill. If you say that euthanasia is not suicide, then euthanasia is murder.

2) "This debate is not about America or anything, it's just about whether or not you think Euthanasia is right according to the definition! That point is down."

This point is not down. I am not debating about America. I am just thoroughly refuting your point of the European Declaration of Independence's words. I am also not trying to accuse or insult Europe.

By the way, by saying that this debate is not about euthanasia in America, your point of the European Declaration of Independence has been contradicted. Therefore, it is your point that is down, Rockylightning, not mine.

3) "No body, including the government body, has the power to take away the right of life. Making euthanasia legal is directly violating this right. Let's get something straight, so we're saying that, "We can't end your extreme misery because a law says so" First of all, all laws can be changed, and what they meant by that law was "We can't kill you for no apparent reason" the government CAN kill WITH reason. For example, death penalty."

I understand your point. However, we cannot end extreme misery because the law says so. If you were suicidal, the law would not allow you to go to your therapist and ask for a drug that will to put you to death. There is a borderline between what the law can't control and can; allowing many to take away their own lives just because they want to is crossing the line. The government makes choices to protect our citizens, not to end their lives due to the desire of it.

Also, you brought up the death penalty, and how the government can kill with reason. If a murderer gets sentenced to death for killing innocent people, then why doesn't the action of doctors giving medication for the intent of ending their patient's life result in the death penalty to the doctor? Unlike a debate about abortion, we can clearly agree that a human being is alive at the time of receiving treatment to end their own life. As I have stated before, euthanasia is either assisted suicide or murder, and neither one is justified.

4) "Euthanasia takes away the right to life." "I would only agree with this if we were debating homocide... Euthanasia is with the consent of the patient, who is going through a painful, incurable disease, who WANTS his right to live taken away, it's like you have the right to protest, but not everyone does. It's like forcing the right to life on EVERYBODY. If there is a right to life, as I have stated before, there should be a right to death. When we get ill should not be the only time when we accept death, people should be able to accept death when they feel it is their right to die, they have nothing more in life, exept pain and suffering. They just want to get to the afterlife quicker and not have to endure this extreme pain."

A right to death cancels out a right to live, and the right to live is definitely beyond doubt more important than the right to death. This world would be going through human species genocide if there were a right to death.

As I have stated before, palliative care allows a patient to stop feeling the pain and feel more comfortable or less scared. Palliative care is NEVER a procedure intended to end a patient's life, rather to make it more peaceful. I would like to see you address this point, Rockylightning.

For these reasons, we should make euthanasia illegal.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Pro

Ok, really? The first constructive speech matters but I mean refutations, in the first speech you can't refute. If I had copied pasted to refute you than that would be bad.

1) \\\Taking someone's life with their consent is like hiring a man to shoot them because they are chronically depressed. Some patients who want to go through the procedure of euthanasia don't know what they're doing �€" ending something that cannot be reversed. You may argue that euthanasia is painless, but assisted suicide and euthanasia have the same purpose �€" to kill. If you say that euthanasia is not suicide, then euthanasia is murder///

I see what you're getting at, but the difference between suicide and euthanasia is that someone who wants to be Euthanized is going through the most painful disease, they have no choice, it's either die now painlessly, or die later painfully. A suicidal person asking to be euthanized is wrong because they might rethink their life the next day, but a person with an incurable illness cannot rethink their life the next day. That is my point here

2) \\\your point of the European Declaration of Independence has been contradicted. Therefore, it is your point that is down, Rockylightning, not mine.///

I fail to see how the Euopean Declaration of Independence contradicts me. This debate is about the topic of Euthinasia, not what Declarations of Independence we are talking about, I just said that it we should not confine this debate to America, but rather a more generall debate on the topic itself.

3) \\\I understand your point. However, we cannot end extreme misery because the law says so. If you were suicidal, the law would not allow you to go to your therapist and ask for a drug that will to put you to death. There is a borderline between what the law can't control and can; allowing many to take away their own lives just because they want to is crossing the line. The government makes choices to protect our citizens, not to end their lives due to the desire of it.///

You keep on bringing up suicidal people when the debate is about strictly people with incurable, painful diseases! Of course the law would not allow you to go and ask your therapist for drugs because you are not facing certain death! You have a future, the people dying from incurable diseases don't. Maybe they just want to get it over with so they aren't full of pain for the small portion of their lives that is the future.

4) \\A right to death cancels out a right to live, and the right to live is definitely beyond doubt more important than the right to death. This world would be going through human species genocide if there were a right to death.//

If we have a right to life, then we should have a right to death! We can choose to live, but not choose to die? If we truly live in a free country than people under the circumstances in the definition should have the right to death!

4a) \\\palliative care allows a patient to stop feeling the pain and feel more comfortable or less scared. Palliative care is NEVER a procedure intended to end a patient's life, rather to make it more peaceful.// I agree with this point, but why would you want to live the short rest of your life drugged up? Wouldn't you want to say your last goodbyes then exit from your painful world? If I was in that position I wouldn't have liked to be drugged, then die, I would like to know that I'm my sane old self when I die, not on a drug high.

For these reasons, the motion "Euthanasia, a painless death that includes passive and active forms, is justified for a patient with a disease that inflicts extreme amounts of pain and is incurable" stands.

VOTE PRO!

----------------Sources
http://www.time.com......
http://www.euthanasiaprocon.org......
http://www.dignityindying.org.uk......
http://euthanasia.procon.org......
http://euthanasia.procon.org......
CrysisPillar

Con

Thank you again for challenging me to this debate; it has been nice debating you.

I will refute all of my opponent's points, then step back and look at this debate as a whole.

Refutations to his refutations:

1) "I see what you're getting at, but the difference between suicide and euthanasia is that someone who wants to be Euthanized is going through the most painful disease, they have no choice, it's either die now painlessly, or die later painfully. A suicidal person asking to be euthanized is wrong because they might rethink their life the next day, but a person with an incurable illness cannot rethink their life the next day. That is my point here."

I am not saying that suicide IS euthanasia. I am saying that suicide has the same concept as euthanasia. A suicidal person cannot rethink their life the next day if they commit suicide and decide to end it at that minute; neither can a person who chooses euthanasia even when they're not a hundred percent sure that they want to leave early.

2) "I fail to see how the Euopean Declaration of Independence contradicts me."

This is how you contradicted yourself; You stated something about the European Declaration of Independence in your first speech. I stated something about the American Declaration of Independence in my first speech. Then, you state something about how we are debating euthanasia as a whole and not about America. Therefore, since you brought up the point that we should legalize euthanasia due to the European Declaration and then later say that we should disregard the United States, this means that we should disregard Europe in this debate, too. That clears out your point entirely.

3) "You keep on bringing up suicidal people when the debate is about strictly people with incurable, painful diseases!"

According to the definition that you have provided of an incurable disease, and according to the definition that I have provided for illness, depression is technically an incurable disease.

The Merriam Webster Dictionary states that the definition of a cure is a "complete or permanent solution to remedy." When you are depressed, you only receive medication to help balance out the chemicals in your brain to keep your mood happy. Where's the proof, you ask? If you get off of this medication, your mood drops down. It is not a complete or permanent solution.

Depression is painful, mentally and physically.

4a) "palliative care allows a patient to stop feeling the pain and feel more comfortable or less scared. Palliative care is NEVER a procedure intended to end a patient's life, rather to make it more peaceful." I agree with this point, but why would you want to live the short rest of your life drugged up? Wouldn't you want to say your last goodbyes then exit from your painful world? If I was in that position I wouldn't have liked to be drugged, then die, I would like to know that I'm my sane old self when I die, not on a drug high."

Would you want to end your life early in pain, or live out your full potential painlessly to say goodbye? Nobody ever said that you would be on a drug high – where is your evidence? According to PBR, a widely-known medical book, the kind of drugs given to a patient in palliative care does not involve side effects that ruin your brain or send you into a mental drug high.

Now, I would like to stop back and look at this debate as a whole.

The definitions brought up by Rockylightning:

Euthanasia: "Good death" painless death that is sometimes is categorized as assisted suicide. Includes Passive and Active forms
Incurable Disease: A disease that has no known successful cure.
Painful disease: A disease that inflicts extreme amounts of pain.

I have followed these definitions successfully.

My main points were:

1) There is an alternative to euthanasia in terms of its purpose.
2) It contradicts the meaning of the job of a doctor.
3) Euthanasia is a form of suicide in every way.
4) [This point was contradicted by my opponent himself]

Which points have my opponent successfully refuted? None of them.

I stated a perfectly great alternative and have defended it at the fullest extent, while he gave absolutely no evidence against it. This point is ours.

I stated a major point that it contradicts the meaning of a doctor's job, and he has not even touched up at all on this point, showing no effort.

My third major point was that euthanasia IS suicide and the only response my opponent has is that it is not suicide.

My opponent has brought up a point over evidence from the European Declaration of Independence, has claimed it as relevant to this debate, and then has stated that the Declaration of Independence of America is not relevant. This is completely ridiculous, and therefore the con side has won this point.

The first speech was a brutal war of copying and pasting, with the excuse of "having no time to debate." I ask Rockylightning that if he every debates me again that he thinks about his time management and puts more thought into his debate before challenging me. I don't find debates as enjoyable when I debate a computer, and I don't think you would either.

For the reasons that I have successfully refuted all of the Pro side's points, my sources are reliable, my speeches were not copied and pasted, and he has not touched up on over one third of mine, the Con side clearly has won this debate.

Thank you again.

My sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.newint.org...
[3] The United States Declaration of Independence
[4] History
[5] PBR (America's Most Trusted Medical Guidebook)
[6] http://www.dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Pandora9321 6 years ago
Pandora9321
If the voting was still open, I'd go pro.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
... that debate was terrible
Posted by left_wing_mormon 6 years ago
left_wing_mormon
i thought the cry baby remark was unneeded but Pro didn't do so bad I thought...
Posted by CrysisPillar 6 years ago
CrysisPillar
I voted the way that I personally and honestly thought this debate went.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Really 8 - 9

Rockylightning voted all for him. Crysis do the same.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
I'm opposed to euthanasia because it is too subject to abuse. Heirs will pressure grandma to check out so they can get their hands on her money. That argument was not made in the debate, so I won't consider it.

A "right to life" doesn't mean an obligation to keep living, just as a right to own a gun doesn't mean an obligation to own one. Pro got that point. Based on what was presented overall, I gave Pro arguments.

Other than the part he copied, Pro's presentation was a mess. All the other categories go to Con.
Posted by CrysisPillar 6 years ago
CrysisPillar
Oh? Because I feel strong on this debate.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
I think this is the best debate I've had so far!
Posted by CrysisPillar 6 years ago
CrysisPillar
This is my first debate on a big issue; let's hope for the best!
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 6 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Switchlapse 6 years ago
Switchlapse
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by left_wing_mormon 6 years ago
left_wing_mormon
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by DylanFromSC 6 years ago
DylanFromSC
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by CrysisPillar 6 years ago
CrysisPillar
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03