Debate Rounds (3)
Promt: Euthanasia should be legal in the US.
Euthanasia = the modical killing of someone in extreme and uncurable pain.
I will be for Euthanasia being legal, while my opponent must try to prove while it should not be legal.
Gregory Koukl, Founder and President of Stand to Reason, noted in his Stand to Reason radio show (KBRT, AM 740 in Los Angeles) commentary titled "Euthanasia, Rights & Metaphysics" on the Stand to Reason website (accessed Oct. 9, 2009):
"Now in Holland, twenty years later, twenty years of de facto, legalized euthanasia, where doctors administer it, nearly twenty per cent of the deaths of that country every single year, 19.4% specifically, are a result of euthanasia. One in five people in Holland are euthanized...
11.3%, more than one in ten, of the total number of deaths in that country, every single year (14,691 according to the Dutch government...) are cases of involuntary euthanasia. What's involuntary euthanasia? That's when the patient says, 'I don't want to die,' and the doctor says, 'you're dead,' zap...
Your life is valuable if it makes a contribution. It is not making a contribution, so you are out of here. That's not just a slippery slope fallacy. That's not the old domino scare tactic. It's already happening in Holland and it started just this way. That's why when you make this kind of decision you better do your metaphysical thinking first. Instead of having your metaphysical conclusions that you made unwittingly gobble you up in the end. "
Now you called me a liar saying there is no proof of slippery slope when clearly there is. You are saying statements that simply are not factually correct and therefore, I win this debate.
read the article at http://www.washingtonpost.com... and follow their sources. This article states that involuntary euthanasia is exceedingly rare and quotes it's sources.
My I also comment that in order for anyone to be euthanised they need to have an extremely painfull and uncurable disease. This ruins the life of anyone who gets it regardless of age.
This argument is up to the people. I may very well win this debate and saying you will win is an uneducated assumption as you have no record at all of winning debates on this site. Don't criticise me for possibly doing somthing then do it yourself.
Also I would like to remind everyone that euthanasia on petts is legal and there is no "slippery slope" there.
I rest my case and leave it to the people to decide
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was poor on both sides. S&G was about equal, with no major problems. Sources go to Pro for using one. Arguments were weak for both sides. Pro might have arguments by a slim margin but is already getting two points for citing a single source.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.