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

Euthanasia :)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 2/7/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 483 times Debate No: 69608
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Just your standard Euthanasia debate :)

Promt: Euthanasia should be legal in the US.


As my opponent has not posted any definitions please allow me to do so.
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.
Debate Round No. 1


Euthanasia should be banned in the US because doctors are healers, not murders, and euthanasia is against god's will. Furthermore, there's the slippy slope effect of when you make euthanasia for some people it will be expanded to more people. For example, most people think euthanasia refers to killing old and sick people but should a 8 year old be allowed to be euthanized? In Vacco v. Quill (1996) the supreme court already ruled against euthanasia in a 9-0 vote. It is for these reasons that I can only see a con ballet.


To begin with, saying anything is against god's will implies that either everybody believes in god (which not everyone does) or that this law will only impact religous people (not true, everyone is impacted). Secondly the slippery slope effect is an unproved concept that has nothing to do with the euthanasia being legalised. Doctors are healers, but we are talking about things here that can't be healed. In response to your 8 year old boy argument, If he was in extreme pain, Why forcde him to keep going. Euthanasia is a kindness offered under strict conditions, and that is what should be legalized. If done correctly the slippery slop can not happen.
Debate Round No. 2


"If done correctly the slippery slop can not happen." You admit there is a slippery slope and you think you can prevent it. How would you on earth manage to have a euthanasia law done so that slippery slope can not happen. An 8 year old in pain shouldn't be killed because he still has a life ahead of him and killing him will only hurt him and the people around him. You say doctors are healers, but we are talking about things that can't be healed. Doctors being able to be murders would clearly make this fine line between saving a life and ending one blurry.

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.


Your "I win this debate" argument is ridiculous. The slippery slope is fiction. You claim my arguments have no basis in fact, however before that you quote 11.3% involuntary euthanasia figures wthout providing a source.
read the article at 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
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
I'm confused. Are you for euthanasia or against it?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
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.