The Instigator
vardas0antras
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
EnglishForAliens
Con (against)
Winning
6 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,973 times Debate No: 15404
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

vardas0antras

Pro

My opponent may begin.
EnglishForAliens

Con

Euthanasia is morally wrong and should remain illegal in any civilized society.

The case against Voluntary euthanasia - Many that are in favour of Voluntary Euthanasia make the case that an individual should have the right to end their own life, however this is the equivalent of giving the victim of a crime the right to decide the criminal's fate. We can't trust the victim of a crime to objectively look at their own case and come to a fair and balanced opinion on an accused's guilt or what a convict's sentence should be. Likewise when it is your own life at stake how can you be considered a fair and balanced judge on wether you should continue living or not? If someone who is suicidal has thoughts such as "I have nothing to live for", "No-one loves me", "I can't see any light at the end of a tunnel" how many others when looking at that persons life objectively would be likely to come to the same conclusions? In fact the opposite is the case, most of the time when suicidal people open up about thoughts like that to others they are not taken seriously. The objective observer would consider the thoughts that person is having as irrational, illogical and not even worth debating. Even if they do engage in debate the irrationality of the suicidal person is imposible to argue with. Just as impossible as it would be to argue with a mother who wants to see the killer of her child executed.

Non-voluntary Euthenasia or in other words deciding someone's life is not worth living for them. Someone could make a strong case that me spending hours on the internet reading nonsense and posting on social media is a life not worth living. What if they did the same to you. I think Martin Niem´┐Żller said it best
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
Debate Round No. 1
vardas0antras

Pro

I won't deal with "Non-voluntary Euthenasia" which incidentally is spelled incorrectly. Why? Because, I obviously didn't want to debate this and so if my opponent choses to debate he will lose the conduct point for ruining this debate. Consequently, this will also make me play dirty and I don't want to do that, though I'm good at it; Chrysippus was surely wrong when he thought that he can beat me at a game I asked God to invent.

Voters, if you want to torture someone by not allowing that person to end their life by their own choice which they hold every day then please feel free to vote CON, but if you despite your beliefs believe that dreams can come true, vote PRO.

Now, there are people who, indeed, want assisted suicide due to "irrational, illogical and not even worth debating" thoughts, but when did I say that assisted suicide ought to be done at the snap of the fingers?

I believe in free will and that all own their body, not other people or the government, but you own your body. If so, it is correct to try to reason and help the person who wants assisted suicide, but at the end of the day, you don't have the right to stop them especially if they're obviously not ruled by emotions at this point.
EnglishForAliens

Con

Since you pointed out a spelling mistake and gave orders to the voters around what they should do with the conduct points it seems to me that you are already playing dirty. If not you are at best treating the readers of this debate with a certain amount of contempt by implying they are incapable of doing a job without your help.

I have to confess to being new to this site so if there was anything to indicate that you wanted to debate "Assisted Suicide" and not Euthanasia can you point out to me how I could've determined this? Your topic indicated that you were Pro Euthanasia, in fact in the comments section of this debate another site member suggested that were they to take up this argument they would imply an outlandish definition of Euthanasia as you did not define it. Your response to this was to indicate that were he to do that you would "use the power of the dictionary". I feel that indicated that you were arguing the case for the exact definition of Euthanasia. According to Webster's this is simply "The act of killing someone painlessly".

By definition Dr Harold Shipment's campaign of mass murder was Euthanasia. I will leave it up to the voters to decide what they think of your attempt to re define what you were arguing in favour for midway through the debate.

Even your re definition of assisted suicide is a further dilution of the argument. "if you want to torture someone by not allowing that person to end their life by their own choice which they hold every day then please feel free to vote CON, but if you despite your beliefs believe that dreams can come true, vote PRO". This is not Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide. This is Suicide period.

Assisted suicide or Euthanasia has nothing to do with free will. The act specifically refers to the actions of a person who actively participates in ending the life of someone else. It has nothing to do with the right of a person to die that is a completely different argument.

Your final paragraph is disjointed. What exactly is it you are arguing for? In it's few lines you switch from the right to end your own life to the decision of another to participate in ending a life, then back to the right to suicide by talking about not having the right to stop them.

The point to consider in the debate on Euthanasia is clear. It has nothing to do with an individual who wants to end their life. The question is: Does anyone have the right to participate in the premeditated clinical ending of another person's life.

If you want to discard the idea of non voluntary Euthanasia then I will proceed to round three and let the voters decide how they view this. If you want to change this argument to be about the right to commit suicide without interference or the right to do what you want with your own body then please start another debate. That jump in subject is too far. Euthanasia refers to the other party involved in a death, not the person who is going to die.
Debate Round No. 2
vardas0antras

Pro

+Introduction+
My opponent thinks that he's an omnipotent debater, but he is not. I admit that it would have been better for everyone if I were to provide the definitions, but notice that my opponent has not, also, provided any definitions. Because, I have absolutely no time right now, I'll debate the proper way. That is to say, I'll simply confute his two arguments.

+Voluntary Euthanasia+
I emphasized free will while my opponent responded with " It has nothing to do with the right of a person to die that is a completely different argument." because of definitions which neither of us provided. Yes, his argument is from definition, something that he didn't provide.

What about definitions? Well, the first round is supposed to establish everything so the best thing to do is to see how we used the word "Euthanasia". "Many that are in favour of Voluntary Euthanasia make the case that an individual should have the right to end their own life" Apparently, his argument from definition is invalid for the definition has to do with the person, too.

+Involuntary Euthanasia+
The definition my opponent provided was " deciding someone's life is not worth living for them".
Then he says "Someone could make a strong case that me spending hours on the internet reading nonsense and posting on social media is a life not worth living." but isn't that corruption? The problem lays in one taking others life because they feel like being God; this is not an example of a "life not worth living". A good example would be the life of Adolf Hitler.

+Extra+
"Since you pointed out a spelling mistake and gave orders to the voters around what they should do with the conduct points it seems to me that you are already playing dirty."

I just pointed out my opponents mistakes (something that you too ought to do). Just wait for the RFDs, the readers are even more naughty especially the ones that read debates.

"If not you are at best treating the readers of this debate with a certain amount of contempt by implying they are incapable of doing a job without your help."

And, you're treating the readers with even more contempt since you're implying that they're incapable of realizing when they're being mocked without your help! You see, I too, can have skewed logic.

"This is not Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide. This is Suicide period."
Nope, my scenario is an example of both.
"Helping a person to end his or her life by request in order to end suffering. (Rarely prosecuted and only lawful in Switzerland where the reasons must be altruistic.)"
http://www.assistedsuicide.org...
EnglishForAliens

Con

Your first paragraphs are an attempt to get away with a poor and dare I say it underhanded opening argument. Your implying that my arguments are invalid because they rely on definitions that were never provided. What exactly was any opponent on this debate supposed to do? I return to your contributions to the comments section. A potential opponent pointed out the issues that would surround this debate because of a lack of definition. You said you would use "the power of the dictionary". I believe this indicated that you would be as specific as possible with the definition of Euthanasia, the very fact that you won't accept the dictionary definition is proof of a lost argument. The fact that you would have used a different definition depending on what argument was put to you suggests to me that you had every intention of using your lack of definition to trap an opponent into a debate on something they never intended to be involved in. This is underhanded and not in the spirit of healthy debate on a very important and emotive subject.

The rest of your post is pedantic and still after three rounds you have not offered a single argument in favour of any contention that taking someone's life or participating in taking a life painlessly were the intention is to either put them out of their misery or to help society as a whole is morally correct. That is Euthanasia.

Your initial intention of dismissing non voluntary Euthanasia proves the argument against any type of Euthanasia. Your are clearly against non voluntary Euthanasia as any reasonable human being should be. My argument starting from round one is that it is impossible to use the fact that someone wants to end their life as an argument that is then ok to take that life. No-one can possibly have a balanced rational non emotional opinion on whether they should remain alive or not. Taking this on board there is no such thing as voluntary Euthanasia and there is no moral difference between a doctor in Switzerland and a Nazi in charge of a mental health facility in the 40's. The fact that someone tells you they want to die may make a humanitarian difference between the two but they are still committing the same act. In fact the Nazi would believe that what they are doing is a good thing for society. The Swiss doctor is banking a check.

Not stopping a suicide or failing to intervene in saving a life were the person wants to die is a very different debate. In these cases you don't kill the person. Someone's right to die is totally different from someone's right to kill.

In closing you cannot use the fact that someone wants to end their life as a reason to allow you to participate in their death. They cannot make a rational non emotional judgement on their own life. No civilized country legally allows victims to judge accused criminals for a very good reason. We should apply that same reasoning to Euthanasia.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by vardas0antras 3 years ago
vardas0antras
Hehe this time I won't respond quickly because of anime :D and projects >:( but yeah I won't be late
Posted by vardas0antras 3 years ago
vardas0antras
Challenge me to karaoke...IF YOU DARE >:)
Posted by vardas0antras 3 years ago
vardas0antras
" I will likely, if given the chance, define euthanasia as "the wholesale slaughter of all humans older than 50, or bedridden for more than a week.," and then show how terrible an idea this is."
And, then I would use the power of the dictionary!!!
Posted by EnglishForAliens 3 years ago
EnglishForAliens
Ok, got it now. Chrysippus 43 is not the debate opener he was considering taking the challenge.
Posted by EnglishForAliens 3 years ago
EnglishForAliens
Ok, I am a noob. It says Euthenasia and then displays you as "Pro(for)", but the definition in your comment "define euthanasia as "the wholesale slaughter of all humans older than 50, or bedridden for more than a week.," implies you are against Euthensia?

I intended to debate against euthenasia, help were did I go wrong?
Posted by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
....aaaand a n00b takes it. I feel so deprived.

EnglishForAliens, welcome to DDO. Have fun.
Posted by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
VA, I give you the opportunity to re-write this into something you can win before I take it. I will likely, if given the chance, define euthanasia as "the wholesale slaughter of all humans older than 50, or bedridden for more than a week.," and then show how terrible an idea this is.

If you would like to defend a different definition of euthanasia, please provide one :P
Posted by Thaddeus 3 years ago
Thaddeus
Yo. This is very open to abuse. Just a heads up
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
vardas0antrasEnglishForAliensTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: "Voters, if you want to torture someone by not allowing that person to end their life by their own choice which they hold every day then please feel free to vote CON" - seriously, appeal to emotion much.
Vote Placed by Adamant1 3 years ago
Adamant1
vardas0antrasEnglishForAliensTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had awful conduct. Pro made spelling mistakes. Pro also made more convincing arguments. There were no sources used.