The Instigator
laurenoschmann
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
BangBang-Coconut
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Euthanasia

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,058 times Debate No: 15422
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

laurenoschmann

Pro

Euthanasia should be legal in the United States. However, only when voluntary. A person has the right to life, and therefore they also have the right to die. Why should they suffer if they don't have to or don't want to any longer? Nobody should have to suffer for a longer period of time if they don't want to. Being terminally ill and fighting for so long is suffering enough. They must grow tired of it and if there is a way to end the suffering peacefully and safely then people should at least have the choice to choose assisted suicide.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent for offering up such a socially conscious topic for us to debate, and discuss. Hopefully this will be an enlightening, and fun debate!

So first of all, when looking at the topic in conjunction with my opponent's constructive statements, we see that my opponent has the burden of proof to show us that Euthanasia is beneficial.

Now in order to do this, my opponent has take the route of saying that if a person has the right to life, they have the right to death.

Now as the Con, my burden is not to prove that Euthanasia is a bad thing (although I could, and will do so) but simply to disprove my opponent. So with that, I will get into my refutation of the Pro's arguments.

Pro-

As previously stated my opponent and further clarified by myself, my opponent's only argument thus far is that because people have a right to life, they have a right to death as well. However this is a complete and utter fallacy.

The only way this could be a true statement, is if both live and death where the same thing they are not. According to Princeton.net [1] Life, is the period of between the present until death. (meaning that death is separate from life.) where as Death [2] is the absence of life.

Now my opponent furthers this claim by saying that if a person no longer wishes to suffer, they should be able to just end their own life and be done with the suffering. To this I have several arguments-

First, people are not creatures independent of the need of others. Accordingly when we are around others we develop emotional attachment to them. So by a person ending their own suffering they thereby cause others who loved this person to suffer. Which dramatically infringes upon their rights.

Second, there is always hope. For some-one to end their life that would indicate that they have no hope of ever getting better. However there are many many many example of people who have had so called "terminal" diseases and have come back from the brink of them. I can contend that my own father was one of these people (however I know an argument like that has no place in a debate) so we can instead look to the case of [3] Brenda who had been given only six months to live, but as of April 14th 2007 was declared completely free of illness.

Third, suicide is the easy way out. Let's take a moment to look at how rapidly medicine is advancing every single day. There are diseases that have literally been wiped completely out! Small pox [4] is just one of the many examples of this. But not only that there are medical treatments here now in 2011 that we couldn't even have dreamt of only a few years ago!

And so, keeping all of this in mind, we have absolutely no reason to vote for the Pro in this debate. Instead you must negate, and vote Con.

I now hand the debate back over to my opponent!

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[3] http://www.metacafe.com...
[4] http://www.emedicinehealth.com...
Debate Round No. 1
laurenoschmann

Pro

My opponent states that there are cases where those who were diagnosed terminally ill do recover and that there is hope for them, however cases like that are lucky and rare. You can't base an argument off of simple luck and good fortune.

People who are in the late stages of their terminal disease have a horrific future ahead of them. They watch and experience the gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In many cases, the illness slowly destroys 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. That being said, it is clearly more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and die with dignity if they choose to.

Yes, there are much more medicines and treatments today in 2011, but there are still minimal cures. Prolonged suffering is cruel and unnecessary to a person especially if they are done fighting, there is only so much a person can do while terminally ill. It must be exhausting and if after a long time they don't want to do it anymore they should have the choice to end their lives peacefully.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent greatly for their refutations in such a timely manner!

So for maximum clarity, I will structure my next round as follows.
First, refutations.
Second, Defenses.
Finally extensions and closing arguments.

So first, my opponent makes the claim that you cannot base an argument on simple good luck and fortune, however this is fallacious on many levels.
First my opponent fails to warrant this claim,she never tells us why we cannot do this. Therefore we cannot accept as an argument
Second, this is untrue; if there is even the slightest possibility that this can happen (which I have already warranted there is) the it is a viable and acceptable argument. Saying otherwise with-out proving it is extremely abusive and unfair to me.

Now going on, my opponent talks about some of the ill effects suffered by people in a more progressed stage of a terminal disease. They then go into detail about some of these ill effects.
Now while it would seem this would be a viable argument, there are several problems arising here we must look towards.
First, this is not an argument of logic, but of fact. Therefore for it to be a viable argument, it must be proven and shown to be true. Whereas the simple fact is, my opponent has not done this! Keeping this in mind, accordingly we cannot evaluate this argument. Again, I ask you to look to my provided example of Brenda who beat the odds, and did not either die, nor suffer mental disability.

Finally, my opponent dismisses my claim that medicine is rapidly growing every day, by simply accepting it and claiming it's not important. They then proceed to make an unwarranted claim that prolonged suffering is cruel and unnecessary.

First, again there is not warrant and thus no impact.
Secondly, link this to my second and third points in my last speech, that this is really just the easy way out. There are alternatives and this option is more or so just giving a reason to give up hope.

So with my opponent's stance accurately refuted, we can move on to the Con case.
We see my opponent never actually attacks my case, so I'll extend it.

As for extensions, my opponent makes none so we must count their prior points as drops.

Finally for closing arguments, I have none as my refutations are enough to suffice my winning at this point in time.

For all these reasons, I urge a Con vote :3

Back to pro!
Debate Round No. 2
laurenoschmann

Pro

We just cannot base such an argument on luck and good fortune, simply because if one person happens to miraculously recovers or lives longer than the expectancy that was given to them, that unfortunately does not necessarily mean that every single person who is diagnosed terminally ill will do so as well. Which is why we cannot base the argument on the slight chance of that, although I wish we could.

I'm not saying that the new and improved medicines and treatments are unimportant. Rather I'm saying, if a person is ill enough and suffering enough to consider assisted suicide, they are most likely to stop their treatments anyway, which would only lead to the previously mentioned illness side effects. If they are choosing to stop treatments, it is most likely that they are going to die sooner rather than later, and euthanasia puts off the prolonged sickness and suffering they would be experiencing without receiving their treatments anyway.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent tremendously for their response!

Now looking at the debate thus far, my opponent still utterly fails to warrant any argument on their case, defend any of the attacks I've made on their case, or to attack my case at all. So everything before this round must go to the con; so for my responses in this round, I will deal only with arguments my opponent has made this round.

So first off going to their extension on saying that we still can't look to such unlikely events;
One, my opponent never warrants this claim but instead opts to a technique known as "Reject The Aff (or in this case the con)" where they simply doubt my claim with no viable reason and as that you just simply not vote on it.
Two, My opponent never covers my claims in the prior round, so we can extend these forward as direct defenses toward her already baseless claims.

now secondly my opponent actually accepts the fact I present concerning how medicine is advancing so rapidly everyday, but still goes on to make the baseless claim that when people are so far along in whatever terminal illness they have they simply give up on life.
One, not only is this untrue on so many levels, but my opponent has yet to warrant such a claim. whereas I have provided direct evidence proving the converse in the case of Brenda [3]
Two, this is still a horrible thing for anyone who believes in medicine to claim; as it it kills all hope some-one could have in getting better. It is simply giving up

So I ask you to vote Con as my opponent still give you no reason to vote them up; whereas I do.
Thank you :D
Debate Round No. 3
laurenoschmann

Pro

It is not considered giving up hope, it is considered coming to terms with the fact that you are dying and there is not much more you can do. As you had mentioned your father came back from being terminally ill, I have had the opposite of that experience where my best friend was dying of a terminally ill disease. She herself could feel herself dying and her body slowing shutting down and she had come to terms with it, she was suffering and knew what was happening. Had there been an option for her to put an end to her pain and die peacefully, I think she would have considered it, I obviously however can not and will not speak for her. But I believe there definitely should be a choice, for voluntary euthanasia.

No one should be forced to stay alive, and I don't find it right that doctors should do everything that they can to keep them alive if the patient themselves have made it clear that they no longer wish to stay alive. Insisting on keeping them alive against their wishes is not fair and uncompassionate. I'm sorry, but if you cannot respect someone's dying wishes, then that makes you extremely uncompassionate. Not only that, but keeping a person alive who has come to terms with their dying is not medically sound. You can only keep someone alive for so long and if someone does not wish to drag out their already little time, I don't believe they should be forced to be kept alive.

Also, There is a difference between living and artificial life, If a person is in such a state then it seems only humane to let them die, especially if it is their wish.

In an attempt to provide medical and emotional care to the patient, a doctor does and should prescribe medicines that will relieve his suffering even if the medications cause gross side effects. This means that dealing with agony and distress should be the priority even if it affects the life expectancy. Euthanasia follows the same theory of dealing with torment in a way to help one die peacefully out of the compromising situation.

Euthanasia should be considered a natural extension of patient's rights allowing him to decide the value of life and death for him. Maintaining life support systems against the patient's wish is considered unethical by law as well as medical philosophy. If the patient has the right to discontinue treatment why would he not have the right to shorten his lifetime to escape the intolerable pain and suffering? Isn't the pain of waiting for death frightening and traumatic even if they have come to terms with it and accepted it?

One issue that may arise would be the family, and relatives who may misuse the euthanasia rights for wealth inheritance does not hold true. The reason being even with the absence of euthanasia , the relatives can withdraw the life support systems that could lead to the early death of the patient as welll. This can be considered as passive involuntary euthanasia. Here they aren't actively causing the death, but passively waiting for it without the patient's consent.

source:http://www.buzzle.com...
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent for their responses!

First on hope, as I have already proven there is always a chance some-one with a "terminal" illness can get actually get better this is giving up hope. My opponent claims that they are simply "coming to terms with it" and while that seems viable we cannot forget that the person is not dead yet; thus there is still always hope that they could get better.

As for my opponent's counter example, we cannot weigh that any more than we can weigh the example of my father (which is why I supplied the example of Brenda); as there is no way to confirm it's validity. Also I would like to point out that if this where a truthful example, my opponent would have brought it up before now as opposed to my opponent's prior lackadaisical stance an the matter. Not only that but in my opponent's example her friend does not choose euthanasia.

Going on, my opponent takes the realm of this debate outside of a professional level and resorts to pathos based example and personal attacks on my compassion. Beyond that allow me to point out that there is a stark differentiation between my opponent's proposed violating some-one's wishes by giving them continuing medical care and euthanizing them. First if they don't want to try and get better they have no business making it a medical situation in the first place, by imposing such a thing on a doctor they cause the doctor to violate their [5]Hippocratic oath.
Since my opponent simple contends to give us no real evidence or logic but continues to be a bleeding heart on the subject; allow me to be blunt. Death and suffering are a part of life; it is sad, and it is hard but that does not mean you just throw in the towel. What that means is you fight until the very end, sucking every last bit out of life you can.

as for my opponent's final argument; at this point they are becoming desperate. This claim violates their initial stance they make at the beginning of the round that the euthanasia is only viable if the person being euthanize desires it. Going on, by making a doctor make this decision they violate the doctor's Hippocratic oath.

Also going on to my opponent's source;
First, they never actually tells us where they analyze this in their speech, or tell what they are pulling from this source.

Second, this is a list of pre-planned pro and con arguments so even if they did use these arguments it would be blatant plagiarism and I wouldn't even be debating my opponent, but some-one else.

Finally, my opponent makes no notion that they even use this as a source, they simply tag it onto their case. This is obvious as the majority of their case consists of personal examples and weak logical analysis.

Finishing up, my opponent still does not negate the Con stance on the matter, and still drops all their prior argumentation. So I again extend all prior arguments uncontested and ask for a Con vote in this round.

Sources-
[5] http://nktiuro.tripod.com...
Debate Round No. 4
laurenoschmann

Pro

I was not using my example for sympathy or spilling my heart out on the matter, I was just going to show a real life opposite example to the one you gave about your father. Which also could have no validity just as well as your example of Brenda, there could be several examples for either side but neither would have proof.

Death is a part of life, but suffering does not have to be. Until you are in a situation who are you to say that these people should just suck it up and deal with it as a part of life while they could have the option to put an end to it? Nobody should have to suffer any longer than they are willing to. It is the patients choice, they have the right to live and they have the right to die which is why euthanasia should be legal.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

First of all I conceded that my example about my father was not relevant in this debate right when I posted it. which is why I gave the warranted example of Brenda (which you never refute nor warrant (as of your last speech) why it is not a valid example). and yes there could be several other sides, which if they had been introduced into the round with viable evidence could be proof.

Point being my opponent never warrants anything to their case.
Every new argument in this round my opponent presents completely new ideas in which they completely and utterly fail to warrant or provide evidence for.

Going on. my opponent presents another argument; but I'll be frank, I'm almost completely sure it is as content-less and unwarranted all her prior. Splice in the fact that this is a completely new argument in the last speech, and I simply don't see the need to even bother with it.

Am I being rude? No, I am simply doing the same thing as my opponent and not even reading their opponent's arguments. Should I lose a conduct point. No, as my opponent has done the same thing throughout this entire round.

so finally; vote Con, as my opponent has give absolutely no rhyme or reason to vote otherwise.

With my remaining, I will spell the word "ham" continuously.

Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham
Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham. (Again, vote Con.)
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
A note to all the voters, and my opponent;

I am profusely sorry for my conduct in the last round. Please forgive my being an idiot.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by bgruber93 3 years ago
bgruber93
laurenoschmannBangBang-CoconutTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I liked pros arguments better.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 3 years ago
Zealous1
laurenoschmannBangBang-CoconutTied
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: Lol...
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
laurenoschmannBangBang-CoconutTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Quite frankly, I don't even know how the pro is even close to winning this one. Drops arguments, isn't formatted, Doesn't seemed to have fully read con's case. Make half-hearted arguments. Con talks about how euthanasia infringes upn others rights, giving him the debate.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 3 years ago
Jillianl
laurenoschmannBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con automatically lost the conduct point with the "ham" thing.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 3 years ago
Rockylightning
laurenoschmannBangBang-CoconutTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct: more orderly arguments: pro failed to refute spelling: con made a few mistakes Sources: more abundant and credible
Vote Placed by KRFournier 3 years ago
KRFournier
laurenoschmannBangBang-CoconutTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's position was clear, but it seemed primarily supported by appeal to emotion. Con provided multiple reasons to reject Pro's position, which was never really addressed with logic as much as emotion. Agree that Con's conduct was childish. I also felt that Pro displayed better writing skills.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
laurenoschmannBangBang-CoconutTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave a good reason for favoring the right to suicide, to end a person's own suffering. Con's counter that there was a greater good to please the living is not compelling. Con made false accusations and ended in childish behavor -- the "ham" thing -- losing conduct. There is a case against euthanasia based upon abuse by relatives seeking the ding person's estate, but that didn't come up in this debate.