Legalization of suicide
Debate Rounds (3)
To start with, primarily, suicide is, in a way equal to murder, only that in this scenario the life in question is one's own. This might sound counter-intuitive at first glance but the question I'm posing is do we have the authority to take our own life? Life wasn't something that we created and it's origin or purpose is pretty unclear.
In short, we don't technically own our life because we neither created it nor were reason behind it being created. Destroying something which we don't have any authority on is illegal. Suicide is destroying a life hence suicide is illegal. PRO in order to support his stance must prove that we DO HAVE the authority to take our own life by using rational arguments.
I've made this round quite laconic seeing that my opponent hasn't made any arguments of his own. I'll be presenting the rest of my arguments which shall form the crux of my case in the upcoming rounds.
Looking forward to an intellectual and invigorating debate. :)
Suicide should be legalized as it would reduce the population, save on cops' resources, increase efficiency, reduce resource consumption and reduce the influence of media.
Since when suicide will be legalized the population should reduce in nearly every country. The dramatic reduction of population would reduce resource consumption of resources such as food, water, oil, gasoline etc. It will also reduce pollution, as lesser people means lesser usage of cars, and cars cause pollution. Also, facilities that require electricity would be reduced as a dead man won't be in need of it. It will increase efficiency as there will be no more weak-willed people on this planet, and a more productive workforce.
In the current system, after a suicide, a cop has to write a police report and actually try and investigate as to who caused this suicide. This wastes a lot of time of the cops. When suicide is legalized, there will be lesser paperwork and the police will be chasing after actual criminals rather than these dead ends. If the case was really serious, then the victim could have easily reported it to the cops.
It will reduce media's influence as right now whenever someone suicides, the media turns it into a big story and uses it to sell its papers. When suicide is legal, the development will blow-off in a month and be an old-story.
I would like to implement this through development of suicide centers, for I don't want someone's dead body on the driveway on an early morning. The effect can be quite disconcerting on the neighbors, and I doubt anyone would have the nerve to move the dead body of someone they knew a few days ago.
Suicide centers will have a psychiatirarist who will try to convince the client not to suicide. The client will be required to give an RFD like in debate.org's votes, and if it involves illegal harassment, only then the police shall be brought in, if the victim's account seems truthful enough and the victim wants to a file a complaint but is scared.
If all the convincing fails, the client shall be asked to choose their method of death. Hanging would be the cost-free death for the client, and if the client wants some other method they would have to get the tools themselves with their own money. Also, property would be assigned to the owner that the client wishes to give it to, and a will shall be made.
There will be a pamphlet for the army and police, and the client would be recommended to lay down his/her life for a cause, for they should have no fear as they have come to the door of death. If the client agrees, he shall be warned to be good at his duty and not shoot himself. Then the normal tests that every army/police/secret services candidate goes through shall be done, and if the client passes, he shall be enlisted. There shall be no exceptions and special treatment for the client though, except not very harsh treatment until the person seems to have normalized.
My opponent believes that our parents created our life. This is quite incorrect. If that was the case then can they control the gender of the baby? Can they decide what features they would want their child to have? Or can they at least decide which sperm should be the one that fertilizes the egg?
Parents are just a means through which we get our lives. They are not the creator of our life and they don't have the authority to destroy our life either.In fact, no one does.
Anyway moving on, I found the arguments used by my adversary to support his stance to be quite superficial. They are poorly researched and are rife with holes and irrational assumptions.
Furthermore, I should remind him that he is arguing for legalization of suicide in it's entirity and not arguing that it should be legal in select places('suicide centers' as he says it) and illegal elsewhere. In other words since he didn't set any conditions in the begining of this debate suicides should be unconditionally legal.
I have articulated his case into the major arguments he used and have given my rebuttal for the same.
i) Suicide should be legalized because it reduces population which in turn reduces resource consumption.
This approach by CON is quite narrow-minded and only considers a few select cases. For example what about the case when the people who produce these said 'resources' themselves decide to end their life? India is a country where the majority of the suicides that happen are in the farming comunity. In the year 2012 in India around 13754 farmers committed suicide(1). That's about 38 suicides per day. The number remains almost similiar each passing year. This case can be seen in several other countries as well. Legalization of suicide would just drastically increase the number and the plan to reduce resource consumption will become counter-productive with the resource in question itself getting diminished. A better alternative would be to have efficient resource allocation schemes to cater to the increasing population.
Furthermore, human beings are a resource themselves if properly educated, trained and brought up. Human beings are the pinnacle of evolution. Under the right circumstances an intellectually powered population can be the biggest asset a country can have. The working population put to good use can help a country by creating various opurtunities for it to improve or develop resource production and much more.
ii) Decrease cop's resources argument
Contrary to what PRO claims, legalization of suicide would actually result in an increase in 'cop resources' as the number of deaths would increase as well and it would be the duty of a cop to find out if the death was indeed a suicide or an intelligently plotted murder. Thus more cops would be needed to handle the new situation and this in turn would become a burden to the government. The same goes for media.
iii) Implementation: Suicide Centers
PRO's proposal here is quite irrational cause he bases it entirely on the assumption that a said person who wants to kill himself would want to go to these suicide centers which employs such elaborate procedures as mentioned. This is, in fact, quite silly. A person who wants to kill himself would kill himself not go to a place where he would be counseled out of it or, as PRO states, be asked to join the army.
People commit suicide usually when life becomes too difficult to live. They see death as a solution, as a way out in their moment of distress. This prompts people to kill themselves. But it's often forgotton that solving their problems or getting past them is not impossible. Sometimes the individuals can do it on their own and sometimes they might need outside help. To tackle these kind of situations a better proposal would be to have suicide-counseling centres and spread enough awareness among the masses so that if a person gets suicidal feeling he/she can approach these centres. They will be a functioning body which provides emotional, moral and probably, if the case seems fit, even financial support to a given person who approaches them. Again this place would only help people who are in a dilemna with the decision of suicide. So this might not stop suicides from happening but will sure reduce it. And reducing suicides would benifit us by conserving the best resource a nation could have, humans ourselves.
So to sum up:
1) We don't have the authority to destroy our lives.
2) Human beings are the best resource a nation could have.
3) Legalization of suicide would increase the expenditure spent on cops.
4) It's better to open counselling centers and spread awareness to reduce suicide than legalize it.
Over to PRO.
Parents can't control our biological traits, but without them you won't be here. They passed all their genes onto you, and it depends on random luck which of the genes get activated. Parents are our creators. Moreover, the question of free will must come into play. My life, my rules. Furthermore, it doesn't matter who morally has the authority or not. If it can be done, it can be done. Thus, con's point is moot.
2) Human beings are the best resource a nation could have.
That way India should be about 3 times better than the US.
"Furthermore, I should remind him that he is arguing for legalization of suicide in it's entirety and not arguing that it should be legal in select places('suicide centers' as he says it) and illegal elsewhere "
I am arguing that the act of committing suicide should be legal in all countries through the creation of suicide centers.
Now, suppose I am taking a stroll on my lawn, and a dead body falls on me, wouldn't that ruin my day? Legalizing suicide that way would be absurd.
1) If farmers die, their lands would be given off to other farmers. And if all farmers die, then the country's government would take drastic steps and ask people to manage the lands and become farmers. Furthermore, there are quite few farmers compared to the citizens. Suppose if a few unemployed graduates die, would anyone care?
Human beings give back less and take more, and are not a good resource. Moreover, people who are broken down to commit suicide may not be useful enough to the world, as with a weak will it is hard to do productive work.
2. My argument of suicide centers come into play here.
3. Suicide centers would only recommend joining the army, it is still an individual's choice. As for considering out of it, people feel less stressed when they reveal their problems to someone else, and who knows, all they lacked was some good old advice.
Surely I must use con's point here- "A person who wants to kill himself would kill himself not go to a place where he would be counseled out of it"
Suicide centers would be a sort of counseling centers and if it fails, would help wrapping it up in a clean way. Con hasn't rebutted by point about property allocations. Legalizing suicide through my method should make sure there are lesser disputes over property after the death of the suicider, but if suicide remains illegal it will still cause property disputes. Another point is that illegal suicide cause inconvenience to the general public, and legalizing suicide would help get rid of that problem.
Suicide centers would be needed as we can't randomly let anyone kill themselves on the streets. The resolution is "Legalization of suicide" and I propose to legalize suicide this way. Con's only rebuttal was that I said suicide should be legalized in all places, not select places, but I argue that it will be fully legalized in a countries which have suicide centers. It's like saying that since it is legal to drive, I can drive on anyone's lawn and drive over footpaths or crash into a building. There always have to be some rules, or else there will be chaos all over.
At this point it's pretty clear that my adversary has failed to fulfil his BOP on why suicides should be legalized. I'll be using this round to show the flaws of my opponents case and I'll be strengthening my own arguments.
CI) Unfair argument of Conditional Legalization of suicides by PRO
My adversary doesn't understand why his stance requires him to vouch for unconditional legalization of suicides. For example, if legalization of smoking was the resolution then, in effect, it would be required to argue that people should have the freedom to smoke at places where they find it comfortable to do so, unless conditions are specified in the rules. The same goes for suicides. My adversary hasn't explictly mentioned anywhere in the resolution that legalization of suicides is subject to the condtition that they only do it in suicide centers and him advocating for the same when he's supposed to argue for the the whole case has already made him fail at meeting his BOP. To put it in an analogy, it's like pushing for legalization of, let's say, driving and arguing that it can be legal only in a specific select roads and it should be illegal in all other roads. PRO tries to strawman here by saying it would be disturbing if dead people showed up in our lawns which is, quite in fact, absurd because it's a rather unlikely occurence. But let's say we agree with him. Then what about the cases where suicides doesn't infringe the properties of other people? why hasn't PRO advocated for this? PRO has taken the easy way out here and hence has left his BOP unfulfilled.
CII) We don't have the authority to destroy our lives.
My adversary has only stated 'my life my rules' to counter this. The creation and purpose of life is beyond what we can understand. It's impossible to create life from scratch artificially and this inability of us to do so itself tells volumes of something existing beyond our understanding that has led to the creation of our lives. What gives us the authority to destroy something that we didn't create? Unfortunately PRO hasn't made any strides in answering this question.
CIII) Human beings are the best resource a nation could have.
In an another attempt at strawmanning, my opponent says India should be three times more powerful than America because of it's huge population when I've clearly stated that 'human beings are a resource themselves if properly educated, trained and brought up. Human beings are the pinnacle of evolution. Under the right circumstances an intellectually powered population can be the biggest asset a country can have .' So I reiterate Human beings are the best resource a nation could have and encouraging suicides to decrease the human population can be counter-productive.
CIV) Legalization of suicide would increase the expenditure spent on cops.
My adversary makes no attempt at rebutting this argument. I've made it clear that legalization of suicides would encourage more people to go for it and this would increase the expenditure spent on cops as they would have to investigate each and every case to determine if it was just a suicide or an intelligently plotted murder.
CV) It's better to open counselling centers and spread awareness to reduce suicide than legalize it.
Yes it would be unwise to expect everyone who is about to commit suicide to approach these centers but this was meant as a counter-proposal against my adversary's idea of opening suicide centers which is just absurd as it neither upholds his position on the resolution in this debate nor gaurantees that a suicidal person would, in fact, go to these suicide centers to end his life. I mean this is a person who's going to die I'm talking about. He/she wouldn't care about rules or suicide centers when they've decided to kill themselves.
However, this argument applies to my proposal as well and that is why I've explicitly stated that it would be for people with suicidal instincts facing mental or financial problems than the people who've taken an unwavering decision to die. This would only decrease the number of suicides and save a country's most valuable resource and that is us humans. Furthermore, the number of people these counselling centers save can be increased by spreading awareness and discouraging suicides as well.
CVI) Why PRO's arguments fail
PRO has argued for conditional selective legalization of suicides in these selective suicide centers. This move of his, by itself, has left his BOP unfulfiled. But the major drawback why PRO's arguments fails is that, it is entirely based on the assumption that people who want to commit suicide would go to these suicide centers in the first place. This expectation is actually quite absurd seeing that there are absolutely no incentives for a said person to approach these suicide centers. Thus his arguments about property allocation and other benifits associated with having a 'suicide center' only work if this assumption holds true. As I stated earlier a person who has decided to die has no reason to abide the laws or care what is legal and what is not when he has decided to leave all of it altogether. So this incoherency in PRO's argument, which he unfortunately didn't pay much attention to, renders his entire case groundless and unsubstantiated.
PRO fails to uphold the resolution even though he had the BOP to do so. I've shown the incoherency of his arguments and have given my own arguments as to why the resolution shouldn't be enforced.
Hence, I urge a CON ballot.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by missmozart 3 months 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
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.