The Instigator
Maddie98
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Philocat
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Legalize 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Philocat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,331 times Debate No: 69809
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (44)
Votes (3)

 

Maddie98

Pro

This first round will only be to establish definitions/basic information on the topic and to confirm our positions.
I will be pro-euthanasia and my opponent will be against it.
Philocat

Con

I accept the debate.

As Pro has not defined euthanasia, I will do so:

'the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die' (1)

I will be arguing that this practice ought not to be made legal.



(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Maddie98

Pro

In regards to the idea that every individual holds different beliefs and perspectives on ethical issues, such as the one we will debate now, I believe that human euthanasia should be legalized for the pure fact that any individual, that is suffering from a disease/illness that is terminal, should be able to choose how they will go about dealing with their situation. Euthanasia should not be permitted to any random person that decides arbitrarily to walk into a clinic and ask to be euthanized, but instead should be offered (restrictively) to persons suffering from terminal illness. Instead of forcing someone to suffer through the pain (for what might be a couple years) before they naturally die, someone should be able to decide on when they want to stop the pain. People would be able to talk it out with families, plan a date for the procedure, and decide on their own when the right time to pass peacefully is. In contrast, other people who are against euthanasia will still be able to decline that option- because legalizing euthanasia doesn't imply that one MUST choose to use the procedure.
Philocat

Con

I see where Pro is coming from - she makes some valid points but ultimately they are too utopian.

Note that I am not debating the intrinsic morality of euthanasia; what I will be arguing is that it should not be legalised because doing so would negatively impact society and the people within it.




My first argument against euthanasia is that death, and the choice to end one's life, is arguably the most significant decision that one can ever make. There is no changing of your mind when you decide to end your life - the consequences are eternal.

Considering this fact, we can see that euthanasia is simply too serious a decision to allow people to make.
A 2001 study by Dr Robert Fine observed that many people with terminal illnesses suffer from 'depression, anxiety, and delirium'. (1)
In the context of the law, mentally ill people are deemed, to differing degrees, 'mentally incompetent'. This is to say that they require a guardian to govern their personal affairs (implying that mentally people cannot make informed and sensible decisions concerning their personal affairs)(2).

Therefore, as many terminally ill patients have poor mental health, if they request euthanasia then we would be naive to suppose that their decision was sensibly made, free from manipulation or fully-informed.
Therefore, euthanasia should not be legalised.




My second argument is that the widespread use of euthanasia (as demonstrated by the rising euthanasia statistics in countries such as the Netherlands(3)) will mean that it will ultimately become the 'default' way to die. The process, to put it bluntly, would be something along the lines of:

1. Person Q is diagnosed with a terminal illness X
2. Person Q observes that many people who suffer from X request euthanasia
3. Person Q, because it is the social norm, decides to request euthanasia
4. Person Q dies.

The problem with this progression of events is that it sabotages the field of medical research. The primary reason that medical research exists is to find cures for diseases. If it becomes the norm that people request euthanasia upon discovering that they have a deadly disease, then there is no motivation for scientists/physicians to develop new cures and medicines because patients will become less eager to be cured.
Why is this? Because the point of a cure is to prevent death. If people are asking for death when suffering from a particular disease, what is the point in finding a cure when many people are content to do without?
To summarise, euthanasia should not be legalised because it removes the motivation for medical research and related scientific-development.

My final argument is that it is far too idealistic to insist that people will make an uninfluenced and wholly autonomous decision. Elderly people especially are very susceptible to manipulation and persuasion. (4)
Therefore, it would be extremely easy for a greedy heir to persuade their parent(s) that euthanasia is the right thing to do. This is clearly a negative thing as it is essentially manipulating people to commit suicide for society's convenience.

Moreover, many old people have a form of 'martyr complex' where they do not want to be a burden on their family, friends and society in general. If euthanasia becomes legal, it becomes an acceptable option. If this option presents itself then there is no excuse for the elderly to not alleviate the burden that they pose. It is no stretch of the imagination to envision scenarios where the elderly are considered selfish for clinging onto life and draining resources.

Over to you Pro :)




(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(2) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
(3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
(4) Kantor, Martin (2006). The Psychopathology of Everyday Life: how to deal with manipulative people.
Debate Round No. 2
Maddie98

Pro

I understand where Con is ultimately coming from- He makes crucial points that do need to be considered when debating the legalization of such an impactful procedure, but there are holes within his argument that I believe need to be addressed.

My first rebuttal is the simple fact that, although ending one"s life is an eternal consequence like my opponent stated, the fate of these patients will already result in the equivalent outcome. Terminal, in Merriam-Webster"s online dictionary, means "leading ultimately to death (1)." With terminally ill patients, the outlook in the final stages of their ailment is an inevitable death. When considering this, one could find the point that no matter what the patient does in their situation, death will be an inescapable and irreversible outcome. What are these so-called "consequences" to physician-assisted suicide when the patient is going to die no matter what? So, why shouldn't a patient be in control of the conditions under which it occurs? If the patient were given the choice to be in control of how they would end up inevitably passing, one could schedule a date, make sure family would be there (because terminally ill patients can pass away arbitrarily in a hospital during a time family is not present), and clear up any unfinished business to the best of their abilities. Giving people the freedom to choose if they are terminal will give them the sense of control over something that is ultimately taking everything away from them. In many ways, I would compare it to the idea of shaving one"s head at the beginning of chemotherapy treatment. This gives a cancer patient the feeling of control over something that will inevitably happen due to their treatment (and I am in no way saying that death is the same as shaving one"s head, just the concept behind each is similar).

Now, this brings up the question of mental competency. While there are some patients that may have depression due to their illness, there are equally as many who are completely sensible in their decisions. Take the case of 29-year old Brittany Maynard who had a stage 4 Glioblastoma multiforme for an example. When being interviewed by People magazine, she stated: "There is not a cell in my body that is suicidal or that wants to die. I want to live. I wish there was a cure for my disease but there's not... My glioblastoma is going to kill me, and that's out of my control. I've discussed with many experts how I would die from it, and it's a terrible, terrible way to die. Being able to choose to go with dignity is less terrifying" (2). Maynard talked it out with her family in a very logical manor and was able to come up with a choice while being clearly competent of her options, future outlook, and what the use of euthanasia would ultimately mean for her. If euthanasia were to be legalized, restrictions could be made to require that psychologists do a Competency Screening Test on all potential euthanasia patients. While these are options on ways to regulate the use of euthanasia, I strongly believe that even if a patient might be depressed about inevitably dying (and wanting to decide when they should peacefully die), they should not be deprived of their human rights to be able to decide when they have suffered enough.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My next argument is that the widespread use of euthanasia (which only has the potential to become popularly used) will not ultimately result in euthanasia becoming the "default" way to die.

Like my opponent explained before me, I will explain this in a blunt process like the one in his argument:

1.Person X is diagnosed with terminal illness Y
2.Person X is educated by their doctor on the options that they have (such as euthanasia) available to terminal patients (like others suffering from Y)
3.Person X, due to extensive thought (keeping in mind their moral beliefs), will either request or decline euthanasia.
4.Person X dies (even if they declined euthanasia)

Although euthanasia may become a more widely accepted option among patients in the future if it is legalized, many people will not stray from their beliefs/morals held on death and the topic (like whether physician-assisted suicide is morally right).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another argument that I will address is how euthanasia will affect the field of medical research. Since there is no information that can prove what would exactly happen if euthanasia was legalized in the future, the only evidence I can use is my honest opinionated outlook (like my opponent"s argument on this specific sub-topic). My opponent stated that the primary reason that medical research is conducted is to find cures for disease. I wholly agree with his statement, but I disagree with his notion that a popularity in euthanasia use would drain all motivation from scientists/physicians to continue this research. For you to better understand my argument I will ask this: Why are physicians/scientists looking for cures today (with euthanasia being illegal)? The answer: Scientists are looking for cures because many people fall ill to terminal diseases and inevitably die, and they want to help prevent the suffering and deaths of these people. Like my opponent said, I agree with his statement that the point of a cure is to prevent death. I do not, however, agree with his statement: "If people are asking for death when suffering from a particular disease, what is the point in finding a cure when many people are content to do without?" I disagree with this statement because, if a patient is terminally ill and will inevitably die with or without euthanasia, the death of all of these patients (whether they die naturally from the illness or from euthanasia) will still motivate scientists to find a cure and prevent these deaths from even being necessary. So, I will clearly conclude that it will not lead to the decline of motivation in the field of medical research.

Also, in contrast to the final point that my opponent makes, the legalization of euthanasia will most certainly come with many restrictions and means of regulation. If it were to be legalized, the option would most likely only be offered to terminally ill patients, not just average elderly people.

So, to overall conclude my rebuttal, euthanasia should be legalized because it shouldn't lead to a decline in a search for cures, many people will be able to decide responsibly if given the option, and people should be given the right to die peacefully and in control (if they choose to) instead of inevitably dying a little later on painfully (and without knowing when it will all end).

Back to you, Con :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) "terminal." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2015. Web. 13 Feb. 2015.
<http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
(2) "Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?" ProCon.org. ProCon, 13 Oct. 2014.
Web. 13 Feb. 2015.
<http://euthanasia.procon.org...;

*note that I'm new to this website and I don't know how to italicize on here so sorry for the slightly incorrect citations
Philocat

Con

My opponent attempts to refute my first argument by appealing to the fact that the patient will die anyway, irrespective of whether or not they ask for euthanasia. However, surely this logic can be applied to all human life? We will all die at some point, so surely our whole lives are terminal?

The logic fails because the fact that we will die eventually does not render it inconsequential to end our lives prematurely.
If this wasn't the case, then there would be no reason why we shouldn't commit suicide here and now.
One could argue that terminally ill people have nothing left to live for, but someone who is likely to be in a state of 'depression, anxiety and delirium' cannot make a sound assessment of their lives. In fact, many terminally ill people such as Stephen Sutton have lived arguably the best days of their lives after being diagnosed with terminal cancer. If euthanasia was the normal response to diagnosis of terminal illnesses, then these people will never experience the good things that can be experienced despite being terminally ill.

Moreover, it is not a sufficient argument in favour of legalising euthanasia to appeal to the possibility that people will get an arbitrary sense of control.




My opponent's next rebuttal mentions that some terminally ill people are not mentally ill. I agree with this, but the simple fact remains that mental instability is bound to affect most people who are terminally ill, even if it's just because of medication. When we legalise something we ought to consider the majority of people and not the minority.
I concur that in the example of Brittany Maynard, euthanasia could be appropriate. However the example of a few people is not sufficient to outweigh all the negatives that will result from legalising euthanasia.
Nevertheless, euthanasia is rarely actually necessary to alleviate suffering. Modern pain relief is improving all the time (1) and so death will no longer be the only way to alleviate pain, so euthanasia would not actually be necessary.




In response to my point about euthanasia being normalised, Pro adjusts my list to present her view of how euthanasia would work. However, it is far too idealistic to expect terminally ill people to make fully-informed and rational decisions about issues as serious as life and death. There is a positive relationship between cognitive strength and ability to make autonomously valid decisions. For example, a child under the age of 16 is not particularly mentally capable, which is why an age of consent exists. This is also why a mentally ill person cannot give consent to sex. But if consent to sex is qualified by mental health, surely consent to death should also be?

My opponent mentions that peoples' moral beliefs will prevent euthanasia becoming the norm for dying patients, but she does not realise that one's moral values are largely influenced by the law and cultural relativism. Children are taught the moral framework of the society in which they are raised, (2) so if euthanasia is made legal then children will be brought up in a society that approves of euthanasia, so it is more than likely that they also will approve of euthanasia.




Pro opines that prevalence of euthanasia will not drain motivation from scientific research because they will still want to prevent people from having to choose euthanasia in the first place.
Yet even if this is correct, euthanasia would most likely stifle this research anyhow. This is because a significant part of research methodology of terminal diseases relies on observation of patients from diagnosis to death. If euthanasia becomes prevalent (which I argue it will upon legalisation) then there will be no sufficient way in which we can observe how the disease develops. This would severely handicap research efforts.




My opponent goes on to claim that 'the option would most likely only be offered to terminally ill patients, not just average elderly people.' However, the fact remains that most terminally ill patients are actually elderly. Pro has not adequately responded to my point that there is no way in which we could employ regulation to prevent external and Machiavellian persuasion on people to seek euthanasia, nor the point that elderly people would often feel pressured and motivated by guilt because they see themselves as a burden.

Thanks for continuing this debate, Maddie, I've got to say you are doing very well considering it's your first debate.




(1) http://www.webmd.com...
(2) http://people.wku.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
Maddie98

Pro

Thank you :) Con. You are doing very well yourself.
To counter my opponent"s case, I believe his arguments contains many fallacies that may render his argument as insufficient.
Here is a list of the fallacies I will mention within my debate:
Slippery-Slope- asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen (1).
Inductive Fallacy- It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it (2).
False equivalence- describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none (3).
Argument from silence- where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence (4).
--
In Con"s first refutation, he states:
"My opponent attempts to refute my first argument by appealing to the fact that the patient will die anyway, irrespective of whether or not they ask for euthanasia. However, surely this logic can be applied to all human life? We will all die at some point, so surely our whole lives are terminal? The logic fails because the fact that we will die eventually does not render it inconsequential to end our lives prematurely. If this wasn't the case, then there would be no reason why we shouldn't commit suicide here and now."
Through this statement, my opponent uses a false equivalence fallacy (3) because he attempts to state that an individual"s life (not affected by a terminal illness) is equivalent to a terminal patient"s life because everyone will die once they grow older. The use of this fallacy makes his argument insufficient because he is trying to point out a logical equivalence between the two when there is none. While I agree with my opponent on the fact that some terminally ill people can live out the last year or so of their life experiencing many new things before they pass, he assumes that this is the case for most patients. Some patients may be too ill to experience anything outside of their hospital room, which he fails to recognize. Also, he provides no explanation as to why my argument, that it will give patients a sense of control, is insufficient. A patient should have the right to die if they choose that option, instead of forcibly having their life dragged out through life support.
--
Again, in my opponent"s next rebuttal, he states: "However the example of a few people is not sufficient to outweigh all the negatives that will result from legalising euthanasia." While I do agree that my example of Brittany Maynard can"t stand for every terminally ill patient, Con fails to realize that his evidence can"t stand for every terminal patient as well. In this part of his argument, he uses an inductive fallacy (2) because he claims that based on his light evidence that he has provided, most patients are mentally unstable. Therefore, due to his hasty conclusion, the option of euthanasia should not be available to any terminal patient. My opponent also goes on to talk about modern medicine improving all the time to help alleviate some pain. While this could help patients out greatly, it should still be their individual choice. Measures could be taken to make sure people know all of their options, are mentally stable, and have thought their decision out before choosing euthanasia. He stated that many terminal patients suffer from depression due to their illness, but depression can often be treated with medication and therapy to alleviate the psychological hindrance. If the depression is alleviated, than a sound judgment can be made by the patient themselves.
--
In Con"s next argument, he continues to repeat himself on the fact that terminally ill patients cannot be trusted to make a decision like this. As I said in my rebuttal above, steps could potentially be taken to ensure a more stable judgment from the terminal patient. In response to his statement that my list saying that patients would decide based on their beliefs, Con states that this list is too "idealistic." I can see where he could have concluded that, but it is naive for him to assume that people will, because some other patients may choose euthanasia, end up choosing euthanasia because it is the "norm." For example, let"s take a look at Debate.org (and I am in no way saying that these are equivalent in any way, but this does help support the point that I will make). Every day, many people on this website debate their opinions on important controversial topics such as this one. How often do people budge from their own views on topics though? Am I budging on my opinion that euthanasia should be legalized? Are you? While some people may be influenced by the opinions of others around them, I believe that it is human nature to stick to your own beliefs. So in this case, why would it become the "norm" for people to choose euthanasia? If it were legalized, people who opposed euthanasia wouldn't"t just abandoned all of their previous beliefs, and their children would be raised in a household that opposes such an option. There is no proof that his argument would in fact occur. Through most of his arguments, he applies the slippery-slope fallacy (1). He assumes that if the choice to use euthanasia becomes available, than many severely negative outcomes will result.
--
In response to Con"s argument that the use of euthanasia will severely handicap medical research for cures, I believe this is to concrete of a conclusion. I will reply simply with one main idea that ties into my argument from above. On the grounds that there will potentially be patients that oppose euthanasia as a treatment due to their beliefs, there will still be patients for researchers to observe different illnesses. Also, in regards to researching diseases to find cures, scientists can examine human cadavers that died from a terminal illness to research for a cure just as much as an alive person. Cures don"t have to come from observing a patient and how they progress through their disease, but they can come from examining the disease on a chemical/molecular level (which can be observed post-mortem). So observations could still be made post-mortem and through patients not wanting euthanasia.
--
In my opponent"s last argument, he attempts to point out that I had not adequately responded to his point that you could employ regulations because I stated that "the option would most likely only be offered to terminally ill patients, not just average elderly people.' He, however, is the one that inadequately responds to my argument because he states that, "the fact remains that most terminally ill patients are actually elderly." He fails to hold a sound argument because with this, he exhibits the fallacy argument from silence (4). Con has no evidence that most terminally ill patients are in fact elderly, and he may be falsely assuming this because most elderly patients are in fact only reaching the end of their lifespan (dying due to old age). While terminally ill patients may very well be elderly in some cases, in others they may not be, making his argument insufficient.
--
I would like to also point out another argument that I felt was important to bring forth. Some people that oppose euthanasia point out their belief that it is an unnatural way to die. I do not know if Con agrees with this notion, but I will go on to explain how this argument is insufficient. The reason this argument is often false is because, more often than not with terminal patients, their lives are dragged out in equally unnatural ways. A terminal patient that is hooked up to life support, for example, wouldn't survive naturally without the assistance of a machine. People shouldn't be deprived of the choice to be taken off these treatments that are essentially unnaturally dragging out their suffering because others don"t morally accept euthanasia as a proper choice to be allowed.
--

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Philocat

Con

My opponent has gone down the route of pointing out the fallacies I have apparently committed. Therefore, the majority of this round will be for me to explain why my arguments are not guilty of being fallacious.




The first accusation is that my argument relating to terminal illness uses a false equivalence fallacy. However, that would only be the case if I actually asserted that normal life is equivalent to terminal-illness life in all respects, which is obviously guilty of the false equivalence fallacy. Instead, I asserted that normal life is equivalent to terminal-illness life in ONE respect, namely the fact that both are terminal. I do not extrapolate this premise to assert their equivalence.

To put it simply, this is what I did:

My opponent used the logic that;

'the fact that we're going to die at the end of a terminal illness makes it inconsequential that we die prematurely'.

However, the characteristic of terminal illness that she uses to justify this assertion is the fact that it is terminal.

Therefore we can simplify the logic to:

'the fact that we're going to die at the end of X period of time makes it inconsequential that we die in the midst of X period of time'.

Yet this logic has absurd consequences, namely that it would mean that it is inconsequential to kill someone in the midst of their lifespan. This is because all life is terminal, why should the fact that one is ill make it any less inconsequential to kill them prematurely?

Moving on, Pro claims that some patients may be too ill to have a worthwhile life in their final days. This may be true, but I should imagine that if they are so ill that they cannot have worthwhile life then they are only alive because of life support machines. Removing life support machines is not euthanasia because it is not killing by means of either direct chemical injection or removal of ordinary nutrients (i.e food and water). Removing life support is letting nature take it's course, as opposed to euthanasia which is direct preternatural killing.

My opponent goes on to restate her argument about giving patients a sense of control. However, this is not a substantial reason why we should legalise euthanasia. We could legalise loads of things that give people control, it is non sequitor to actually justify doing so.




The next accusation is that my argument about mental instability commits the inductive fallacy. Supposedly, I do this by moving from 'many terminally ill patients are mentally unstable' to 'euthanasia should be denied to all terminally ill patients.'
This would be fallacious if I did not support this logical jump. I will support it now.
The fact is that mental illness is frequently underdiagnosed in terminally ill patients (1). So if we implemented regulation that decreed that terminally ill patients who are also mentally ill cannot have euthanasia, we would not prevent ALL mentally ill people from requesting euthanasia (because we would only be counting the diagnosed mentally-ill patients). The only way to prevent all mentally ill people from seeking euthanasia is, therefore, to prevent everyone from requesting euthanasia.

My opponent responds to my argument about development of pain relief by simply stating that 'it should still be [the patient's] individual choice'. However, she does not justify why it is necessary to allow an unnecessary choice.

Finally, Pro maintains that the problem of depression can be solved by treatment. However, as I have said above, these mental conditions are underdiagnosed. Consequently, only those diagnosed with depression can be treated for it and therefore, as not all who have depression are diagnosed, not all euthanasia-candidates would be adequately treated to be able to make a sound decision.
Furthermore, treating mental illnesses is a very inexact science - it is idealistic to expect doctors to administer a cure and then be certain that it has worked.




The next accusation my arguments face is that of committing the slippery-slope fallacy. The slippery slope in question being from legalisation of euthanasia to the normality of euthanasia. My opponent insists that 'There is no proof that [my] argument would in fact occur.'

On the contrary, there IS evidence from the Netherlands (a country where euthanasia is legal) that euthanasia is becoming normalised and increasingly accepted. The amount of deaths from euthanasia in the Netherlands is increasing exponentially (2)(3), yet there is no significant change in the rate of diagnosis of terminal illness. Therefore the only possible explanation for this increase is the increasingly-accepted nature of euthanasia. This is evidence that euthanasia will, if legalised, become the default way to die.

This ties into my next argument about medical research. My opponent insists that there will still be some who do not request euthanasia on ideological grounds, and these can be used for research. However, the evidence from the Netherlands indicates that this number will be ever-diminishing, which is bad news for medical research because for proper methodological practice, large sample sizes are required. With legal euthanasia, these samples could not be found. Pro goes on to raise the possibility of research done post-mortem. Whilst this is possible, it is far more effective to observe the progress of a disease as it kills someone (morbid, I know). Post-mortems can only do so much.




The final accusation of my arguments is that my argument regarding elderly patients commits the fallacious argument from silence. Pro highlights that I do not provide evidence that most terminally-ill patients are elderly. Yet the reason I did not deign to provide evidence was because it is fairly evident that most terminally-ill patients are elderly.
But for the purposes of the debate, and to rebut the accusation, I will provide evidence.
In 2012, 83.4% of hospice patients were over 65 (4). As a hospice is an institution designed to care for the terminally ill, it is therefore logical to conclude that the majority of terminally-ill patients are over 65 (elderly).
Whilst it is true that there are a few terminally ill patients who are not elderly, the fact that the majority ARE elderly entails that we ought to consider how euthanasia legislation would affect them. I have argued soundly that it will negatively affect them, so it follows that we ought to prevent euthanasia becoming legal.




Finally, my opponent voices a new argument, that of whether or not euthanasia is 'unnatural'. Yet this argument does not harm my position because removal of life-support is not euthanasia; it is the patient declining to receive medical treatment.
We already have a right to refuse treatment in the UK(5), yet euthanasia is not legal in the UK (6). This entails that they are not the same thing.
To summarise, one can support the right to refuse treatment but still be against euthanasia.

I thank my opponent for a very interesting debate, I have learnt a lot and I'm sure she has too :)




(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(2) http://tinyurl.com...
(3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
(4) http://www.nhpco.org... (page 6)
(5) http://www.nhs.uk...;
(6) http://www.nhs.uk...
Debate Round No. 4
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
==========================================================
2001bhu. 6 points to Pro (arguments, sources, grammar). Reason for removal: failure to explain sources and grammar vote.

Reasons for voting decision: I think Maddie98 had the best arguments because of this argument here: My next argument is that the widespread use of euthanasia (which only has the potential to become popularly used) will not ultimately result in euthanasia becoming the "default" way to die. Like my opponent explained before me, I will explain this in a blunt process like the one in his argument: 1.Person X is diagnosed with terminal illness Y 2.Person X is educated by their doctor on the options that they have (such as euthanasia) available to terminal patients (like others suffering from Y) 3.Person X, due to extensive thought (keeping in mind their moral beliefs), will either request or decline euthanasia. 4.Person X dies (even if they declined euthanasia) Although euthanasia may become a more widely accepted option among patients in the future if it is legalized, many people will not stray from their beliefs/morals held on death and the topic (like whether physician-assisted suicide is morally right
====================================================================

-bluesteel (Voting Moderator)
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
========================================================
ButterCatx. 6 points to Pro (arguments, sources, grammar). Reason for removal: failure to explain sources, argument, and grammar. RFD's must explain *why* a certain side had better arguments or more reliable sources, not merely state *that* a side had more reliable sources or better arguments.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better arguments and had very reliable sources.
===============================================================

-bluesteel (Voting Moderator)
Posted by numberwang 1 year ago
numberwang
Im gonna vote on this too and I reported the buttercat vote for lack of RFD, if no one had already.
Posted by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
ButterCatX, that is not a valid RFD. You actually have to say why someone won.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Conduct is tied due to equal conduct on both sides. I have to give Pro the Spelling points due to numerous grammatical errors by Con in the debate. For sources I have to give this to Con for using more sources than Pro. (12-4). Not only that but we can see that Pro's only arguments are that of opinon websites (ProCon.org) and wikipeadia, while Con used more creditable websites .gov and books. Future advice for Pro when siting wikipeadia just use the foot notes at the bottom of the page as your sources as it will add to creditbility and be better than citing wikipeadia. Now for arguments. This is a tough one, but I'm going to have to give this one to Con. Con won a lot of the contentions, however thoughout the debate Pro negated a lot of Con's impacts. Overserve the Death Default argument. Here Con wins this, but Pro's main focus on it was the impact on incentive for research and this dwindles down the impact of Con's argument though it does not negate the argument. For the eternal consquences this is also obvious. Con wins the argument here by showing morality disadvantage, but fails to link it to the resolution which, once again, the impact is minimized. If this was a policy debate I would have to give this debate to Pro for there being no impact, but since I'm grading on flow Con wins for winning the majority of the arugments.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
I ran out of characters, but got most of it in.
Posted by Maddie98 1 year ago
Maddie98
Understandable :) thanks again for taking the time to evaluate my arguments more. It helps out a lot :)
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Yeah, different people will evaluate the usage of those citations in the last round differently. I'm not particularly happy with it myself, but then, it didn't really factor into my decision.
Posted by Maddie98 1 year ago
Maddie98
Thank you for the analysis :) I do wish that my opponent wouldn't have withheld from all of his evidence until the very last round though (seeing as I couldn't respond to him actually providing evidence now), but I do understand where you are coming from when you mention how the fallacies may have assisted my opponent. I believe we had the same amount of evidence until the very end when con threw in a bunch of statistics though. Thank you for all the feedback! :) I will definitely take all of your points into consideration in future debates.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Alright, addendum (focusing on rebuttals made by Pro to Con's case) (Pt. 1):

Mental competency:

I think this rebuttal by Pro managed to do two things, one good and one bad. The good is that it showed pretty definitively that not everyone who is terminally ill is also mentally compromised. I buy that. The bad is that it also shows that it really does depend on the case. Pro only presents one example of a competent patient, and while I see that as a strong example, it also makes it clear that some people aren't going to be so mentally clear. The Competency Screening Test is certainly a way to solve for some, if not most, of this, but certainly not all. I think what Pro managed with this point was to show that more of these patients are likely to be in their right mind than not, but even a minority with depression can be a big problem.

Widespread usage:

I like the rephrasing of the 4 point argument Con made " my impression was that Pro did oversimplify it. I think you didn't need to necessarily take up this much space to respond, as I pointed out in my RFD, but this is still a decent way of handling it. I do buy the argument that ideology will always predispose some to be against euthanasia, which limits widespread acceptance, though that's not really countering the analysis that it will become MORE widespread. That does, however, limit his (admittedly slippery slope) impacts.

Medical research:

Again, I felt this response could have been streamlined, but it's still a good response.

Elderly death:

The initial rebuttal here isn't very strong. Just responding that "we can regulate it to stop this" isn't really a clear answer. If you feel there's a way to prevent coercion, make it clear what that method is. You can't rely on a nebulous regulation to stop it, especially as Con gave me a pretty solid explanation for why it would happen.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Maddie98PhilocatTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Maddie98PhilocatTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Beginner 1 year ago
Beginner
Maddie98PhilocatTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons in comments