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

Open Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,115 times Debate No: 14035
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I am volunteering to debate whatever the Pro has to offer. I made it short because I want the arguments to be quick and succinct.
You will be given the first block to state your argument and your position. Then we will have three rounds to argue our side.
You will always be pro so make sure you phrase your question so that you agree with it.
note: I enjoy moral/ethical better than political- just something to consider in your topic


Thanks to con for starting what seems to be a fun debate. With such short rounds we'll need as much substance as possible in our arguments.

To go with my opponent's preference, I will affirm that: Doctor assisted suicide is morally acceptable.

My opponent can offer definitions if he wants, although I'm pretty sure we both know what the topic is about.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Doctor suicide: Killing is wrong simple as that

There have been multiple accounts where a person is suspected to die, but later survives.

Killing for the sake of money or convenience is wrong no matter in what form

I will explain my contentions more in depth after Pro


Mine, then his.

1. Quality of life. Some people believe that a life full of suffering is worse than dying. They have every right to believe that. If a patient has a severe medical condition that causes them constant pain, or even periodically severe pain, they have the right to end their life to stop the pain, especially if the condition is terminal.

2. Value to life. Many terminal illnesses require immense medications and machine hook ups just to stay alive. Even then, patients often are severely limited in motor and gait abilities. Many have to spend the rest of their lives in a hospital bed, wired up to countless fluids and machines. Then you have chemo. In all of these cases, you cant enjoy anything life has to offer (can't walk, move, etc) and are only living in a state of technological dependency. People who do not desire such a life have the right to end it.

Also, a person may be in a state of severe depression. Some may have had family members die, lost all their property, suffered severe trauma, etc. In this case they again are living a life of depression and thus have no value to life.

Now to his points.

First off, none of his arguments have warrants, or reasoning behind them. They are just sentences, so you can discard them based on that alone. But here are the refutes anyway.

1. He says killing is wrong.

Nothing is wrong 100% of the time. If I have the opportunity to kill Osama to save thousands, I should. If they want to end a life of suffering, feel free.

2. He says "terminal" patients may survive.

The argument is not about survival, it is quality and value to life. A person may survive cancer but has to live on life support, pills, and/or a state of pain for the rest of their life. In this case they still may wish to die.

3. He says killing for money/convenience is wrong.

Money has nothing to do with this. Killing for convenience is generally wrong, but not in the case where the convenience is for a dying patient
Debate Round No. 2


Let me ask you this. Is suicide alone right? You argue the issue as if a persons hospitalization is just a convenient excuse to commit suicide. It is not so.
It is very improbable that any dying person would feel pain in his or her last hours because of technology today. Medications have been made specifically for the dying so that they can pass painlessly. Comfort is never the issue in these cases.
The REAL issue here is where to draw the line. When is someone guaranteed assisted suicide? Say a person was in a coma and the family suggested he be killed. Where is the representation? It is nearly impossible to regulate such an interpretive threshold and it should be left alone seeing as it has already been determined that painful death is a thing of the past.
Lastly, I'm going to say that NOTHING gives a person the right to kill another. If a sick person wants to kill themselves than that is their decision. But if a person wants to die, that doesn't give anyone the right to murder. With this distinction unclear, many will get away with murder, calling it assisted suicide. You talk about the greater good but do you even understand what that means? Which is worse: allowing nature to take people as intended? Or allow murders to go unpunished and permitting one man to kill another for money? (Doctors are paid for no matter what they do. It's a fact of life.)


"Is suicide alone alright?"

No. It is, however, "alright" when they are in a state of suffering and/or have no value to life.

He says medical prowess can alleviate pains. This actually supports my side. Pain relievers require more pills, injections, and tubes to consistently keep pain away. This ties into my value to life argument, which shows how people become wired in and dependent on machines and medication to survive. Some people may not desire this.

He brings up an example of a family deciding to euthanize their comatose relative. This is a completely different issue. Suicide is the act of killing oneself. If the person was in a coma, they could not make that decision. So this example is nontopical.

"You talk about the greater good"

Where? I dont see that anywhere.

He says allowing death from natural causes is preferable to death from artificial causes. Maybe for most people, sure. But when we just sit and wait for the natural death to occur while the patient is suffering and asking to let himself die, then the pain of living a valueless life outweighs dying a painless death.

He concludes with saying that doctors who assist suicide are murderers. Sure. Fine. Call it whatever you want. However, he has dropped my argument saying that death is justifiable in some instances. This means that while they may be "murderers", they do not deserve punishment or bad stigmatization because they are only benefiting the patient.


Nothing (like killing) is universally wrong.
The entire value to life argument.

Because living in a state of pain is worse than dying a painless death that you yourself desired, I urge a pro vote.
Debate Round No. 3


JaketheSnake forfeited this round.


BlackVoid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
Sorry, had to go out of town for a week so was unable to finish, but it looks like it didnt hurt me that much.
Posted by JaketheSnake 5 years ago
Just put down your topic that you want to argue for, and Ill go first. That way we both get three arguments
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
So in this round do I post a full argument, give taglines and elaborate later, or just give the topic and let you go first?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03