The Instigator
Lyndsee
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Pro (for)
Winning
66 Points

Should Euthanasia and assisted sicide be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,416 times Debate No: 80
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (32)

 

Lyndsee

Con

Steve is a highschool student who has a bestfriend named sherry. Steve feels as if his whole life is nothing but a big mistake. He's always depressed, always feeling sorry for himself, and very anti-social except when he is around sherry. Steves life is so bad that he' seven considered suicide, the only problem is, he doesn't have the guts to perform this act on himself. Well, thats where sherry comes in. He is such good friends with sherry that he feels that sherry should get it over with for him. So he asks, and of course she says no, steve is special to her and she doesnt want to lose him as a great friend, even if he thinks of himself as a mistake.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

That anecdote seems to have little bearing on the legality of such things, only on the fact that sherry did not want to help someone who was merely depressed commit suicide.

Life does not exist for the sake of any other person than the one who possesses it. As such suicide, assisted or not, is a victimless crime, because the only one who is directly harmed by it is a party to the commission. A victim cannot be a perpetrator in the same scene. Say a person has a terminal illness, such that their every breath is nothing but pain. If they wish to fight it out, I wouldn't tell them no- but if they do not, do you wish to demand that they be denied their only method of ending torture?

The right to life has a consequence- that the holder of that life is the sole party to its continuance or discontinuance.

To outlaw something, fundamentally, means this: That you are willing to kill someone for continued pursuance of a course of action. Sure, the nominal penalty may be a fine or prison- but what if they resist the fine or prison? Death is the only result. Thus to outlaw suicide itself, in essence means- If you act to end your life, consistently, you will be killed- an utter absurdity when the goal is to preserve life. It would be arbitrary to outlaw helping someone do something, when you don't outlaw the act itself- it's spitting in the eye of those who for whatever reason cannot help themselves.
Debate Round No. 1
Lyndsee

Con

Lyndsee forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

erm.... I'm afraid I haven;t much of a response to that argument..... *posts random characters to move it along...
Debate Round No. 2
Lyndsee

Con

Lyndsee forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

same all over again.
same all over again.
same all over again.
same all over again.
same all over again.
same all over again.
Debate Round No. 3
Lyndsee

Con

Lyndsee forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

Well, it appears this argument is going nowhere........

and so I spam again
and so I spam again
indeed.
Debate Round No. 4
Lyndsee

Con

Lyndsee forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

Well, it appears this argument is going nowhere........

and so I spam again
and so I spam again
indeed.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
It's sad to see that Con is even getting points, when she forfeited most of the debate.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
See my more recent debate about voting for the past out of spite :D
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Since when does going AWOL after making a very poor opening statement net you 10 votes?
Posted by djloop 9 years ago
djloop
I have to agree with raqnar doctors can provide a more comfortable way to go as opposed to doing it yourself at home by yourself and then their are those who do not have the means or capability to carry out a suicide. But then again I don't believe in any law that is made based on a religious view or religious influence but that's a whole new debate. Although I do have a question for the people that believe it should be illegal, have you ever watch a loved one die a painful death?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Solarman, only 14% of modern hippocratic oaths sworn forbid euthanasia. The rest remove that clause.

So that leaves 86% of doctors who reserve the ability to engage in such practices.

Slippery slope is one of the oldest fallacies in the book, it does you no good to label your own argument as one :D

And it is not as easy to kill yourself as you think, considering the number of failed suicides, and the extreme lack of access someone in a hospital has to guns. Even a gun is probably not as painless as what a doctor may provide. What about people who can't move? Basically the more valid someone's desire for death is, the less likely they'd be able to do it, in your world.
Posted by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
Whether I agree or disagree to the topic, those who voted I believe are not being fair. The fact of the matter is, Lyndsee did not respond at all and essentially forfeited the debate. To those who have merit, there is only one way you can vote on who the winner is here.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Doctors swear under oath to "do no harm"

thus doctors assisting in death is wrong

If someone wants to die, it is very easy to do already

the medical community should never get involved, or it will be a slippery slope, where "undesirables" will be killed becuase they are not useful to society anymore
Posted by bobsatthepub 9 years ago
bobsatthepub
We are restricted by so many things in this world, if we don't have control over our own life, the one thing nobody should have the right to dictate, what freedom do we have at all?

This is beyond the law, you only live once, do it your way.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Life is precious thing, but should be in the hand of the beholder. This topic transcends laws and bueracracy...it is more fundamental then al that...People must always have control over their own body, and the aliveness of such. people emotionally feel that people should always live. Well, life is precious, but is not something to be controlled by a politician, unless quite possibly in the ultimately extreme scenario to the likeliness of drastic population problems. The reason for euthanasia is usually not from being depressed, for in that case they usually just kill themselves, but because they are too sick to do it themselves, and are accordingly suffering tremendously.
Posted by audraxheartsxyou 9 years ago
audraxheartsxyou
It shouldn't be legalized.
32 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LyndseeRagnar_RahlTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
LyndseeRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: To counter all the vote bombs in favor of Lyndsee, who merely forfeited the entire debate and lost points for presenting an ancedote backed by no evidence.
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
LyndseeRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by sanghyunma 8 years ago
sanghyunma
LyndseeRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by lorca 8 years ago
lorca
LyndseeRagnar_RahlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
LyndseeRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
LyndseeRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jokerdude 9 years ago
Jokerdude
LyndseeRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
LyndseeRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
LyndseeRagnar_RahlTied
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:30