The Instigator
jquinn
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
baus
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Should assisted suicide be legal?

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 7 votes the winner is...
baus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 820 times Debate No: 55505
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

jquinn

Pro

Assisted suicide should be legal because it is more humane than letting people suffer.
baus

Con

Assisted suicide should be legalized perhaps, but it would be impossible for it to be legal.

Legal is an adjective, not a state of being nor a verb.

Euthanasia and assisting suicide can be legally permitted acts but assisted suicide itself can only be legalized.

The resolution is a question not a statement and the question is unanswerable due to the impossibility of it being successfully understood due to its grammatical flaws.
Debate Round No. 1
jquinn

Pro

Ok, should assisted suicide be legalized?
baus

Con

That is not the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
jquinn

Pro

How exactly is that not a resolution?
baus

Con

Pro has failed to meet his BoP and left all of my arguments uncontested.

His R1 can be negated on the grounds that he, as Pro, failed to uphold the resolution in the first place.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
MrJosh, I noticed that you put spelling and grammar as tied, but also stated that Con's argument was in and of itself a grammatical error
Posted by killerinstinct 2 years ago
killerinstinct
the con mans just trying to be a smart azz. go phuck yourself softly
Posted by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
PRO's resolution is that assisted suicide should be legal. His argument is that " it is more humane than letting people suffer." It is not a particularly strong argument, but CON didn't even attempt to rebut it, so arguments to PRO.

CON's argument regarding various parts of speech doesn't hold up in this case because PRO's use of the adjective "legal," has the same meaning as the way CON restated the resolution. PRO stated that he the world was such that the adjective "legal' applied to assisted suicide.
Posted by CrazyCowMan 2 years ago
CrazyCowMan
With you.
Posted by jquinn 2 years ago
jquinn
With who?
Posted by CrazyCowMan 2 years ago
CrazyCowMan
I agree with you.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
jquinnbausTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Con's entire argument relies on a grammatical error, and he also failed to refute Pro's contention. Not to mention the partial conceding Con did with his first sentence.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
jquinnbausTied
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: Pro failed to meet BOP.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
jquinnbausTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
jquinnbausTied
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: Pro made no arguments or rebuttals.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
jquinnbausTied
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: Conduct - Tie. Although Con played the semantics game, there was no ill-conduct committed by either. To my knowledge, semantics is fair game when someone makes an unclear or unfocused resolution. S & G - Tie. Neither made any spelling or grammatical errors. Arguments - Con. Pro stated a question and Con presented evidence showing how the question is flawed from the start. Instead of rebutting this, Pro simply poses more questions. Pro also failed to uphold the BOP because of this. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate. My advice for Pro would be to not pose questions as debate resolutions. Ask questions in the forums, opinions, or poll sections of this website. Asking questions leaves you susceptible to such semantics responses. You need to take a position. For instance Pro you could have made the resolution: "This house would legalize assisted suicide", and then you'd take Pro position if you support such a resolution.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
jquinnbausTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con trolled. Pro should have made his arguments anyway, failed BoP.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
jquinnbausTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con trolled. Pro should have made his arguments anyway.