The Instigator
LaSalle
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
ronnyyip
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Suicide should 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/1/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,967 times Debate No: 3475
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (16)

 

LaSalle

Pro

If you think about it, the second you are born... no, conceived... you are already starting to die. Although that is a philosophical idea about suciide and not a legal one, let us remember that legalities stem from philosophy along with morality, which has deep seeded roots that often coinside with spirituality. So in this debate, I will attempt to address various if not all aspects of suicide that point to the fact it should officially remain legal.

According to Dictionary.com, suicide is the intentional taking of one's own life. The medical definition of suicide is the act of causing one's own death (http://www.medterms.com...). The legal definition of suicide is the intentional taking of one's own life (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). Other definitions I have come across include a death caused by one's own actions, the act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself, or any form of self-killing, where self-killing is understood as acting in such a way as to bring about one's own death. Using the parameters of that terminology, martyrdom, engaging in risky behavior, refusing medical treatment to prolong your life, overdosing on (legal) drugs, and death by coercion should also be considered a form of committing suicide... but they're not, and they're all legal. In the United States it is not uncommon that we make decisions about what is moral, or what should or should not be legal based on precedent. In this case, you can base your reasoning not on precedent, per se, but by the reasoning that there are many legal types of suicide, such as the ones I have acknowledged above.

A common "correction" of the various official definitions of suicide is that, "Suicide is chiefly intended to terminate a life – the other acts are aimed at perpetuating, strengthening and defending values" (http://samvak.tripod.com...). However I then pose the question, what value is one upholding when choosing to smoke cigarettes? The law states that on every U.S. cigarette box or in every U.S. cigarette ad, the Surgeon General's warning about smoking and its negative, damaging, sometimes life threatening effects be clearly disaplayed for the consumer to make a conscious decision about their choices and their health/life. Thus it is fair to assume that one accepts the risk of smoking cigarettes long-term, including the possibility that they could develop potentially fatal types of cancer or mouth disease. This type of blatant disregard for one's health (I'm a smoker btw) is different from accepting the possibility or risk that one could also die in a car accident, because riding in a car is far more useful, practical, and sometimes necessary than smoking cigarettes could ever be. Anyway, the point that I am trying to make is that smoking cigarettes, for example, is legal and I argue it's a form of suicide: It's an intentional action that more likely than not speeds up the process of your death and will ultimately take your life.

Now let's think outside of the box for a minute. Consider the people who often oppose suicide's legality and think of it as one of the worst crimes one can possibly commit, because it is the taking of a human life. These people are often religious who cite God's word (via the Bible) that murder is the worst possible mortal sin, even if the killing is done unto self. However isn't this the same Bible (or Torah, Koran, etc.) that promotes infinitity and life after death? Eternal LIFE? Thus it would be hypocritical for them to conclude that taking one's life is the end of their existance/soul, even if it means here on Earth. Who cares. How could they punish someone for wanting to transition to their next life or the after-life, especially if they are in pain and suffering, or the victim of a mental illness (this example includes depression)? Additionally, some people are spiritual and not relgious. They may still believe in life after death, and want to do everything in their power to get there. Now, since this country allows for any and every type of worship (so long as it does not infringe upon another's lifestyle), why should we make a practice of one's beliefs illegal if it only "harms" themselves? Should we also be making people who need to eat meat and choose not to during Lent criminals?

And what does society have to say about all this? Well I know that patriotism is encouraged in the United States and that people who choose to die for their country are considered heroes. So why can't one choose to die for whatever reason they choose? They say that dying for your country is upholding a value but who determines what is and isn't of value to each and every individual? That's right. The individual. So to assume that suicide isn't valid for any and every reason is very presumptious; only the individual can determine why they would choose to engage in such a behavior.

But back to society. Countless polls including the infamous Gallup Poll show that the death penalty is supported in the United States by at least 60-70% of the population (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). Theoretically, the death penalty is used to act as a deterrent to stop individuals from committing heinous crimes (it's just a theory - it doesn't work). What the death penalty really is, essentially, is a harsh punishment to rectify a malicious crime and serve as 'justice' to the victim and/or victim's family who suffered at the hand of the guilty. I think everyone can agree on that one. But with that mentality, going back to the individual being the only one sure of why they would choose such a fate for themself, how are we to know that someone is not committing suicide BECAUSE they are guilty of committing an incredibly reprehensible crime and wish to avoid the legal system/procedure? In this society we do not always frown upon taking the law into one's own hands, so why be hypocritical? Besides, what if someone who WASN'T CAUGHT chose to take their own life as punishment? If we really believe in the death penalty (which numbers and laws show that we do), then shouldn't we be glad that some creep is removing themself from society and poses one less threat to the world?

One valid question regarding suicide is of course revolving around the driving force of the world: Money. What to do about life insurance and other inheritances for people who commit suicide. Well, if suicide were legal, there shouldn't be an issue -- whomever's entitled to what should get it regardless of the cause of death. However, if suicide we ILLEGAL, that could stand in the way in terms of particular pay-outs. Take for example the tragic death of actor Heath Ledger. His death is considered a suicide. Accidental, maybe, but a suicide nonetheless. Now if he weren't a rich actor but instead an average, life insurance policy holding father, should his daughter Matilda not be financially taken care of because of the way her father's life was taken (assuming, of course, that her mother wasn't a famous actress)?

Regrettably I am fastly approaching my character limit, so in this round of the debate I cannot address two fundamental aspects of the debate regarding legal suicide: the causes and the effects (not to mention the punishment -- how do we punish the deceased as an individual?). If my opponent wishes to address these issues then I will very well discuss them and any other aspects of my argument in future rounds. As of right now I plan to include facts (numbers) about the amount of people who consider committing suicide, who believe that assisted suicide should be legal, and who believe that suicide itself should be legal... because, don't the opinions of the people matter anymore? Forgive my lack of elaboration in this round; I don't have enough room but I welcome the opportunity for my opponent to address them first.

Thank you and good luck.
ronnyyip

Con

I negate the resolution: Suicide should be legal. My opponent uses a cigar analogy in the intro which brings up an interesting point: she states that it is necessary for a value to weigh whether suicide should be legalized. For that reason, the value for today's round is the respect for human worth. Along with this, I provide you with three justifications as to why we need to respect human worth. First, if we look at the context of the resolution, it obviously involves a person's life. Without the respect of it, we can basically go around killing each other since our lives our without value.Well for that reason, the value for today's round is respecting human worth. Therefore, we must not allow suicide since it degrades human worth. Secondly, all individuals have human worth because it not only gives human value, it is also what differentiates us from inanimate objects such as rocks. Unique characteristics that separate us from other entities such as the ability to talk, make decisions, and rationalize are in every one of us. These are only a few of the many abilities that no other beings possess, such as chairs, or dogs. Therefore, we must not allow suicide to be legal as we would degrade ourselves to the level of animals. Lastly, people also have human worth because without it, societies could abuse our rights and become corrupt. This would most likely happen because societies are naturally selfish and behave in ways that only seek to benefit itself. If people had no value or worth, then societies would be able to abuse our rights and possibly destroy us. If we allow suicide to be legal, society would grow to believe that life is not as significant as it really is if anyone can commit suicide and have it justified. For all those reasons, we must value respecting human worth and negate today's resolution that suicide should be legal.
My sole contention is that if we allow suicide to be legal, we would degrade ourselves. It is a known fact that society deems, "killing is never justified". It can be permissible, but it can never be justified because the act of killing itself is unjust. If we buy the affirmative's case, we are essentially advocating killing for several reasons. Imagine if we pass the affirmative's case: what would our world be like? When people jump off buildings to commit suicide, it would be completely justified in the court of law. Would you like to live in a world like where no one cares about each other's lives since suicide is legal? If we reach such a point by affirming today's resolution then we degraded ourselves completely to levels of animals. Eventually, our standards of human life would lower as these uncommon things turn to common. Eventually, we would not value human life as much as since it's became a trend that is accepted in the court of law. When you first drive a Ferrari in your entire life, obviously it's going to be very exciting since it's your first time driving such an amazing vehicle, but imagine driving it continuously. Eventually this practice of driving a Ferrari would be very common to you since it has become a part of your life. If we allow suicide to be legal then we would degrade ourselves to think killing or letting death occur is simply justified. This then brings me to my second point in today's round stating that inaction is the same as action. My opponent will definitely bring up an argument saying that killing is different from suicide. Obviously, he's missing out an important factor of inaction vs. action. For instance, if I am walking by a pond and a baby are drowning. I, as a lifeguard for thirty years, possess the ability to save this baby in danger. Obviously, I do not have the obligation to safe the baby since I did not cause it to drown. However, would it be justified for me to stand idly by and allow it to die? Obviously not and that is as bad as being the person putting the baby in the pond in the first place. In the same way, if we allow suicide to be legal, if someone does commit suicide, I have no obligation to save him or her. However, it would be as bad as being the killer since I am essentially advocating for them to die by not preventing such an action when I had the ability to do so. Therefore, you must never buy the affirmative's case as it degrades us completely to beings without any human worth. In conclusion, you must negate today's resolution that suicide should be legal.

Now, let us move on to respond against my opponent's case. My opponent tries to bring up sympathy in this round with fluffy writing. Do not allow your emotions to cloud your judgment, as I will give you several reasons as to why he is losing today's round. First, if you buy the affirmative's case, as I have stated before, you are advocating a world where human life is not important. Secondly, we live in a world where killing is never justified. If we set a trend by affirming the resolution then suicide would be a very common practice as many will commit such action since it is legal. Imagine living in a world, where suicide is common. Everyday you would see on the news people jumping off buildings and no one prevents such an action since it's a very common practice as many teenagers will also soon follow. Lastly, it degrades our own morality. My opponent then brings up cigarettes examples to affirm today's resolution. There are justifications why his argument falls. First, the magnitude of his analogy is completely different and irrelevant to today's resolution. We can never compare the importance of smoking cigarettes to suicide. Smoking cigarettes is a gradual action that might kill you or not as research shows. In comparison, suicide happens immediately and it's not a reversible process. Even if you don't buy that let's move on to my second justification. He's basically saying that deaths caused by cigarettes are also justified since there is a label saying it can causes cancer and etc. Obviously, this is not true as it's just a simple coerced consent. For example, if a little girl asks for poison and I warn her that it would kill her, it doesn't make it justified for me to give poison to the little girl so she can die. In the same way, just because someone consents to kill themselves, doesn't make it justified for us to watch them die as we need to respect human worth or else we degrade our standards and morality as many more cases happen in the future. He also brings up an analogy that when we ride a car, we accept the possibility of the riders dying. This is also invalid since just because I accept the possibility of me dying doesn't mean it would be justified for someone to crash into me if they want to since I accept a chance of this happening. Therefore, I have provided you sufficient reasons why his arguments fall.
Next, he brings up an argument regarding contentions warranted or supported by God. You can this disregard this whole argument. First, I'm not presenting any arguments supported by this. Second, you can disregard any religious arguments made by opponent as this is way too vague and subjective. It would be abusive for him to run such an argument as it's unchallengeable. From these reasons, you can disregard that argument.
Lastly, he brings up statistics and opinions of how a society should think. He brings up the death penalty percentage of agreement. Although it may sound nice to have all this evidence, there are many reasons as to why you should not buy this argument. If you actually look at the websites he presents, you can see that they are all biased and not credible. Second, the death penalty is completely irrelevant since the people who support it are doing it for a cause. The person who deserves the death penalty committed a certain crime in order to deserve this. On the contrary, people who commit suicide have done nothing at all to deserve this, so the analogy he presents is completely non-topical. Don't let this point confuse your judgment, thus you must negate.
Debate Round No. 1
LaSalle

Pro

First, I don't recall using a cigar example or discussing the necessity of any values let alone relating values to suicide. If anything the value that legalized suicide encompasses is that of which gives an individual the Christian value of Free Will. In this society the accepted value common to humanity is "choose the behavior, choose the consequence." If someone chooses to commit a crime, they choose to accept the consquence that they may be punished by law. If someone chooses to do something that will probably result in their death, they are accepting the consequence of ending their lives. If they happen to be religious as well (or if God does in fact exist), they are also accepting the consequence that they be subjected to whatever punishment they will receive for going against God's word.

The concept of Free Will means we have the ability and the freedom to do as we please so long as we are prepared to accept the consequence. The legality of suicide has an interesting Catch 22. Laws typically provide incentives to obey what society deems moral or just. Fear of the punishment acts as a deterrent from engaging in criminal activity. However in regard to suicide, there is no way to punish an individual for breaking the law, therefore there is a lack of incentive to abide by it.

My opponent talked a lot about human worth. I agree that society places a great deal of value on human worth and rightfully so. Con writes, "we must not allow suicide since it degrades human worth." However the problem with his logic is that there is no way we can either allow or forbid it; people are going to engage in suicidal behavior whether or not is is permissable by law, because there are no human consquences for the deceased. Therefore we have to accept it, and focus more on prevention instead of criminalization.

Con boasts, "we must not allow suicide to be legal as we would degrade ourselves to the level of animals." Again, we can neither allow nor permit suicide. To put it another way, We can not *allow people to sell drugs, but people sell drugs anyway. We can not *allow people to steal, but people steal anyway. We can not *allow people to kill themselves, but people will kill themselves anyway. The difference between the first two examples in the last is that we can punish people for going against what the government does not allow us to do in instances 1 and 2, however, we cannot punish people in any way if they are already dead. Punishes on their "behalf" such as defacing their bodies or usurping their estate (past practices for suicide victims) hurt their living friends and family, not the victims themselves. If someone was arrested for selling drugs, would you also punish their friends and family? No.

Finally in regard to human life, Con writes, "If we allow suicide to be legal, society would grow to believe that life is not as significant as it really is if anyone can commit suicide and have it justified." My argument is that society will still place a great deal of value on human life. Here's a corresponding example. In 1917 Congress passed prohibition laws. At that time our society placed a great deal of value on alcohol. As a result, people disobeyed the law and continued drinking. In 1933 Congress repealed the law; it did not benefit the public in any way. In fact it only made things worse. Now in the case of suicide, criminalizing the action would do neither harm nor good. It would not act as a deterant.

People who commit suicide are often sick and depressed. People with this kind of emotional baggage will act upon their feelings regardless of what the law says. They are often feel careless about their actions; after all, their behavior only affects them and their lives. Even if it caused their friends and family some pain and suffering, they assume that the suffering they are feeling is just as great or even far worse than the pain their deaths will inflict upon others. Sometimes victims don't feel that anyone would care at all. They have lost all value for their own life.

If one wanted to smoke a cigarette, this is acceptable by law; they have the right to make their own decision about whatever harm they do to their body by accepting the possible consequence. However, one does not have the right to force this action upon another because that other individual also has the right to decide whether they place value on their own health or life. Thus if one does not place any value on their own human life, they have the right to take that life. But they do not have the right to take another's, as the other may place value on their own life.

Going back to the concept that suicidal individuals are sick, their mental illness proves why a legal threat would not be effective at preventing the action. Take for example serial killers. It is against the law to kill other people, however, serial killers do it anyway because of an "off" factor in their brain that makes their urges more alluring than the thought of criminal punishment. And such is the case with suicidal individuals. Therefore instead of trying to criminalize an unpunishable act, we should instead be focusing on suicide prevention.

Getting back to my opponent's argument - "My sole contention is that if we allow suicide to be legal, we would degrade ourselves. 'Killing is never justified' ... it can never be justified because the act of killing itself is unjust." First of all, as human beings we have the right to degrade ourselves IF WE SO CHOOSE. For instance, most people feel that promiscuous sex is degrading, however, people do it anyway and it is legal. Second, my opponent is wrong when he claims that our society deems killing is never justified. 60-70% of Americans support the death penalty. That is a common instance in which killing is justified along with self defense and war.

My opponent assumes that by agreeing with the resolution, we would be advocating killing. That is completely untrue. Agreeing with the resolution simply means that you acknowledge the fact that there is no logical reason to criminalize an act that is unpunishable by human law. My opponent also asks, "Would you like to live in a world like where no one cares about each other's lives since suicide is legal? If we reach such a point by affirming today's resolution then we degraded ourselves completely to levels of animals." First, legalizing suicide isn't taking a step towards degrading human life. It is simply choosing NOT to take a step that is completely unnecessary. Second, humans ARE in fact animals. But besides that, by choosing to agree that suicide should be legal, we are proving we are above animals because we have the reasoning skills to acknowledge that fact.

My opponent's example of a baby drowning holds no water (no pun intended). Not only is this example extreme, but in that particular scenario I would say that the lifeguard has the moral obligation to attempt to save the baby, the same way we would have the moral obligation to help someone who was feeling suicidal to save their lives even if we were not the cause of their issues. My caring might prevent the baby from drowning. Making babies drowning illegal would not save the baby.

Con writes, "Imagine living in a world, where suicide is common. Everyday you would see on the news people jumping off buildings and no one prevents such an action since it's a very common practice as many teenagers will also soon follow." Ok readers/judge, suicide is already legal. Are you going to kill yourself anytime soon? Hopefully not. Thus this point is void.

Con's final fallacy: "The person who deserves the death penalty committed a certain crime in order to deserve this. On the contrary, people who commit suicide have done nothing at all to deserve this, so the analogy he presents is completely non-topical." Ok, prove that they don't deserve it. What if they killed someone else too? Hmm?

No more characters...
ronnyyip

Con

Let's first start in the value respecting Human Worth with the 3 justifications I provided on the top of my case. She first answers to this by saying she doesn't recall the necessity of any values relating to suicide. Ok, even if you buy that where in the world did it say I can't add in a value in this round which I provided with 3 justifications why this value exists. The purpose of me bringing up a value is to be able to help judges weigh out arguments. Since, human lives are involved in this resolution I gave you 3 justifications why my value stands. This was completely dropped in my opponent's 2 speech so you can see that my opponent must meet this value I provided.
Now, my opponent provides an alternative value that we should use instead of respecting human worth. This value might sound pretty catchy, but don't let that fool your judgments as her value has no evidence or link back to the resolution at all. First, she gives you no reason why we must prefer the value of Free will by Christians. Why does Christian values matter? Why not Buddhist nor Muslim or any other religion's value? Second, where in the Bible have they talked about free will? Third, this isn't a debate about free will at all as she shows you no link why it's relevant to today's debate. Fourth, My opponent and I both provided in our speeches that we should not provide any evidence or arguments that are supported by God or Religious opinions since these are too subjective and unchallengeable. This was dropped in her 2nd speech so she does agree that we can't bring up arguments supported by religion. From this point, her religious Christian free will value drops since she is contradicting herself. Lastly, she ends her argument saying that an action is justified as long they accept the consequences. This is completely flaw. For instance, If I accept the consequences of killing 100 Jews just because I hate them, doesn't make my action justified just because I accepted the consequence. Therefore, her whole free will value can be disregarded as it's a flaw non supported argument. As a result, my value still stands with the 3 justifications she dropped and she has to show that If Suicide is legal; it won't degrade us by letting such an action happen.
Next, my opponent attacks my value saying that she does agree to it, but that we need to focus on prevention of crime. She talks about how we can't stop people from doing something even if a law is place upon. This is completely flawed, just because we know the chances of an action will happen even if we enforced a law to stop it. Doesn't mean we should stop trying. For example, we know murders will kill people eventually or somehow even if a law prohibits it. This doesn't make it justify for us to just let the murder to kill people and accept it under your own logic. Lastly, she says you have to focus on the prevention of crime. First, where in the resolution does it say we have to debate about this? Second, she gives you no reason to believe this. Third, if you buy this then you must vote for me since if I make suicide illegal, we have a higher chance of preventing people dying or commit a crime whereas if there is no law, there are no obligations for anyone to commit any action. Who would agree that placing a law prevents the same amount of crimes happening if there was no law?
Third, my opponent brings up 2 analogies how we can't enforce a law to people who suicide since we can't punish the dead. This is completely flawed, just because they are dead doesn't mean we can't enforce a law to serve as a deterrent purpose. For instance, if a mass murder like Virginia-Tech happens and the killer ends up suicide. Does it mean we should take away the law of killing spree or mass murder since the killer will end up killing themselves and we won't be able to punish him in the end? Obviously not, my opponent argument is completely ridiculous as she is advocating tons of stuff that is irrelevant to today's debate.
Fourth, my opponent once again brings up an example of alcohol control where our society placed upon a huge value on it. She says later on this value was dropped and people continue to abuse the usage of alcohol. This is exactly the same thing she said earlier, but reworded differently. Therefore, I am going to response in the same way. As a government we have an obligation to protect our citizens. Just because a law we enforce fails in the end, doesn't mean we should give up and stop trying. This would be ridiculous to buy my opponent's argument because if you do then we can basically repeal the law of punishing murders. Since, if someone decides to commit murder, we can't stop them.
Fifth, she talks about how people who suicide won't obey the law as their emotions will control their actions. Once again, this is the same argument she is trying to present, but worded differently. You can use the same argument I make in her first 3 arguments as I will not waste character space to respond to the same thing.
Sixth, she brings up the cigar analogy. She completely disregards the argument I make about this analogy in my first speech where this is completely different from the resolution as the magnitude or importance of smoking is gradual where as suicide takes place right away. Even if you don't buy that, people who suicide cost the government over millions of dollars as we have to use resources for investigation, funerals and etc.
Seventh, she goes back to the Death penalty statistics where people support death penalty. Once again, this shows that my opponent is dropping a lot of my arguments meaning she has no respond for them. I said in my first speech that the reason people support the death penalty is because the suspect committed a crime to deserve this where as people who suicide didn't
Eight, she goes on attacking my drowning baby example saying the lifeguard will save the baby as it have an obligation. She is completely misinterpreting my whole argument. The reason the lifeguard will save the baby is because it has an obligation since it's a lifeguard. If we make suicide legal, this obligation completely goes away and we don't have to safe someone if we see them trying to commit suicide which degrades ourselves to watch human die.
Ninth, she makes an argument saying suicide is legal, will you start jumping off buildings. She misunderstands this argument completely as what I'm saying is if we make suicide legal, more people will do it such as (mental disorder, emo people, etc) since they won't be punished. This would also degrade us as no one would prevent it either. Not only that, she says suicide is legal. There is no reason or evidence to believe this as the resolution never states what country suicide should be legal in. We are only debating whether or not suicide is legal. If she can prove resolution is talking about a certain country where suicide should be legal then you accept that. Rather than that, no.
Lastly, she makes a final closing statement on my analogy of death penalty compared to this resolution. Her argument against this made no sense as what I am presenting is the reason people support the death penalty is due to the fact that people are sentenced to death rows committed a crime. This is completely irrelevant to today's topic.
As a result, I have given you more than enough reasons to vote for me. She dropped many of my arguments in my first speech so you can extend those. Don't let her reworded and non supported argument fool you. Lastly, I answered to every single of her argument where as she didn't. Thus, you must vote for negative!
Debate Round No. 2
LaSalle

Pro

I maintain that I have responded to each of my opponent's "arguments" throughout this debate. For him to accuse me of avoiding details and to claim my argument is trying to "fool" anyone is absurd and juvenile. My opponent is using criticism tactics in order to make himself look better. Meanwhile, he is the one misinterpreting my examples and repeating his moot and already disproved points. Also, I would like to remind Con that my position in this debate is NOT to respond to everything he says but to prove why suicide should in fact be legal. However because he seems to have nothing else to base his argument on other than critisizing me, I will spare the judge his commentary on my debating style by citing his claims and breaking them down one by one.

First, my opponent rambles about his speech from Round 1 regarding the value of human worth and his 3 points establishing why it is an important value. I agree with Con to a degree. However as he has mentioned, I countered this argument with my reasoning that Free Will is another important human value that should not be forgotten in terms of suicide, which is indeed the topic of this very debate.

Con writes, "This value might sound pretty catchy, but don't let that fool your judgments as her value has no evidence or link back to the resolution at all." Actually, this value has everything to do with the resolution of this debate. My position is that one's free will is of utmost importance in terms of suicide, whereas it is NOT of utmost importance when it comes to killing others as I have already pointed out. Therefore my opponent's attempt at trying to negate the importance of free will by comparing it to killing 100 Jews is flawed. As I have already explained, we cannot impose our individual values onto others. If I deem my own life of no worth, so be it, I may take it for it is my own to do as I please. If I deem your life to be of no worth, that's just too bad. I cannot take it because laws (which act as a deterant through PUNISHMENT) set a value on human worth to a degree that we cannot just take it from others; to do so would be very wrong. Similarly, laws also uphold values that pertain to free will...

(To ensure that I respond to each of my opponent's points, I will break it down and argue his "logic" one by one. Arguments next to a number will be from my opponent; my rebuttal will be in the paragraph after.)

1. Why does Christian values [of Free Will] matter? Why not Buddhist nor Muslim or any other religion's value?

Free Will is not only a Christian value but a HUMAN VALUE that is shared by people of every religion. The Buddhist philosophy and Islamic religion both celebrate free will, as do many other religions.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. Second, where in the Bible have they talked about free will?

Free Will is quoted all over the Bible, but why does that matter? I have already pointed out that the concept applies to people of all demoninations, not just Christianity. For a list of the dozens upon dozens of instances where the Bible talks about free will, click here:

http://www.biblelife.org...

3. Third, this isn't a debate about free will at all as she shows you no link why it's relevant to today's debate.

I have explained the relevance of free will as it pertains to this debate in terms of suicide and only suicide. Free will is applicable in other arguments but today's debate is based on one thing only. My position is that one has the right via free will to engage in any behavior that may take their own life (and not the lives of others). They can do this because it is their body - it belongs to the individual, not the parents (once the child is 18) and not to God (as my opponent does not want religion to be a factor in this debate). If my opponent wants to bring up the 18+ rule in regard to suicide then go ahead. I never said that I am against suicide being "prohibited" for children; I simply said that suicide should be legal, and obviously that comes with certain restrictions such as cigarettes are legal but only for the 18+ crowd.

4. Fourth, My opponent and I both provided in our speeches that we should not provide any evidence or arguments that are supported by God or Religious opinions since these are too subjective and unchallengeable. From this point, her religious Christian free will value drops since she is contradicting herself.

In terms of religion, my only mention of the subject was back when I noted the hypocrisy of citing religion to oppose suicide because religion (in the Bible, Torah and Koran as used in my example) promotes eternal life. I never said that the use of religion was too subjective or unchallengable; those were my oppnent's words, not my own. But anyway, my opponent is again wrong for saying my "Christian" value of free will is invalid because of this -- I already explained how free will is an attribute common to all of humanity and not just Christians, even though I cited Christians specifically in my first example.

5. Lastly, she ends her argument saying that an action is justified as long they accept the consequences.

Yes, if it pertains to the SELF and *ONLY* to the self then yes. I stand by this. Thus my opponent's example of killing 100 Jews is again wrong. Because it uses free will in a way that infringes upon the right of others to treat their bodies/health/life as they please. My argument is this case (regarding suicide) is that people have free will to do what they wish with their own lives if it only affects the taking of their own lives and not others. This means my opponent's example regarding Virginia Tech is completely void, because the perpetrator did not only take his own life but the lives of many others as well. Nice try though. I ask that the judge please exclude any of my oppnent's arguments that deal with taking the lives of others.

Next, Con implied that I do not believe society should implement laws to protect its citizens. He writes, "This is completely flawed, just because we know the chances of an action will happen even if we enforced a law to stop it. Doesn't mean we should stop trying. For example, we know murders will kill people eventually or somehow even if a law prohibits it. This doesn't make it justify for us to just let the murder to kill people and accept it under your own logic." ---- As usual, Con has completely misinterpreted my logic and presented it in a way that is favorable to his position. However I'm sure the Judge can see right through this.

Because AS I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED, the reason laws exist (to uphold society's values) is to deter via PUNISHMENT to prevent people from engaging in the act. Like I said, there is no way to implement punishment on a person who is already dead. Defacing their body, taking their property, or tarnishing their reputation only hurts those who are already living (their friends and family). Thus laws against killing people do work and deter the action because people will know that as a consquence they will suffer severe penalties such as long jail time or possibly even death. In regard to suicide, there is no punishment. The deceased cannot serve time in jail, and the ultimate "scare tactic" of iminent death is already taken away.

Unfortunately I have run out of characters, however, in conclusion I think my argument can be summed up by the complete hypocrisy and delusion of Con's closing argument, "what I'm saying is if we make suicide legal, more people will do it such as (mental disorder, emo people, etc) since they won't be punished." -- HOW WERE YOU PLANNING ON PUNISHING THEM EVEN IF IT WERE ILLEGAL? Suicide will exist regardless of laws, and THAT'S why focus on prevention rather than criminalization is important.
ronnyyip

Con

Ok,this will be my final speech as I will clarify several importances in today's round that shows why I am winning. In my opponent's last speech I found this really important piece of evidence she presents that shows it really clear who is winning.
Basically,my opponent's most important piece of argument against my case is that my analogies do not apply due to the fact suicide does not infringe rights upon others as my analogies point out. This is where I win the round as my opponent completely contradicts herself in this statement, "how can you prove that a person who has committed suicide did not commit a heinous crime including murder? Maybe they did and people just didn't know about it." Her argument against my case is suicide is justified because it does not infringe rights upon others or violate them in simpler terms. Obviously, this is not true since we must buy our opponent's logic that we never know that the person who commits suicide was not involve with a heinous crime including murder? From all these reasons, you must already vote for me since I have just disapproved my opponent's main piece of argument that helps her to win. I have showed you that suicide must infringe or violate others rights. Therefore, all my analogies regarding about people who suicide won't be justify since what if they accept the consequences of killing 100 Jews, would that be justified? You can extend those arguments.
Even if you didn't buy my previous arguments, lets move on to my second argument into today's round which my opponent completely drops. It was such an obvious drop that my opponent probably didn't know how to respond to it since it was true. You might not buy all my arguments, but I told you in my previous speech if you allow suicide to be legal then people lose all their moral obligation and human worth for humans. This was left unanswered on her third speech. This is an important argument as I'm about to show you how it links back to the value I place in this round. The moment suicide is legal; any human being won't have an obligation to save anyone that is about to suicide since it won't be considered a crime if we watch them to die. The impact for this argument is that if we allow such actions to happen then we degrade ourselves to not respect human worth since it would be justified to watch humans die.
Next,let's move back to the value of free will. I would first like to address several issues with her case. Her case is basically reworded over and over again that suicide should be legal since it does not violate other's rights. So if I am able to prove that it does cause trouble and violates right, then I should win today's round. First, Suicide causes economic impact for the society. According to The Cost of Suicide Mortality in New Brunswick, 1996 (1996). Retrieved on 2007-04-13., Deaths and injuries from suicidal behavior represent $25 BILLION EACH YEAR in direct costs, including health care services, funeral services, autopsies and investigations, and indirect costs like lost productivity. From this analysis, you can already vote for me in today's round as I have disapproved my opponent's whole case. I have given you solid evidence which is reliable, where as you are listening to my opponent's speech that is written fancy yet flawed.
Lastly,I have just provided you the most important analysis in to disapprove my opponent's whole case which also disapproves her value in freewill. Sure, you can buy my opponent's value of freewill should be considered in the resolution of suicide should be legal. The most important factor you missed out after the analysis I pointed out is that suicide is really not freewill since it violates other rights and causes such a huge economic impact. Judges, is this freewill really justified if it's going to cause all these problems which the Affirmative fails to prove out? Therefore, before you can't buy her value freewill which is not justified at all. You must look toward my value of respecting human worth in order to make a justified case such as mine. As a result, I have countered his impact on the relevance of her value where as my 3 justifications are still left unanswered. You can extend those to show why my value is important and still stands in today's round.
At this point, it's really clear I have won today's round, but since I have extra character limit I shall point out other minor flaws in my opponent's case.
"Next, Con implied that I do not believe society should implement laws to protect its citizens. He writes, "This is completely flawed, just because we know the chances of an action will happen even if we enforced a law to stop it. Doesn't mean we should stop trying. For example, we know murders will kill people eventually or somehow even if a law prohibits it. This doesn't make it justify for us to just let the murder to kill people and accept it under your own logic." ---- As usual, Con has completely misinterpreted my logic and presented it in a way that is favorable to his position. However I'm sure the Judge can see right through this." The ending arguments she makes against my case. This would have been true before you read my last speech, but I have showed you that her logic is flawed since suicide is not justify due to the fact it violates rights and it is not a form to freewill. Therefore, my analogy still stands and she also fails to address why my argument is flaw. She just says several words that the judge should see through this and expects you to vote for her. This is completely ridiculous; don't let her get pass with such a weak supported argument. There is no evidence, warrant or impact why you should believe her at all. Thus, my case stills stands as I Will quote my opponent "I'm sure the Judge can see right through this."
Finally, her last argument is that laws are supposed to deter crimes, but suicide being legal does not deter crimes. "Like I said, there is no way to implement punishment on a person who is already dead. Defacing their body, taking their property, or tarnishing their reputation only hurts those who are already living (their friends and family). Thus laws against killing people do work and deter the action because people will know that as a consequence they will suffer severe penalties such as long jail time or possibly even death." There are 3 flaws in this sentence, first, she talks about how if we deface or hurt the reputation of a dead person is useless. Obviously, this is false since the purpose of a justice system is to render each their due no matter they are dead or not. Second, she talks about how it doesn't deter crime since the person is dead. Once again, she misses out an important factor. What about the people who are alive looking at the punishment and value they will deserve after you suicide? What if they don't want to die in shame? Wouldn't this serve as a deterrent effect? Lastly, from all these reasons my arguments outweigh the argument my opponent brings up since my arguments purpose is to serve justice where as hers is based on sympathy and emotions affected to a family.
Note: "Suicide will exist regardless of laws, and THAT'S why focus on prevention rather than criminalization is important." Murder or stealing will exist regardless of laws, better yet any freaking action happens or exist regardless of law. We still focus on making laws and we do prevent them with laws since we deter people as I have showed you. So auto vote for negative right here since she agrees we need crime prevention and adding a law does do that.
As a result, from all these reasons you must vote for the Negative or Con since I have disapproved my opponent's value of freewill which shows to be irrelevant. I also completely refuted my opponent's whole case and arguments against mine. Lastly, I provided you sufficient reasons why I am winning due to several drop arguments that my opponent left unanswered in today's round. Thus, I urge a negative ballot.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
I have made my decision, which can be viewed here, in the second Peter Zupan

http://www.facebook.com...

In short, I was not impressed by either debaters, even though this topic had so much potential. But in the long run, LaSalle won this debate. I encourage both to try and improve of their technique in the next round.

eclipse4343 - Politeness please.
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
You say it as if it matters to me. It doesn't, as I'm not making a hypocritical and lying statement. Just FYI, I signed up for a tournament on facebook just as Ronny did; anyone that bothers to go over there can find out at anytime.
Posted by eclipse4343 8 years ago
eclipse4343
mmkay i dont want to tel levery1 my name but ok james
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
thanks for admitting you know him.

that's all we needed to hear.
Posted by eclipse4343 8 years ago
eclipse4343
how the hell am i ronnys friend lol he sorta hates me lol?
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
The last line is a lie. You're Ronny's friend, so perhaps you should watch what arguments you present about bias, Alex.
Posted by eclipse4343 8 years ago
eclipse4343
first of all since i cant say the word i wanna say il say ur not smart WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE ICAN SAY CON WINS ALL THE TIME ONTO IT AND SAY ITS CREDIBLE UR THE ONE WHOS IGNORANT
2ND quoting the bible is not like credible like i cant quote a serial killer on why killing is just
third this is the reason i voted con
ACCORDING TO UR LOGIC EVEN IF CON IS WRONG
he still wins all he needs to prove is pro is wrong
so first i voted off her evidence is bad WIKI/ BIBLE =/= EVIDENCE heck if i wanted to i can go and write a article right now on how she is not right 2nd ur her best friend i dont even know who the hell ronnyip is im unbiased
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Eclipse, don't be ignorant. Pro wasn't citing the Bible to promote religion but rather to quote it as it pertained to her particular argument. Besides, people quote Wikipedia on this site all the time. I do it. Not all of the information is wrong or invalid/inadmissable. Not to mention that I couldn't make sense of anything that Con was saying, and when I could, I couldn't believe his arguments haha they were laughable. Then again I very biased because Pro is my best friend haha :)
Posted by eclipse4343 8 years ago
eclipse4343
+ why is the debater using this board to add arguements and flame the other person
Posted by eclipse4343 8 years ago
eclipse4343
how the hell do u vote pro her warents( evidence) were wikipedia and the bible lol
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
LaSalleronnyyipTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Seltz 8 years ago
Seltz
LaSalleronnyyipTied
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 jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
LaSalleronnyyipTied
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 nini722 8 years ago
nini722
LaSalleronnyyipTied
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 keenan 8 years ago
keenan
LaSalleronnyyipTied
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 Noblethe3rd 8 years ago
Noblethe3rd
LaSalleronnyyipTied
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 simplyme 8 years ago
simplyme
LaSalleronnyyipTied
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 liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
LaSalleronnyyipTied
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 jazzyfizzle 8 years ago
jazzyfizzle
LaSalleronnyyipTied
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 Harboggles 8 years ago
Harboggles
LaSalleronnyyipTied
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