The Instigator
nhstudent
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
TheChristian
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The legalization and morality of euthanasia

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
nhstudent
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 683 times Debate No: 66807
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

nhstudent

Pro

Though I am not a doctor, nor any type of physician. It is my belief that euthanasia should become a legal right to all who meet the criteria. Euthanasia should be granted to those who are either terminally ill and/or, nearing the end of their lives with an unbearable amount of pain. In other words, use common sense, leave your religious beliefs at the door (as I have done so for this debate) and keep ignorance to a minimum. Do not simply leave your argument to the substandard of "Suicide is just plain wrong!", or to the famous "Killing people is wrong!" argument. Euthanasia is a necessary and proper process and is in desperate need of legalization. There are many who are left to suffer until their tragic day of death arrives to them. It should not be this way for those people. Euthanasia would most definitely end the suffering of thousands who must deal with their own deaths, and unbearable pain.
TheChristian

Con

Ok, first, i would like to thank you for the interesting concept, and now, on to my debate- it is immoral simply because, and only because, it is a suicide, or murder, or assisted suicide. It ends human life as well as suffering,and who can meet criteria, or not? Children? Adults? None of the above? And also, a doctor is not allowed to administer the drug, and as such a perscription should not be allowed. This is legal. So , for arguments sake, I will leave you with the option to give me a longer, more round debate on this subject. So, i believe, in asking you that question, I have all but won. Good luck with winning!
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by gordonjames 2 years ago
gordonjames
Pro set up a debate that was not in a yes / no or Pro / Con format
"The legalization and morality of euthanasia"

Pro clarifies this in round 1 by saying : "Euthanasia should be granted to those who are either terminally ill and/or, nearing the end of their lives with an unbearable amount of pain."

Pro then fails to give any evidence, arguments, references or even any mention of morality.

also - the "leave your religion at the door" shows that pro has no understanding of faith, and how it can be the motivation for well informed debate.

CON does not have many arguments to refute, but could have used the opportunity to give a well considered response to the issues implied by PRO.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 2 years ago
gordonjames
nhstudentTheChristianTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides were weak. Pro had to convince me, and failed. see comments.
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
nhstudentTheChristianTied
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: Pro said to not give a particular argument which Con argued.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
nhstudentTheChristianTied
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: I guess Con conceded? Even if s/he didn't, Pro suggested that suffering would be ended, a point that Con conceded but proposed that life would be ended as well. However, Con, did not respond to Pro's argument that the end of life isn't wrong in itself. Con asks a question about who would be allowed to have euthanasia. I'd have liked to have seen that hashed out more: It would be quite effective to say "Euthanasia leads to a slippery-slope argument over who lives and who dies, such that there would be many deaths without proper consent." Nice debate! I'd have liked to see it's longer form!