The Instigator
What50
Pro (for)
The Contender
BobTheRocket2
Con (against)

We should euthanize people who breaks a major bone

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
BobTheRocket2 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 541 times Debate No: 100550
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

What50

Pro

-Remade-
Some rules:
No ad hominhem keep it civil guys.
Racism is discouraged in this debate
Blacks or "African Americans" are allowed to accept this debate.
Absolutely no Jews. If you are a Jew you immediately lose this debate and forfeit all your points.
Try your hardest to debate.
No plagiarism. If you plagiarize you forfeit all your points.
Burden of proof will be shared between both Pro and Con
To know you read the rules when you make a argument at the very top say this word Troll to make sure you read the rules.

I am pro I believe we should euthanize people with a broken bone. You can start debating immediately.

Breaking a major bone is a problem. There is about 3.5 to 4.4 million emergency department visits for bone fractures which translates to "You screwed up you broke a bone". Heck there is about 529,000 fractures to the femur,tibia,and fibula. This is a problem. How do we solve this problem easy with euthanasia.

It is a cheaper option for low income family's and family's that doesn't have health insurance. There is about 33 million Americans don't have health insurance. Now breaking a bone is not cheap. A broken arm typically cost 2,500 dollars and that is not accounting for surgery. The surgery for the broken arm cost about 16 thousand more without life insurance. A X-Ray cost about $190 dollars. Note there is 33 million Americans that don't have health insurance. So there is Americans that can't even afford a surgery for a broken arm.

Now how much does euthanasia cost? A mere 75 dollars to 100 dollars. Much cheaper than 2,500 dollars. Now note there is about 529,000 fractures to the femur,tibia,and fibula a broken leg will cost much more than a broken arm.

The euthanasia will be less painful than breaking the bone. The pain of breaking a leg is very severe. There can even be deformities of the leg thanks to breaking the leg. Such as shortening where the leg appears shorter than the unaffected legs, Rotation where the legs below the break is twisted or angulation where the bone bends at the break instead at the joint. These are very painful and cause even more pain if the leg moves.

Look at people with osteoporosis. Do they deserve a life of breaking a bone falling where a normal person can get away Scot free? May I remind you how painful it is to break a bone. The euthanasia will be a way to end their pain of constant suffering. Look at spine fractures in some cases with spine fractures muscle spasm happens and you have to pay extra money for the brace. The cost for a brace can be 40 dollars to 1,000 dollars.

Lets look at people living with osteoporosis. Over 42% of people who had experiences fractures have pain in which it never goes away. 1 and 3 people describe their long term pain as unbearable. 42% of people say their osteoporosis has made them socially isolated. These people don't deserve this pain. This is why the euthanasia will help them. They won't have to deal with these constant struggle of paying money for their bone fractures, and dealing with the long term and short term pain.

The euthanasia will help reduce spending for hospitals. Every year of hip fractures is equivalent of 1.5 billion pounds in English hospital care. 1.5 billion pounds is equal to 1865647500 billion dollars in American Money. We are saving hospitals money with the euthanasia since euthanasia again cost about 75 to 100 dollars.

Cites and Sources:
https://fivethirtyeight.com......
https://fivethirtyeight.com......
http://health.costhelper.com......
http://euthanasia.procon.org......
http://www.webmd.com......
http://www.webmd.com......
https://nos.org.uk......
BobTheRocket2

Con

Troll.

AD HOMINEM


Should be the easy one, on a debate site; ad hominem is a logical fallacy which every debater should be aware of. Formally known as the Argumentum Ad Hominem.

Ad hominem attacks are not valid rebuttals. Which is not to say that the every statement about the person in relation to their arguments is an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that of course a politician would deny cheating, whether they did cheat or not, is not an ad hominem. Claiming that of course someone cheated, because they're a politician, would be. Ad hominem attacks are personal attacks. They are not tolerated.

(Ex.: "Well, you're a cop, so your opinion is wrong")

-Exerpt from Post #10 of the highlighted "NEW VOTERS READ Me" thread, posted by Airmax1227

Who's Airmax? A DDO moderator. You can find him here:
http://www.debate.org...

The "NEW USERS READ Me thread" can be found here. Look for post #10.
http://www.debate.org...


Now let's take a look at the rules for this debate.

"No ad hominhem keep it civil guys."

"Racism is discouraged in this debate"


But, alas! Look at the next lines.


"Blacks or "African Americans" are allowed to accept this debate."

"Absolutely no Jews. If you are a Jew you immediately lose this debate and forfeit all your points."

Not only has pro broken his own rule regarding racism, but he has also made an ad hominem attack by insuating (and basically outright saying) "You are black/Jewish, so your arguments don't count.", which again, is a violation of the rules of this debate.



CONCLUSION: Since pro has broken his own rules, I automatically win this debate. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
What50

Pro

"Troll"
As I say that is a Ad Hominem. You are calling me a troll and assuming that my arguments are denied because I am a troll. You have already broken a rule.

"Not only has pro broken his own rule regarding racism, but he has also made an ad hominem attack by insulating (and basically outright saying) "You are black/Jewish, so your arguments don't count.", which again, is a violation of the rules of this debate."

I have never said You are black your arguments don't count. I said that Blacks are allowed to accept this debate post there arguments and have a fun time debating. I have never said that just because you're a Jew your arguments don't counts. I am saying that Jews are not allowed to accept this debate but they have the freedom to express their opinion on the comments. Jews can even post there own arguments in the comments. I am not saying just because your a hew your argument is invalid.

Regarding the racism. I said blacks are allowed in this debate this is not racism but merely tolerance. Jews are not a race. A Black person can be a Jew. Does that mean they are Jew. No their still called by their race a African American. I have clearly not broken any of my rules.

In conclusion I have clearly haven't broken a rule. And my opponent wasted a round of arguments.
Good luck to Con next round.
BobTheRocket2

Con

I admit. I read that one wrong about black people. But that doesn't excuse the one about Jews.

"I have never said that just because you're a Jew your arguments don't counts."
You did when not allowing them to accept.

I am saying that Jews are not allowed to accept this debate but they have the freedom to express their opinion on the comments. Jews can even post there own arguments in the comment"
But you've set it up so that it won't matter and won't affect the outcome of the debate if they comment. Thus because they are Jews, their arguments (in the comments) don't count under the way you have set this up.

CONCLUSION: STILL AN AD HOMINEM.
Debate Round No. 2
What50

Pro

The thing is that the Ad Hominem is not directed towards you. You are a Christian therefore that is not a ad hominhem attack towards you. I have never directed a Ad Hominem attack towards you.

Even if I did a Ad Hominem you haven't defended your Ad Hominem. You said I am a troll. Making that just because I am a troll my arguments don't matter. I still haven't seen a argument you posted for this debate. I suggest arguments go for me.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by BobTheRocket2 1 year ago
BobTheRocket2
@Masterful: You're phishing for any reason.
Posted by BobTheRocket2 1 year ago
BobTheRocket2
I misread the attack on black people. But, you certainly did ad hominem Jews.
Posted by madness 1 year ago
madness
BobTheRocket2- "I'm black. Conduct to con."

Looks like we got ourselves a problem here then haven't we.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
@Bob there was no attack towards you, therefore you were not subject to an ad hominem attack.

However, by assuming your opponent is a troll, you're attacking the character and motive, of your opponent instead of attacking their argument.

A point for conduct goes to Pro
Posted by BobTheRocket2 1 year ago
BobTheRocket2
Whoops, I though it said "aren't allowed". That still doesn't justify the line about Jews though.
Posted by What50 1 year ago
What50
BobTheRocket2 Why should Conduct go to you? I haven't insulted you. I made no Ad Hominem. I am confused on how Conduct should go for you. Just because I said Blacks are allowed in this debate doesn't mean I should lose conduct. Anyways best of luck for you.
Posted by What50 1 year ago
What50
Just a little challenge Lua. I don't seriously hold this opinion on a debate. But I agree with a little of what I say enough to give me a passion in my arguments.
Posted by BobTheRocket2 1 year ago
BobTheRocket2
I'm black. Conduct to con.
Posted by lua 1 year ago
lua
Is this an actual opinion you hold or are you just looking for a challenge?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.