The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Winter Regular tournament R1: Resolved, the USFG should legalize Euthanasia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,581 times Debate No: 83016
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (75)
Votes (2)




This is round one of the Winter Regular Debate Tournament.

This debate will be about the legalization of the nationally controversial topic that is Euthanasia.

Important definitions

USFG: United States Federal Government.

Euthanasia: Also called mercy killing; the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die,as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition.

First round will be for acceptance, and will allow lannan13 to contact me in order to clarify definitions, and talk about general debate structure prior to him accepting.

The Official forum thread for this tournament can be found here:

I will be arguing this resolution from a philosophical, economical, and realistic stand point rather than one valuing morals/ethics as much, though some points regarding them may come up throughout the debate.

I will be arguing for voluntary, and non-voluntary Euthanasia, and in some specific cases, involuntary Euthanasia. I think it is important to remember based on the definition I provided above, Euthanasia in this instance does not only apply to humans, but also to animals. I say this in the first round to let lannan13 know I will be taking a broad look into this topic, so no complaints can be made later on.

Good luck in the debate lannan13, I look forward very much to this tournament.


I accept the debate.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Thankyou lannan13, let’s get right into it!

The loss of a life of a loved one, or house-hold pet can be very grievous and hard for people. Let’s face it, no one wants to lose someone close to them. When you have an extended period of warm memories with that person or animal, it becomes increasingly harder to let that life go. However my goal in this debate will be to prove that sometimes Euthanasia is the best option.

There are two types of Euthanasia that my opponent and I talked about in a private message prior to this debate.

Those two options being voluntary, and Non-Voluntary. My take on voluntary, would be that the patient in question is willing and wants to die by their own choice. Non-voluntary to me means the patient is not willing to die, and that ending life support is not their choice and goes against their own will. I’ll be arguing on the pro side of both of these sides. My only exception on Non-Voluntary would be if the patient didn’t want to die, and the person paying the medical bills was willing to continue paying for life support.

According to the definition I provided in round one, I am going to be arguing for Euthanasia only in the case of patients who are under life threatening illnesses that are incurable, and will not be focusing this debate on under age suicidal teenagers.

Argument 1: Resource delegation

Research data shows that most medical costs go into patients last month of living. If a patient were even to be Euthanized a month before the time their predicted time of death, the saving are enormous.

“Assuming that (1) 2.7 percent of patients who die each year (62,000 Americans) would choose physician-assisted suicide, (2) these patients would forgo an average of four weeks of life, and (3) the medical costs in the last month of life for each patient who dies are $10,118 (in 1995 dollars), we estimate that legalizing physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia would save approximately $627 million in 1995 dollars Estimated Cost Savings from the Use of Physician-Assisted Suicide by Patients with Cancer Who Receive Conventional Care (in 1995 Dollars).). This amount is less than 0.07 percent of total U.S. health care expenditures. “(1)

For a patient or a patient’s family who is willing to end life support of their own will, not only does it save them a lot of money, but it also saves these resources (medical resources) for individuals who aren’t life threatened. Non legalized Euthanasia is flushing money and medical equipment down the toilet so a patient can suffer longer against his or her own wishes in many cases. When we are weighing the value of life, we also have to weigh what value that life can continue to bring other than a family members happiness, as opposed to the value of what could be saved if the person were to take part in assisted suicide.

Argument 2: Quality over Quantity

Suffering and pain is the worst possible place to be in. No one likes to willingly suffer, and more often than not, most would choose death over the idea that their suffering will never end. Why should every individual not have the opportunity to cease their own life as their own choice? Or if the person isn’t able to make that choice, have someone else end their suffering? Value in life has desisted at a certain point, elderly individuals often have experienced much of life. And if it is a child in such circumstances, why would anyone be okay watching a child go through so pain?

So the question here is, what is more important, the quality of one’s life, or the quantity, the proverbial number of days the person has lived? If pain and suffering is all a person has in their cards for the remainder of their days, then we should legalize the ability to end that so as not to ruin their overall quality of life even further.

Argument 3: It is possible to regulate Euthanasia.

Euthanasia if legalized wouldn’t be omni-present tool used all the time, and without good reason. Just as every rule or legislation, it would be modified to make sure individuals still followed the correct protocols in order to proceed with Euthanasia. Legalization of Euthanasia doesn’t mean doctors will run around willy nilly, distributing lethal doses to their patients against the will of the patient or the client. In fact Oregon is one of many states that have legalized Euthanasia through their “Death with Dignity act” and it is heavily regulated to satisfy societal moral compasses, and patient wishes. In order for a patient to receive such treatment, they must go through a series of avenues, questionnaires, and meet strict requirements in order to be eligible for Euthanasia. More information on their specific laws can be found on the Q and A page. (2) My point is that each state that legalizes Euthanasia will have a specific set of rules that must be followed in order for it not to be a crime, just as with Colorado’s Marijuana legalization.

Argument 4: Euthanasia already happens

To take more of a Utilitarianistic approach (or a consequentialists if you will), death is inescapable. Passive Euthanasia will occur, due to lack of funding to pay medical bills, or the equipment simply failing to work on a patient in many cases. Many patients will die anyways, and when they do it will be much more painful than it needs to, and much more expensive. Why let Passive Euthanasia kick in, wasting an individual’s quality of life, money, and all to let them suffer?


Is death really such a bad thing? It may be impossible to know. For many it is fear of the unknown, ignorance if you will, of what is beyond the black void we call death. We will all make our way their however, and many of us would prefer to get there the easiest, and most painless route possible. That is my proposal, that life is beautiful, and that to preserve such a beautiful thing in misery is wasteful, and archaic. We as humans have evolved to a point where Euthanasia is the most logical, humane, and resource effective avenue, with really little to no recourse. Thanks again lannan for the debate, and good luck in your follow up round.




I thank my opponent for debating me here today. For this round I shall only provide my opening arguments as my rebuttals will be in my next round.

Libertarian Grim Dark Framework

Throughout history people have been inspired to make inventions to help the masses and progress soceity. Though the sad fact is tha the government hasn't always used these inventions to the best of their use in order to help people. The Guillotine being one of the greatest examples of a doctor creating an invention for a more humane way for prisoner executions. He had no idea that the Revolutionaries would use this to execute thousands in the Reign of Terror. He had no idea that France would use this to silence their political opposition. Peter Jensen has seen his invention of the loud speaker to turn into a massive invasion of privacy and brainwashing as Hitler took the project and changed it to how he saw fit. Euthanasia. Even though there's a good intention behind the practice history has shown that if you give the government the power of the invention via legalization that it will be used for the wrong reason. Many great authors have already begun to forecast this. The best example is that of "The Giver" where the weak are killed off via infantcide and the old are euthanized. There is already a beginning of a mounting support for the practice of eugenics and if this becomes legalized then it will enlarge the government and allow them to infrindge on the rights of their citizens and even take their lives. In this debate I will show why it shouldn't be legalized as we are already seeing this fall from grace and it is our job of this generation to halt this trampling of our rights before we give the government another weapon like the Guillotine or even the Dark Net.

Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent.

I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1] Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. [2] A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent.

Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument

Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, “If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia.” However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. [3] .) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. [4]

The euthanasia’s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia’s have doubled since 2007 as well.

The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition.

""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?"
From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain."
From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases."
From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" [5]

You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia.

Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]:42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicidePhysician Characteristics:
79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicidePhysicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South[7] and [8]

Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness

Consent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia’s have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round)

Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. [9]

For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. [10]

Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, "“it is the
greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and
wrong.” [11]

This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society.

Due to me running out of characters my sources will be presented in the comments section.
Debate Round No. 2


To start off, I would like to point out that neither myself, or my opponent set up a specific style of debate in our private messages or in the comments. This meaning I am a little caught off guard to the fact that he mentioned he would save rebuttals to the arguments I made in round 3, whilst copy/pasting arguments from an old Euthanasia debate of his. While tactically, I do not see an advantage in doing this, I will go along with it and I suppose we can just ignore my arguments for now and focus on the points he brought up. It just might have been easier to just have let him start the debate if I knew in advance this would be the case. I apologize to the readers for our apparent lack of communication in this matter.

First, I will address my opponent’s opener. He starts my making a medieval analogy from the use of guillotines to Euthanasia. This reference seems to be completely irrelevant, and out there. Not only have societal morals and ethics changed considerably from the time Guillotines were used, that also has nothing to do with Euthanasia. Several points throughout the debate, I think my opponent seems to confuse Euthanasia to that of the death penalty. The Guillotine’s use was for that of punishment, not generally relief from pain and suffering.

Lannan then makes a reference towards Hitler’s creation of “Euthanasia”. At this point, I am coming to understand that my opponent may not know what Euthanasia actually is. Euthanasia was defined in the first round however, as being something completely different than killing an entire group of people in pursuit of one’s personal Agenda. What Hitler did was not Euthanasia, and to spin that as Euthanasia is not only inaccurate, but also manipulative.

My opponent also draws a point from the movie “The Giver”. I could point out how incredulous the notion is that fictional society’s rules can have any influence towards our own realistic society. This is the equivalent of me saying the movie “Contagion” is a proper reference for the Pro Euthanasia standpoint.

Rebuttal 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent.

Let’s forgive the fact that this whole argument encompasses statistics from Belgium and the Netherlands, and the debate is in the realm of the United States (a society with a completely different standard of laws, ethics, and morals). Euthanasia without consent of a fully functioning, mentally stable adult is not “Euthanasia”. Without the consent of the patient, or the patient’s caregivers, giving someone a lethal dose is murder. The murder statistics and the argument itself are thus irrelevant to this debate. My argument 3 actually addresses this point in advance however. A properly regulated legalization process would ensure specific measures are taken in regards to patient or caregiver consent, just as with my Oregon source.

Rebuttal 2: The slippery slope argument

As I mentioned above, it is hard to debate the morals of a different country. My opponent drawing references to children deaths, again is not Euthanasia. It has nothing to do with putting a patient out of his or her misery, and isn’t even closely related to the topic at hand. My opponents own argument provides several definitions that re-emphasize that Euthanasia is the killing of a dying patient. Using the slippery slope argument seems to work against his intentions, as the slippery slope fallacy often suggests that inaccurate presumptions are being made about a potential outcome of a rule or legislation, without any actual evidence that these things will happen. My opponent is drawing a very long line from painlessly killing people in hospitals, to murdering children for no apparent purpose.

My opponent mentions how doctors may have a hard time with Euthanasia because they are used to healing rather than killing. Euthanasia should be looked at as a cure from suffering and pain. It is essentially healing a person of some of the worst pains possible. If a doctor has trouble with this, maybe he hasn’t been around enough open wounds to really be called a doctor. Doctor’s being scarred for life is a moot point. Patients should fear doctor's that go outside the realm of legality and choose to murder innocents, however that has nothing to do with Euthanasia.

Lastly, in this point, my opponent offers statistics on doctor's preferences on physician assisted suicide. Many doctors probably don't want to commit assisted suicide, but I think that is far beside the point. In my opponents own source(3), A whopping 56.2% of doctors had received requests for assisted suicide during their career. After all, Euthanasia values should arguably focus around the patient, not the physician. The patients are the one's in excruciating pain after all. 53% of Physicians answered yes to the moral compass question asked to them, if they would have been okay with Euthanasia upon a patient requesting it.

Rebuttal 3: Self ownership and Sickness

Lannan brings up a point about how a patient who is in a vegetative state came out of it after 13 years. While I don't really think this falls under the category of extreme pain, I will address this point anyway. I am not really advocating for painless Euthanasia's as that is not covered in the definition, but if vegetative states were permanent it may be different. My opponent shows that it is easier with medical research the way it is these days to bring someone out of a coma. My response is: Great, more power to them! We don't need to Euthanize individuals who can probably come out of a coma. It may be up to the family at that point who paid for the 13 years of medical care for the vegetative person. But my arguments mostly apply to individuals that are more than likely for sure going to die.

Next my opponent mentions that patients might not be of the right mind when they ask for Euthanasia. It's easy to forget sometimes that humans are animals too, though. We are instinctual, and the instinct and reaction to pain is the same throughout most species. When in pain, we want to not be in pain anymore. In fact in most circumstances, when in excruciating pain, the only thought that one will have is that they will do anything to let the pain end. Why is ending that pain a bad thing? Most sane, rational humans beings wouldn't want to sit and watch a cat or a dog suffer who had just been hit by a car. Is it more ethical to allow them to live in pain and misery because they cannot think clearly, or to do them the justice of putting them out of their misery? Will they ever be in the "Right" mind, when pain is always around the corner? How do we determine whether someone is in the "right" mind to begin with? This to me sounds like some narcissistic justification for someone to justify their stance on the moral realm of Euthanasia. Thinking for the patient doesn't mean that under different circumstances, they still wouldn't have wanted the pain to end via death.

I actually found this line from my opponent quite humorous, as it works against him:

"This means that we must observe the weight of the individuals value to the community verse the needs of that individual."

What value does a terminally ill patient serve to their community? The value in their life has diminished to suffering, and misery. The spheal about Euthanasia robbing the community doesn't make much sense to me. We are robbing the community of an individual who will be susceptible passive Euthanasia no matter what, a person who is most likely bed ridden, and doesn't want to live anyway (whether they are in the "right" state of mind or not).

To conclude, I think my opponent has a very different view of what Euthanasia actually is, than I do. If we are sticking straight to the definition (which I am), then half my opponents arguments don't even apply to this debate. Most of his objections to Euthanasia seems to be out of criminal intentions. I am not an advocater of criminal intent, and law breaking, so these points really serve no purpose in the debate.

I wish my opponent luck in the following round.




I thank my opponent for a very speedy response. This round I will attempt to address my opponent's Opening arguments and then move on to his refutations of my own.

Before I go into my rebuttals I would like to point out a few things that my opponent is advocating here. In R1 he advocated that he would "in some cases" permit Involuntary Euthanasia. Now what's Involuntary Euthanasia you might ask? Let me define it for you.

Involuntary Euthanasia- Involuntary euthanasia occurs when euthanasia is performed on a person who is able to provide informed consent, but does not, either because they do not choose to die, or because they were not asked. [1]

Now I don't know about you, but this "in some cases" sounds like actual murder since this is done without the persons consent or even against their will. My opponent states that I do not know what I'm debating, but this is one of the things that he is advocating and is one of the things I warned about in my framework.

The second type of euthanasia that my opponent argues for (outside of voluntary euthanasia) is non-voluntary euthanasia- Non-voluntary euthanasia (sometimes known as mercy killing) is euthanasia conducted where the explicit consent of the individual concerned is unavailable, such as when the person is in a persistent vegetative state, or in the case of young children. [2]

Rebuttal 1: Resource Delegation

My opponent's argument here is completely invalid as he has made one of the most common mistakes. Physican Assisted Sucide is not the same as Voluntary Euthanasia. PAS is when the doctor provides the materials to kill the patient while in Euthanasia the Doctor actually kills the patient. [3] This is a completely different thing so this argument must be thrown out of the debate since it is an untopical argument.

As for the costs, this is a National Healthcare issue. The International ask Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide reported that when making the drugs for Euthanasia it costs more than it does for the medical treatment of keeping the patient alive. [4] This is a key thing as it shows that this argument from my opponent is really just an argument in my own favor.

Rebuttal 2: Quality over Quantity

"Activists often claim that laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are government mandated suffering. But this claim would be similar to saying that laws against selling contaminated food are government mandated starvation. Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer." [4]

As we can see from the quote above my opponent is simply misunderstanding the law that is in place. The laws aren't meant to make people suffer. That's like saying that FDA regulations against certain foods are intended to make people starve. The laws against Euthanasia are proper regulations to ensure and protect against abuse.

Rebuttal 3: It is possible to Regulate Euthanasia

I find it quite interesting that my opponent brings up the "Death with Dignity Act." The reason being is that the law has absolutely nothing to do with Euthanasia. You heard me right, it has nothing to do with euthanasia, but is actually PAS. Let me give you a direct quote from Oregon's Department of Human Services, " The Death with Dignity Act legalizes PAS [physician-assisted suicide], but specifically prohibits euthanasia, where a physician or other person directly administers a medication to end another's life." [5] So we can now officially see that there really isn't any legal forms of euthanasia in the US and by my opponent's own words and standards stated in Round 3, we would be unable to actually know how it would impact the US without it here. Though if we are to regulate how is that possible with my opponent allowing involuntary euthanasia which is pratically murder?

“Globally speaking, people do develop intolerance to morphine, and delirium is very common at the end of life”[6], as we can see here in a quote by Palliative Specialist Dr. BJ Miller, that delirium is common towards the end of life and at this point the person has no idea what they are doing, but may appear as they do. This is harmful at this time as they may chose to permit Voluntary Euthanasia, but they might not actually want to do so in the correct state of mind. So even with Pro's "regulations" we won't be able to actually be able to properly help them, but kill them.

Rebuttal 4: Euthanasia already happens.

My opponent makes an interesting argument when he brings in Passive Euthanasia. Though I will continue with my argument from Dr. BJ Miller on that people are in capable at making these kinds of decissions at which point we should not permitt others to preform euthanasia since it would normally be against he person's wishes. I also extend across my arguments from last round that highlight the importance of seeing a Palliative Specialist which these cases have dropped to miniscual numbers. This is important as it helps evaluate the patient and their state. Euthanasia skips over the Palliative Specialist and has the doctor kill the patient at command.

Now with that out of the way is is time to move on to my opponent's Round 3 arguments.


My opponent goes throughout here and just states that everything is blasphamous, but it is not so. I have shown that in each of these situations that an invention meant for good things are turned into a weapon of terror against the people. My opponent claims what Hitler did wasn't Euthanasia, but keep in mind Hitler was simply doing Involuntary euthanasia, which is something my opponent is advocating for, and nonvoluntary euthanasia. Note that I'm not talking about the Holicost as this is pre-Holicost. My opponent launches into an Ad Hom attack into Lois Lowry and must be discarded as he doesn't actually refute the argument made here.

Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia.

My opponent pratically discards this argument since it is from another country, but here we have to keep two things in mind. A) Europe is a more liberal place and with this policy in a movement towards a more liberal policy we can see Europe as an almost model to compare to. B) The US hasn't legalized Euthanasia only PAS. Europe actually has and studying these cases is important since they are the only places that have and make a similar path that the US would follow. Secondly we have to remember that my opponent's continued disgust of Involuntary euthanasia contradicts his R1 claim and with him arguing against himself it will immidiately flow the debate into my favor.

Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument

My opponent continues to ignore the fact that the killing of children in this case is euthanasia. If you look at the types of euthanasia definitions that I have provided you'll see that the killing of children is indeed in one of them showing that it is indeed Euthanasia. Though this contention is named the "Slippery Slope Argument" does not truely mean that it is a Slippery Slope Fallacy. The reason for this is that I have provided a great deal of evidence that shows that this does and will happen. With Europe ahead of us and being the only nations that have done so chances are that it will happen in the US. Not to mention that our moral values and our policies are moving more towards liberal Europe's views.

The doctor is meant to cure and help heal patients not kill them. It is an entire different story. My opponent is bringing up a rediculious argument as it shows the direct opposite of what the doctor is suppose to do. There's a complete difference between preforming heart surgery and pushing the suringe on a need injecting posion into a patients IV to preform euthanasia and kill them.

My opponent doesn't tell you all of the moral compass quote. The rest talks about prescribing them a drug that they can possibly overdose on. It says nothing about lethal injections or anything of that nature. That's like me telling you to swallow an entire bottle of Sleeping pills. There's a ton of things that are nearly irrelivant with my opponent's argument here.

Contention 3: Self-Ownership and Sickness

My opponent here talks about that he's not for this type of Euthanasia, but yet he is defending Non-Voluntary Euthanasia and this is something that is including in this relm and thus he has no choice, but to go and defend this point as this falls under the umbrella that my opponent set-up for his argumenation.

Though I feel for those in pain and I'm not as heartless as my opponent thinks I am there is such a thing as a rational mind. I would go much more indepth here, but I'm running out of character. Immanual Kant states that all humans are Rational beings, but when there is injury or pain this blocks our cognative and state of mind. This puts us in a temporary state of Irrationality. [7] Due to this improperstate of mind we cannot permitt them to make these massive decissions.

My opponent makes a mistake with my quote. We must observe that the person, in a Rational state of mind would never choose death, but due to this imparement of Rationality we cannot allow them to take their lives since they are not in the correct state of mind. That is respecting the rights of the individual. The community needs the person due to the their contrabution and if the individual takes their life then the entire community will feel it. "For whom the Bell Tolls."

Debate Round No. 3


Thanks for the response.

Let me clarify something for the readers that was brought up last round by lannan13. First of all, me and my opponent seem to be in completely different realms of debate. When mentioning Involuntary, and non-voluntary Euthanasia in the opening round, I am speaking in terms of a legal viewpoint. My opponents statistics that I am disputing are taking place not only outside of the United States (thus not even on topic), but are taking place in an illegal realm. My opponent is trying to play it off like I am supporting Doctor’s Euthanizing patient’s for their own agenda’s, which I am strictly against. So what does Euthanasia look like in a legal setting? This point hasn’t been discussed in this debate yet. As I mentioned in argument 3 it would have to be regulated. However Euthanasia taking place without the patient’s explicit permission could happen based on a multitude of scenarios and reasons. For example, if the patient is not mentally coherent enough to make the decision. Or if it is in the hands of the patient’s caretakers or the responsible party in charge of the patient’s medical expenses. In-voluntary meaning the patient doesn’t have caretakers in charge of the medical bills, and it is up to the doctor who has knowledge and experience in the area to determine whether or not medical resources are worth a month or two of extra life. These are just a few specific hypotheticals, but it would be majorly up to the law makers to decide how regulations would be handled. This is explicitly why I said “In some cases” in round one.

So in summary, my opponent cannot just dismiss my arguments against him because he is drawing a conclusion from an illegal standpoint, whereas this debate is about whether the USFG should “legalize Euthanasia”. The resolution was specifically worded to avoid this issue being manipulated and spun to mean what my opponent wants it to mean.

Resource Delegation

My opponent "Throws my argument out of the debate" because of semantics. Explaining the difference in who actually does the killing does not make resources any less expensive, or the issue any less topical.

Going on to costs, I have confronted my opponent about mis-information. The source he posted didn't actually have any of the information he claimed it did about the cost of lethal drugs being more expensive then the cost of keeping a patient alive. In the comments section he admits that he made a mistake and posted a new source showing that the drug is not as expensive was originally proposed. With this, I'll consider the argument conceded rather than accuse him of conduct violation in mis-leading the viewers. Thank you lannan13 for being honest.

Here is the original source:

Here is the new source and quote he mentioned in the comments:

"Savings to governments could become a consideration. Drugs for assisted suicide cost about $35 to $45, making them far less expensive than providing medical care. This could fill the void from cutbacks for treatment and care with the 'treatment' of death."
-- International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
"Frequently Asked Questions,"
(accessed May 27, 2010)

Quality over Quantity

I have no clue what my opponent is talking about or if he even really understood my argument here. The laws against Euthanasia actually have nothing to do with abuse prevention as my opponent seems to believe. It has to do with a very old (in my opinion misguided) idea of morals and ethics, and the breach of the medical code of ethics. My opponent is shifting his stance from round 3 where he mentions doctors will be afraid of Euthanasia. yet is now saying that it will be mis-used? Which is it, will doctors being morally inclined not to commit Euthanasia, or will they run around mis-using it Willy nilly? If there is a middle ground, there is nothing that regulated Euthanasia will not solve. With any law there will always be cases of mis-use, that does not mean the law makers stand by the mis-users decisions, and that the mis-user would not be punished.

Euthanasia Regulation

My opponent resorts back to semantical arguments mentioned earlier here, but then entirely contradicts himself with his death with dignity source he posted above. The source itself uses the two hand in hand and almost illustrates them as being the same thing! It's like my opponent is avoiding the argument by trying to pretend that PSA is something so different and scary. Why? My opponent is dodging the issue of explaining why. At this point in time, my opponent has given us 0 reason to see why regulations would not work in the united states. Maybe some examples of where regulation has failed, like with Colorado's drug legalization- Oh wait... ;-)

So even with Pro's "regulations" we won't be able to actually be able to properly help them, but kill them.

Yes, lannan, that is the point of Euthanasia is it not? We are helping them from suffering. I have no idea where you are going with this, or if you are just typing words for the sake of typing them.

Passive Euthanasia

Again, not sure whether my opponent fully understands this point.

I also extend across my arguments from last round that highlight the importance of seeing a Palliative Specialist which these cases have dropped to minuscule numbers. This is important as it helps evaluate the patient and their state. Euthanasia skips over the Palliative Specialist and has the doctor kill the patient at command.

This has nothing to do with Passive Euthanasia. In this point we are beyond the point of fixing a patients case, they are for sure going to die, and it's just a matter of time at this point. The entire premise of this point is saying that patients who are for sure going to die, will die anyway, so why not cut off the last few months of their pain and suffering, saving tons of resources, misery, pain, heartache, etc for someone who is for sure, 100% diagnosed that they going to die.

Over to lannans arguments.


My opponent is still proposing the holocaust is involuntary Euthanasia. I have no intention to debate that the holocaust was justified. That is not what In-voluntary Euthanasia is, and my opponent is continuing with a non-sense spheal that it is. I am not arguing for non-medical mass murder. The definition of Euthanasia was clearly stated earlier, and we should stick to it.

Unreported Euthanasia

Con States Europe has more liberal policies on Euthanasia and that the US would strive to emulate this. Why? Why, if legalized, does it have to be liberal, rather than strictly regulated and controlled? Also why is Europe the only path the United States would follow? No basis for this claim was given.

Slippery Slope

*Yawn* This argument is a repeat of his Hitler and holocaust argument, making a false claim that Euthanasia is something that takes place outside of a medical setting. Euthanasia isn't killing children unless it is in a *Legal* life threatening medical situation . Non-definitional, non topical, and manipulative.

Also Euthanasia isn't open heart surgery, that is correct. Open heart surgery is a hit or miss thing, and often is something that if done right can guarantee a persons longevity. In the case of Euthanasia, a person is going to die and they are going to die painfully in most cases. If a doctor stops that pain through Euthanasia, that qualifies as "Curing" the patient to me. The doctor's own ideals are up to him. But if Euthanasia is legalized, doctors will either have to suck it up or the hospital will find some other doctor that can commit the Euthanasia. It's not like they are taking an axe and butchering the patient.

Self Owernship and sickness

My opponent talks about rationalism and quote Kant. My opponent seems to think I am coming from a bleeding heart perspective, which is entirely not the case. It is 100%. We see an animal dying and suffering, we generally will put it out of it;s misery (unless you have psychopathic tendencies and would prefer to watch it suffer). It seems logical that this rationale be applied to humans does it not? Suffering is a waste of life, and resources. Pain and suffering is really only the secondary value I am supporting, logic and rationality is primary in these key factors.

So what state of mind does one need to be in to not want to die under extreme pain? We are human, but humans are animals, and we operate off of instinct just like any other animal. We react to pain the same, and have the benefit of being intelligent to know when life is being wasted and to be Euthanized would be an easier route for oneself, and perhaps in many cases, their families medical bills.


My opponent and I obviously have different ideas of what Euthanasia is, and have wasted a big part of this debate not understanding each other. However I feel I have won the important arguments. My opponent ceded in the comments that Lethal Dosage was less expensive. My opponent hasn't demonstrated how Euthanasia would not be properly regulated, and my opponent never argued that pain and suffering can be remissed through pouring medical resources into a dying patient for no reason. Under the lifestyle of the arguments I have put up, I think it is more than safe to assume Euthanasia would work if legalized. Thanks lannan, and good luck in the voting period.



I thank my opponent for devoting his time to debate me here today, but like all good things it is time to close out the debate. Though not without addressing a few issues.

My opponent seems misguided in this debate. He stated in his opening round, " I will be arguing for voluntary, and non-voluntary Euthanasia, and in some specific cases, involuntary Euthanasia." I spent my last round defining what these other two forms of euthanasia are. Now, my opponent expresses horror and disgust at what I'm speaking of in terms of involuntary euthanas, but I'm just simply arguing against what he had sad. This policy would legalize Involuntary euthanasia which my opponent even said was murder. As Pro he has to stand by his opening round statement and defend each of those three areas of euthanasia in order to fully win the debate and he has already expressed horror against one as he recognizes it as legalized murder, as so do I.

To see here my opponent has to defend these key points and if he cannot then the debate ends with a Negative Ballot.

Rebuttal 1: Resource Delegation

My opponent just simply ignores the fact that my opponent's entire argument doesn't apply since it's PAS not Euthanasia. Oregon even prohibits Euthanasia as seen by the Department of Human Services (Oregon) even confirms this as I have shown last round. My opponent has DROPPED this thus nullifying this debate argument. [1]

My opponent misquoted the original source. It was the International Euthanasia task force Source, not the Public health quote. Though I cannot bring up counter costs since this is the last round I can still bring up a key argument in this debate. Think of this. It's cheaper if you are homeless, no house bills, electrical bills and more. It's cheaper than living in a home. Why is this argument flawed? Though it's easier to live homeless most people would prefer to live in a home and bear the costs. The same can be said here. Not to mention that I have said that people in these situations are in the wrong state of mind and while it is more preferrable to live people "think" they want to die.

Rebuttal 2: Quality over Quantity

My opponent's argument here is misgided as it's based on PAS not Euthanasia. The very issue that he quoted was a PAS quote which leads to a major difference. Keep in mind that any arguments about PAS is untopical for my opponent. The difference is like PAS is giving someone a gun to kill themselves with and Euthanasia is when someone tells you to shoot them. MAJOR difference. What "hypocracy" my opponent is referencing is the Hypocrit Oath, but there's no time for that argument since it's the final round. Though when you see the situation I described it's completely understandable why most people are against it since killing someone is WAY different than handing someone the instrament to their death.

Rebuttal 3: Euthanasia Regulation

Again I'll say it again. My opponent misused the quote. The Oregon DOHS is not the source he's refurring to. I'll say it again PAS is not euthanasia. It's completely different and doesn't relate to this debate. My opponent hasn't given an American example of regulations that would occur. Plus with what he stated in his opening round how would the government use the "sometimes" Involuntary euthanasia? Who knows, but when you give the government a power and right they usually don't give it back.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. Murder and Euthanasia, for the case of this debate, isn't the same thing.

Rebuttal 4: Passive Euthanasia

My opponent completely ignores the Palliative Argument. This is important as they help analyze the patient before death and before they choose what happens next. That is assuming they are in the correct state of mind and do not have dileria. This argument holds a great deal of weight in this debate as without it we cannot know if the individual is actually ready to make their selection and a great deal of the time they will select wrong due to their irrationality.


My opponent is completely ignoring the definitions I have provided on what these different kinds of euthanasia are and this is an issue since my opponent's "sometimes" is arguing for Government sanctioned murder. The definition my opponent provided was Voluntary Euthanasia. I addressed the other two elephants in the room.

Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia

My opponent doesn't think my debate argument is topical, but it is. I will provide an example to show why it is. So this really is Topical unlike what my opponent believes. It would be like if someone defined Potato products and I talked about Yams, Tater Tots, and fries. It still falls under the unbrella even though it isn't the normal argument. My opponent is simply confused here as this isn't really the normal type of Euthanasia which is Voluntary Euthanasia, but these are things he advocates for and must defend. My opponent drops the impact here, so I'll extend it across the board.

Contention 2: Slippery Slope

Despite my opponent just yawning away my debate argument we can see that this isn't just that simple. Under this resolution and what my opponent is advocating for is murder. What else do you call euthanizing someone without their consent or because they don't want to? This is blatantly muder, but my opponent has accepted defending this type of euthanasia in Round 1. My opponent has dropped key arguments that show places that have actually legalized euthanasia and do all these things that Pro himself dictates as horrible.

My opponent is mistaken on this interperation of "Curing." What my opponent is advocating for is pure murder as it kills the individual and ends their life. If you cure someone they're still alive. There's a huge difference here and my opponent is on the short end of the stick.

Contention 3: Self Ownership and sickness

I can agree with my opponent that we both hate pain and suffering and it is human nature to feel bad for those suffereing. There's a great deal of things I can disagree with him here and bring up arguments like a "Burnout" DA, but this is the final round. Though the issue here is that puts people into a temporary state of Irrationality. Not to mention the whole dileria argument that I had brought up from my last round. My opponent attempts to doge this argument by providing a Red Herring, but his argument must be disgarded as such.


Here at the end of the debate we can see the simple fact that there must be a ballot in negation. The reason for this is that at the beginning of the debate my opponent had stated that he would defend these three types of euthanasia: Voluntary, Non-Voluntary, and Involuntary. Throughout the debate my opponent has expressed disgusted at these types of euthanasia. We can see that in this debate my opponent drops the biggest impact of the debate and it is that of Government sanctioned murder. My opponent himself pratically also acceptted this type of argument to be true and that this shouldn't be allowed which flowed this debate argument into my favor. Since it is the only impact left in this debate there must be a Con ballot. He has also dropped several ethical arguments from Utilitarianism and Kant's Categorical Imperatives. Most of my opponent's were based around PAS which is NOT euthanasia and this untopical argument must be thrown out of the debate.

Thank you and please Vote Con!

As promised to my opponent I will provide all sources from my opponent in a cancelled debate which can be found bellow.

Debate Round No. 4
75 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheProphett 2 years ago
For tournament purposes, the voting period has ended. Additional votes are void in regards to tournament scoring.
Posted by TUF 2 years ago
For a debate with over half a thousand views, I find it funny that it has only received two votes lol.
Posted by TheProphett 2 years ago
Tejretics is correct, it was in my sign up post under the rules.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago

Proph did specify that a participant voting on another debate is against the rules in the PM given to us.
Posted by airmax1227 2 years ago
"Why would someone report my vote?"

At a glance, your vote clearly analyzes the debate in a thorough manner, so I'm not sure why YYW felt it was necessary for him deter anyone from reporting it (which is inappropriate and entirely unnecessary). If someone did feel so inclined to report it for whatever reason though, they would be perfectly within their rights to do so, regardless of what anyone else has to say about it.
Posted by FourTrouble 2 years ago
Why would someone report my vote?
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
Idk... but I'll bet someone might have without my comment.
Posted by TUF 2 years ago
Has someone reported it?
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
Anyone inclined to report FT's RFD should generally reconsider, among other things, their choices with respect to voting on the site, and their life choices more generally. To suggest that FT's vote would be insufficient to remain, or that it should be removed for any other reason, would, without question, reflect the suggester's stupidity.
Posted by TUF 2 years ago
I agree with the reasoning behind the rule. However due to bsh1 conditions 1 and 2 clearly being the case, I think an exception should be made. But maybe we should chat with the prophet about that first.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 2 years ago
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:
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie. There were so many problems with this debate. I can't reasonably say who won and who lost, therefore I cannot give anyone the win or loss.