The Instigator
burningpuppies101
Pro (for)
Winning
45 Points
The Contender
CiRrO
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points

Assisted Suicide can be morally justified in most cases.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 12 votes the winner is...
burningpuppies101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,368 times Debate No: 5371
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (12)

 

burningpuppies101

Pro

Ok, I'm just going to launch straight into the debate, and hope that you all vote in terms of the debates themselves, and not the debaters.

Before I start my arguments, I just want to define the topic, just so that we are all clear about what we are debating.
I'm going to define Assisted Suicide as a direct action taken to terminate someone's life at his or her request, usually by some painless means. Usually, the patient is unable to kill him/herself, so he/she asks someone else to do it for them. And the person killing the patient has the permission of the patient.

Now to my arguments:
1. People have the right to control their lives. We, an outside force, do not. It would be wrong of us to tell someone they cannot do something to themselves. If for whatever reason that person doesn't want to live anymore, we do not have the moral right to stop them. We can pursuade them to think about it, and make sure they are sure about it, but we cannot say, "No, you cannot kill yourself, because I'm not going to let you." That is WRONG of us. When we help them kill themselves, all we are doing is helping them carry out their choices, because they themselves are unable to. It is not wrong of us to help someone we care about.

2. We are so willing to put animals to sleep, sometimes for not very good reasons, and we do not lose any sleep over it. Why is it that the moment we move into the range of humans, we suddenly become sacred and untouchable??? If we can kill animals to put them out of their misery, and we can take that step with animals, we can take that step with humans.

3. Is a life really worth living if it is a life filled with physical pain from seeing yourself die, emotional pain from watching your friends and family watch you die, and just being stuck in a hospital bed all day??? If the patient is unable to kill him/herself because she is handicapped, he should be allowed to ask someone to kill him/her. If I am paralyzed from the neck down, and I'm unable to move and I will be stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of my life, there is not very much reason to live. Also, if something was able to paralyze you from the neck down, you will suffer mental damage. Do you really want to go through life not being able to control your own body? Do you really want to watch as everyone around you gave you glances, because they all could tell that you are sick, paralyzed, terminally ill, or a combination of them???

All in all, that's my first speech. I'll elaborate on my points more later... For now, lets see the opposition...
CiRrO

Con

I'll present my own case, then move to refute my opponents.

[Definitions]

1. Assisted Suicide: suicide with the help of another person.
2. Morally: conforming to a normative standard of right behavior.
3. Justified: in accordance with justice.
4. Justice: the quality of being just or fair.
5. Morally justified: being just for fair under the standards of conforming to the right.
6: Most cases: more then a majority of the time.

[Contentions]

Contention I: Killing can never be morally justifiable.

The act of killing is defined as cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly. This act of causing death of another person is immoral no matter what the circumstances. Furthermore, assisted suicide is the intentional killing of another person, which, by law is murder. Just because someone wants to die, does not justify the act of killing them.

A) Immanuel Kant: "Firstly, under the head of necessary duty to oneself: He who contemplates suicide should ask himself whether his action can be consistent with the idea of humanity as an end in itself. If he destroys himself in order to escape from painful circumstances, he uses a person merely as a mean to maintain a tolerable condition up to the end of life. But a man is not a thing, that is to say, something which can be used merely as means, but must in all his actions be always considered as an end in himself. I cannot, therefore, dispose in any way of a man in my own person so as to mutilate him, to damage or kill him. (It belongs to ethics proper to define this principle more precisely, so as to avoid all misunderstanding, e.g., as to the amputation of the limbs in order to preserve myself, as to exposing my life to danger with a view to preserve it, etc. This question is therefore omitted here.)"

B) By legalizing assisted suicide, you are making a doctor, which is another human being, take the life away from you. This goes beyond suicide. You are asking another person to take your life away from you. Hippocratic Oath: "I willL follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life." As you can see, doctors take an OATH to not intentionally, and by their own hand destroy life. Therefore, a person does not have the morally justified right to have a doctor take their life away.

Moving to my opponents case:

1. People have the right to control their lives. We, an outside force, do not. It would be wrong of us to tell someone they cannot do something to themselves. If for whatever reason that person doesn't want to live anymore, we do not have the moral right to stop them. We can pursuade them to think about it, and make sure they are sure about it, but we cannot say, "No, you cannot kill yourself, because I'm not going to let you." That is WRONG of us. When we help them kill themselves, all we are doing is helping them carry out their choices, because they themselves are unable to. It is not wrong of us to help someone we care about.

--> I concede that others do not have the control over another person's life. For this reason you can drop his 1st point. His point contradicts. He believes that if someone cannot kill him/herself then others have the authority to do so. No one under any circumstance has the power to take your life from you. Your life is your own. Therefore, a doctor, even with your own permission does not have the legitimate authority to stripe your life from you. This is banned under moral and legal guidelines. He goes onto say it is not wrong of us to help someone we care about. This is flawed reasoning. Would it be morally justified to help a person you care about rob a bank? Or go on a killing spree? No. Why? Because those actions violate the law and moral principles. Extend this to assisted suicide. Killing is wrong, both morally and legally. Thus, you are not acting morally be helping someone you care about commit an egregious act.

2. We are so willing to put animals to sleep, sometimes for not very good reasons, and we do not lose any sleep over it. Why is it that the moment we move into the range of humans, we suddenly become sacred and untouchable??? If we can kill animals to put them out of their misery, and we can take that step with animals, we can take that step with humans.

--> Dehumanization. Ok, so my opponent believes that we can dehumanize humans because we are cruel to animals. What about microscopic organisms? We kill them on a daily basis. Should we dehumanize ourselves because of that.
--> Secondly, just because we may act immorally, does not jsutify more immoral actions. Yes, we may kill animals. But does that truly jsutify killing another human being? Listen to what my opponent is saying. We should all die, because we kill animals.

3. Is a life really worth living if it is a life filled with physical pain from seeing yourself die, emotional pain from watching your friends and family watch you die, and just being stuck in a hospital bed all day??? If the patient is unable to kill him/herself because she is handicapped, he should be allowed to ask someone to kill him/her. If I am paralyzed from the neck down, and I'm unable to move and I will be stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of my life, there is not very much reason to live. Also, if something was able to paralyze you from the neck down, you will suffer mental damage. Do you really want to go through life not being able to control your own body? Do you really want to watch as everyone around you gave you glances, because they all could tell that you are sick, paralyzed, terminally ill, or a combination of them???

--> Is a life worth living? That is a big question. So, let's breakdown what my opponent believes. He is essentially saying, that since someone may not have the normal quality of life, that person should not live. Essentially, my opponent is claiming a superiority between humans. E.g. My opponent claims that a handicapped person should have the right to have someone kill him/her. Break this down further. Why do they have that right? My opponent claims that since they do not have the "normal" quality of life, they do not deserve the right to live. Compare this to ethnic cleansing. Hitler killed the Jews, Catholics/Religious, Poles, Gypsies, and Gays because they were sub-human. This is exactly what my opponent is saying. Since people are not "normal" in their body-functions, etc, that they should die because of it. My opponent will try and claim that the person has the right. This is the perfect cover. E.g. When someone is in tremendous pain, they do not think clearly. Therefore, they may not want to live anymore. This gives justified right (According to some, like my opponent) to justify the extermination of them. Assisted suicide, thus turn into a systematic extermination, like the Holocaust.

For these reasons I urge a negation.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 1
burningpuppies101

Pro

I'm going refute my opponents case then move on to mine.

First off, Assisted Suicide includes the fact that the patient has given that person permission to kill him/her, and the only thing stopping the patient from dying is the fact that the person he/she has asked is unwilling. Just wanted to put that out there.

Contention I: Killing can never be morally justifiable.

The act of killing is defined as cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly. This act of causing death of another person is immoral no matter what the circumstances. Furthermore, assisted suicide is the intentional killing of another person, which, by law is murder. Just because someone wants to die, does not justify the act of killing them.

Refutation: Even if killing is bad, assisted suicide may not be. There is a small distinction between the 2, and I want to make that distinction now. When you kill someone, you don't have their permission. When you assist someone in suicide, you do have their permission. I'm going to say that the consent the patient gives is enough moral justification. Also, law should have nothing to do with morality. The law is not the measure of morality. I agree, if someone wants to die, it may not always justify killing them. Those cases would be the exceptions to this topic, which is that Assisted Suicide can be morally justified in MOST CASES. In most cases of assisted suicide, the patient has very good reason to not want to live anymore. Imagine yourself, constantly in pain, suffering because there is no way to get rid of the pain. You will live with the pain for the rest of your life. You cannot enjoy life because of the pain. You are terminally ill, and there is no cure for your ailment. Is there really any reason you should want to go on living like this? Is there any reason you should want to live this life filled with pain, both physical and emotional? I think not.

In reference to your Kant card, I'm going to say that it is indeed possible to morally justify using another person as a means to your own end. If you are unable to do it, wish to do it, ask someone else to do it for you, and the other person is ok with it, I believe that there should be no reason you should not be allowed to die, as long as there is enough reason to do so.

B) I never once mentioned that you to ask your doctor to do it, and I never once said that it had to be your doctor who killed you. There are many ways to kill someone, many of which do not involve a doctor.

Back to my own case.
1. Again, I don't think that the law should be a factor in this debate. The law is not the measure of morality, so we cannot use it to judge whether something is moral or not. Also, you misunderstood me on my first point. We do not have the right to stop someone from committing suicide. We also do not have the right to stop the person who is going to kill the patient saying, no, you cannot kill this person, even though he has given you every right to do so. That is wrong. The reason it would be wrong to rob a bank is because that hurts people other than yourself. We do not have the right to hurt another person, unless we have their consent. I believe that that part, the consent, is what justifies killing them. I would not help someone go on a killing spree, because I know that a killing spree is wrong because we are killing people without their consent. If we had the consent of every person, and there was ample reason to do so, then we would be justified in killing them. We cannot extend a killing spree to assisted suicide because there is one main difference; one has the consent of the victim, and another does not.

2. Again, you are twisting my words to fit your case. I am not saying that we should go around killing any human we want. My point was that why should animals be allowed to be put out of their misery, and why is it that we are willing to help an animal out of its misery because we know it will die soon, so we kill it painlessly so that it will not be in pain any longer. Why is it that we are willing to do animals the favor of getting them out of their misery, without their permission, and we are unwilling to kill another human being for the same reason, they are miserable, their lives are full of pain, and WE HAVE THEIR PERMISSION!!!! They want death! Death is a welcome change to their life. Why should we refuse them this final wish?

3. Again, you are twisting my words. I am not claiming a superiority between humans. Just because someone is handicapped, it does not mean we should kill them. If they are stuck in a hospital bed, in constant pain and suffering, never able to get a single moment of rest because it hurts too much, then I believe we have the right to kill them, BUT only with their permission, and request. Everyone deserves the right to live, and we can only lose that right when we WILLINGLY give it up, and allow someone to kill us, because it hurts too much to live.
Ethnic Cleansing: Again, there is no reason that should be justified. Assisted Suicide is not Genocide. I am not claiming that a person has the right to kill all the Jews, just because they are Jews. If there was a person who happened to be a Jew, and was terminally ill and was going to die no matter what, and wished to end this cycle of pain and suffering, I would agree with that person, and if they requested that I help him kill himself because he is unable to, I would help him. Not because he is a Jewish person, but because that person should not have to continue living in a cycle of pain and suffering.

Again, my opponent is handily taking the words I say, and twisting them in such a way that they seem to support his case. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. My points are valid, as I have just proven, and my opponent has forgotten one part of my argument that makes my case work, and makes his not work. Throughout his entire speech, he is mentioning things like genocide, killing sprees, just to name 2, and is claiming that my arguments support these things. This is not the case. My opponent has drawn this conclusion from the fact that my arguments support killing someone. He conveniently forgets to mention that all of my arguments include the fact that WE HAVE THE PATIENT's PERMISSION to do so. Also, there is ample reason for that patient to want to end his life, and because we have the patients permission, we have more than enough reason to do so, I believe that Assisted Suicide can be Morally Justified in Most Cases. Thank You
CiRrO

Con

"Even if killing is bad, assisted suicide may not be. There is a small distinction between the 2, and I want to make that distinction now. When you kill someone, you don't have their permission. When you assist someone in suicide, you do have their permission. I'm going to say that the consent the patient gives is enough moral justification. Also, law should have nothing to do with morality. The law is not the measure of morality. I agree, if someone wants to die, it may not always justify killing them. Those cases would be the exceptions to this topic, which is that Assisted Suicide can be morally justified in MOST CASES. In most cases of assisted suicide, the patient has very good reason to not want to live anymore. Imagine yourself, constantly in pain, suffering because there is no way to get rid of the pain. You will live with the pain for the rest of your life. You cannot enjoy life because of the pain. You are terminally ill, and there is no cure for your ailment. Is there really any reason you should want to go on living like this? Is there any reason you should want to live this life filled with pain, both physical and emotional? I think not."

--> Ok, the way he tries to refute my contention is that permission gives the moral justification for killing. This "permission" does not negate the immorality of the action of killing. No matter how you try to justify it, killing is immoral. Furthermore, he says that the patient has good reason to die. May this be from pain, physical or emotional, etc. My opponenet misses one key point: you are making another human being commit an egregious act. I.e. killing. It can never be morally justified to have someone else commit a moral and legal crime.

"In reference to your Kant card, I'm going to say that it is indeed possible to morally justify using another person as a means to your own end. If you are unable to do it, wish to do it, ask someone else to do it for you, and the other person is ok with it, I believe that there should be no reason you should not be allowed to die, as long as there is enough reason to do so."

--> My opponent again tries to jsutify it with the idea of permission. Even if you have permission or not, killing another person uses them as a means to an end. This violates morality because humans are ends themselves.

"I never once mentioned that you to ask your doctor to do it, and I never once said that it had to be your doctor who killed you. There are many ways to kill someone, many of which do not involve a doctor."

--> I'm sorry, but I made a pretty common assumption. Ok, so my opponent justifies assisted suicide by anyone. So this means that your mother wants to die because she is in tremendous pain. She asks her son to kill her. What type of request is that. Son, kill me. However, back to the doctor point. The law would never justify the right to kill a person for suicide reasons without a legitimate authority doing it. In this case, it would be a doctor. however doctors take an oath to not intentionally cause harm to others. This can also be applied to the Constraint Theory. This moral theory states that a moral action can NEVER cause harm to another person. With or without consent. Why? Because causing intentional destruction and harm is blatantly contradictory to moral principles.

"Again, I don't think that the law should be a factor in this debate. The law is not the measure of morality, so we cannot use it to judge whether something is moral or not. Also, you misunderstood me on my first point. We do not have the right to stop someone from committing suicide. We also do not have the right to stop the person who is going to kill the patient saying, no, you cannot kill this person, even though he has given you every right to do so. That is wrong. The reason it would be wrong to rob a bank is because that hurts people other than yourself. We do not have the right to hurt another person, unless we have their consent. I believe that that part, the consent, is what justifies killing them. I would not help someone go on a killing spree, because I know that a killing spree is wrong because we are killing people without their consent. If we had the consent of every person, and there was ample reason to do so, then we would be justified in killing them. We cannot extend a killing spree to assisted suicide because there is one main difference; one has the consent of the victim, and another does not."

--> My opponenet misses the point. I was arguing that the law is a letter format of a society's moral code. Murder, can never be morally and legally justifiable, even with consent. Murder is inherently wrong and can never be justified. This is shown in the law. Furthermore, by justifying murder in the format of assisted suicide, a slippery slope effect could be created which would leaf to other justifying of killing. Killing and murder must be seen as an intrinsic immoral action.

"Again, you are twisting my words to fit your case. I am not saying that we should go around killing any human we want. My point was that why should animals be allowed to be put out of their misery, and why is it that we are willing to help an animal out of its misery because we know it will die soon, so we kill it painlessly so that it will not be in pain any longer. Why is it that we are willing to do animals the favor of getting them out of their misery, without their permission, and we are unwilling to kill another human being for the same reason, they are miserable, their lives are full of pain, and WE HAVE THEIR PERMISSION!!!! They want death! Death is a welcome change to their life. Why should we refuse them this final wish?"

--> your point was that since we kill animals we have a right to kill other humans. As I have pointed out this is dehumanization, which goes against morality.

"Again, you are twisting my words. I am not claiming a superiority between humans. Just because someone is handicapped, it does not mean we should kill them. If they are stuck in a hospital bed, in constant pain and suffering, never able to get a single moment of rest because it hurts too much, then I believe we have the right to kill them, BUT only with their permission, and request. Everyone deserves the right to live, and we can only lose that right when we WILLINGLY give it up, and allow someone to kill us, because it hurts too much to live.
Ethnic Cleansing: Again, there is no reason that should be justified. Assisted Suicide is not Genocide. I am not claiming that a person has the right to kill all the Jews, just because they are Jews. If there was a person who happened to be a Jew, and was terminally ill and was going to die no matter what, and wished to end this cycle of pain and suffering, I would agree with that person, and if they requested that I help him kill himself because he is unable to, I would help him. Not because he is a Jewish person, but because that person should not have to continue living in a cycle of pain and suffering."

--> Again, you miss my point. I am saying that assisted suicide resembles genocides and immoral acts that have happened in the past. It is a way of cleansing the world of people that can't live "normal" lives. May it be forced or consented, killing just for the sake of achieving an end is not morally justified.

Overview:

Consent DOES NOT jsutify the act of killing. Killing is murder. Murder is inherently immoral, not matter what circumstances. Therefore, assisted suicide is not MORALLY justifiable.
Debate Round No. 2
burningpuppies101

Pro

-> Ok, the way he tries to refute my contention is that permission gives the moral justification for killing. This "permission" does not negate the immorality of the action of killing. No matter how you try to justify it, killing is immoral. Furthermore, he says that the patient has good reason to die. May this be from pain, physical or emotional, etc. My opponenet misses one key point: you are making another human being commit an egregious act. I.e. killing. It can never be morally justified to have someone else commit a moral and legal crime.

No, I'm trying to refute your contention be saying that permission and ample reason are justification. Killing may be immoral in many cases, but assisted suicide is not immoral. When you murder someone, do you have their permission? No. You are killing them in cold blood, often with premeditation. However, I believe that when you partake in assisted suicide, the patient's permission and the fact that their life is so full of suffering it is no longer worth living justifies the action. I am not missing the one key point you claim me to miss. I am not making another human being commit a bad act, because it is not a bad act if you fulfill one's final wishes. You are committing a act of love and mercy because you love that person so much that you are willing to put them out of your life and are willing to make this final sacrifice to them. You are willing to fulfill that person's final wishes, and I think that we should not stop someone from killing another person whose life is no longer worth living.

--> My opponent again tries to jsutify it with the idea of permission. Even if you have permission or not, killing another person uses them as a means to an end. This violates morality because humans are ends themselves.

Yes, I am indeed justifying Assisted Suicide with the idea of permission because in this case, killing another person is justified. All you are doing in this argument is spouting Kant, and you are not actually justifying it. You actually have to explain this if you wish to use this argument.

--> I'm sorry, but I made a pretty common assumption. Ok, so my opponent justifies assisted suicide by anyone. So this means that your mother wants to die because she is in tremendous pain. She asks her son to kill her. What type of request is that. Son, kill me. However, back to the doctor point. The law would never justify the right to kill a person for suicide reasons without a legitimate authority doing it. In this case, it would be a doctor. however doctors take an oath to not intentionally cause harm to others. This can also be applied to the Constraint Theory. This moral theory states that a moral action can NEVER cause harm to another person. With or without consent. Why? Because causing intentional destruction and harm is blatantly contradictory to moral principles.

Again, you are not seeing my whole argument. I am not justifying killing your mother just because she broke her arm and is in pain. What I am justifying is killing your mother if your mother is terminally ill, will not get better no matter what, in constant pain and suffering, and asks you to do so. Ok, back to the doctor point. You said that the law wouldn't justify the right to kill a person for suicide reasons without a legitimate authority doing it. Like I said before, the law is not the measure of morality. Just because something is legal, it does not make it morally right. Likewise, just because something is illegal, it does not make it immoral. Even if it was, I just want to ask you why a doctor would be a legitimate authority, and why. What makes a doctor so much better than any of us, that only a doctor can kill someone in an assisted suicide? Just wondering. Again, with your Constraint Theory. You are just quoting a theory, and you are not justifying the theory. Just because Kant said one thing and this theory says another, it does not mean that whatever they said is right. In fact, there are no such things as moral principles, since what one believes to be moral differs from who you talk to.

--> My opponenet misses the point. I was arguing that the law is a letter format of a society's moral code. Murder, can never be morally and legally justifiable, even with consent. Murder is inherently wrong and can never be justified. This is shown in the law. Furthermore, by justifying murder in the format of assisted suicide, a slippery slope effect could be created which would leaf to other justifying of killing. Killing and murder must be seen as an intrinsic immoral action.

I'd like to show you a definition from Merriam Webster:
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

that came directly from Merriam Webster as the definition of murder. There are several reasons why murder is unjustifiable. Note the malice aforethought in the definition. Assisted suicide is not meant as a bad thing. You are not assisting someone to die because you hate them and they owe you money. You are assisting them because you love and care for them, and wish that they end their life in a painless fashion. Assisted Suicide is not murder, because you are not thinking to kill them for a bad reason. You are killing them because you want to ease their pain and suffering, and because they have asked for you to end their life. Therefore, your slippery slope argument doesn't work.

--> Again, you miss my point. I am saying that assisted suicide resembles genocides and immoral acts that have happened in the past. It is a way of cleansing the world of people that can't live "normal" lives. May it be forced or consented, killing just for the sake of achieving an end is not morally justified.

Again, assisted suicide is not a genocide. It is not immoral. It is not cleaning the world of people who can't live normal lives. Assisted Suicide is an act of mercy and kindness. You are helping another person fulfill a final wish because that person is unable to do so himself. Is that so wrong? How does that resemble genocide?

Overview:

Consent DOES NOT jsutify the act of killing. Killing is murder. Murder is inherently immoral, not matter what circumstances. Therefore, assisted suicide is not MORALLY justifiable.

Murder may be inherently immoral, but assisted suicide is not. Consent and intent is what divides the two, and it is those two reasons that make assisted suicide justified, but murder not.

In conclusion, my opponent has brought forth a good case, which centers on making assisted suicide a form of murder and genocide. He claims that because murder is unjustifiable, so is assisted suicide. However, my opponent fails to realize that there is a very large difference between murder and assisted suicide. When you murder someone, you kill them with malicious intent. Also, you have no reason to do so. However, assisted suicide is different because you are not approaching the act with malicious intent, there is ample reason, and you have their permission. There is no reason you should not be allowed to carry out the action that patient as asked you to do.

All in all, I believe that objectively, my arguments have held more sway in this debate that his, and for that reason, I believe that you should vote for the Pro.

Thank you
CiRrO

Con

I'm just going to go over the main points.

1. Killing is immoral.

--> No matter how you justify it, may it be more suffering or permission, killing can never be MORAL. It can be justified, but it can never be morally justifiable.
--> Warrants: Deontology, inherently immoral, and the Kant Card.

2. Assisted Suicide Vs. Suicide.

--> Assisted suicide is not morally justifiable because you are asking for someone else to kill you. This creates a moral stain on the person committing egregious act.
--> Suicide is different because it is yourself doing the killing. However, the debate is assisted sucide. From this you can infer that allowing someone to actually kill is immoral.

For these reasons I urge a negation.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CiRrO 5 years ago
CiRrO
I agree, very good debate, and I can't wait till the next time.
Posted by burningpuppies101 5 years ago
burningpuppies101
lol. nice debate cirro. I look forward to debating you again.
Posted by CiRrO 5 years ago
CiRrO
I apologize, i won by one POINT. >.>
Posted by brittwaller 5 years ago
brittwaller
No, you won by one POINT.
Posted by CiRrO 5 years ago
CiRrO
wow, won by 1 vote.
Posted by burningpuppies101 5 years ago
burningpuppies101
so you just repeated what you just said earlier. you never proved your statement, and assumed we would agree with you. you just said that killing is bad and there is nothing you can say about it. But i did, and you didn't say why the fact that even though there is a difference between killing and assisted suicide, it does not matter. all you said was that killing is killing. Ok, fine, but even then, i showed that assisted suicide is not killing
Posted by CiRrO 5 years ago
CiRrO
Yes, I did. I argued that killing is killing no matter what circumstances are around it. Killing violates normative moral standards, and thus is immoral.
Posted by burningpuppies101 5 years ago
burningpuppies101
plus, you never refuted my distinction between killing and assisted suicide, so you let that pass, so the rest of your debate is on false premises.
Posted by burningpuppies101 5 years ago
burningpuppies101
ok fine, you brought up the Kant card. but you never proved the Kant card to be true, so we have to disregard it. You can't just quote other people and expect to win.
Posted by CiRrO 5 years ago
CiRrO
Kant Card
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 5 years ago
crazypenguin
burningpuppies101CiRrOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by sdcharger 5 years ago
sdcharger
burningpuppies101CiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Vote Placed by stephanie1024 5 years ago
stephanie1024
burningpuppies101CiRrOTied
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 JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
burningpuppies101CiRrOTied
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 padfo0t 5 years ago
padfo0t
burningpuppies101CiRrOTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by sagarous 5 years ago
sagarous
burningpuppies101CiRrOTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 5 years ago
burningpuppies101
burningpuppies101CiRrOTied
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 brittwaller 5 years ago
brittwaller
burningpuppies101CiRrOTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by bfitz1307 5 years ago
bfitz1307
burningpuppies101CiRrOTied
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 Logical-Master 5 years ago
Logical-Master
burningpuppies101CiRrOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70