The Instigator
fo-shizzle
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
burningpuppies101
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

assisted suicide is wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,049 times Debate No: 6510
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (10)

 

fo-shizzle

Pro

Due to a previous debate, in which my profile was deleted, i think this debate should be re-instated. Go ahead and make you first points
burningpuppies101

Con

Thanks to my opponent for this debate. I hope this is a great debate, and will not end the same way our last one did.

I'm just going to put the same thing up as last time, and we can continue from there. There will be some changes however...

Topic Analysis: This debate is about an action being right or wrong. I will argue this topic from several points, and I am sorry if it gets a little confusing. So the topic matter is: Assisted Suicide is Wrong. My opponent is affirming the topic, and I am negating the topic. What this means is that my opponent believes that assisted suicide is wrong, period. I am merely saying that assisted suicide is not wrong. I don't necessarily have to say it's right, I just have to say its not wrong. So if I can prove that assisted suicide is not wrong, in any case, then I have fulfilled my burden. My opponent must prove that assisted suicide is wrong, period. No exceptions.

Definitions: Assisted Suicide: suicide by an individual facilitated by means or information (as a gun or indication of the lethal dosage of a drug) provided by someone else aware of the individual's intent (Merriam Webster).

Also, in today's world, Assisted suicide has also come to mean that the death of that individual is done by painless means, either by lethal overdose, or a painless shot to the head.

Wrong: something wrong, immoral, or unethical (Merriam Webster). So the interpretation to be had here is that this topic is one about morality, and what is right and wrong.

So, to arguments:
1. Assisted suicide involves the consent of the victim. If the victim has a very valid reason to ask for death, we should have every right to assist them in fulfilling their wish. Here is an example. Bill is sick. He is terminally ill. He will die in a month at the rate he is going, even with all science helping him. Bill is in constant pain and suffering, due to his disease. Bill wishes for it all to end, because he realizes that there is no other option; it is between a month of pain and suffering beyond belief and then dying, or dying now painlessly. He chooses to die now, by a means of his choice. He requests that his doctor give him an overdose in medicine, resulting in Bill's immediate death. The doctor sees Bill's argument, accepts it, and decides that he will help him. No where in this story has anyone done anything wrong, and in fact, the doctor does the right thing by respecting Bill's decision.

2. Assisted suicide is not killing. True, the victim loses his life. But it is not killing if the one who is taking the life is willing, and the victim is willing. If there is mutual consent, then the action cannot possibly be wrong. Example: Me and Bob are exchanging goods. I give him an apple, and he gives me an orange. There is mutual consent between us. No wrong act is being committed. Lets change the situation. I steal Bob's orange, and leave an apple for him. In this case, I was wrong to steal Bob's orange, since the orange is his property, he has the right to do with it what he so chooses.

3.(Patient's control of his/her own life) Continued from above: Now lets apply this example to the debate. In the doctor( you can substitute anyone you like) and patient example; The patient asks for the doctor to take the patients life. The patient has every right to do so. The patient's life is exactly that: the patient's life. No one elses. The patient has control over what he/she wants with his or her life, and that control extends to the lack of life, or death. The patient has every right to ask for death. So we have determined that the patient is moral in asking for death. Now, the doctor is a little more tricky. He is not the patient. He does not have a say over the patient's life. However, in the case of assisted suicide, I argue that the doctor actually isn't controlling the patient's life. The doctor is merely carrying out the patient's request. If the doctor were to refuse the patient, and order the patient to not ask anyone anymore, and force the patient to live through all means possible, then the act would be wrong.

Conclusion:
My opponent in advocating that assisted suicide can never be morally justified, must state that it is right for the doctor to refuse the patient's request and extend his own influence into the patient's life. My opponent must argue that the doctor is morally justified in controlling the patient's life, and is morally justified in forcing the patient to live, even when there is a good reason for the patient not to want life.

Also, I want to make a clarification that I fear might be apparent in my arguments. Just add this on to my speech wherever appropriate. The doctor has the right to refuse the patient's request, because the doctor still has the right to control his own life. However, the doctor does not have the right to stop the patient from asking anyone else, or force the patient to live.

-------------------------------------------

This is where I branch off from the normal sense of a debate and argue meta-debate, or debate about debate. I'm trying out this technique, and I'm expecting mixed results. However, not all my eggs are in one basket. All my previous arguments still stand, and I can win from either these arguments I'm about to make, and the arguments I have already made.

I'm going to make a sylogism.

Assisted Suicide is Wrong. (this is the first basic premise)
Wrong immediatley puts us in the realm of morality. (Definitions, and common conception.)
Morality is subjective. (No moral truths, morality changes depending on context.)
What my opponent believes to be wrong may not be wrong for me (Leading from previous)
He believes that AS is wrong. (his case)
That is impossible to prove, since morality is subjective. He cannot objectively prove AS wrong in all cases, no matter how hard he tries. There will always be a gray area, and that defaults to my side.
Since it is impossible for him to prove morality in this case, we default neg.

Good old logic. Yay.

I await my opponents reponse
Debate Round No. 1
fo-shizzle

Pro

MY OPPONENT- "He believes that AS is wrong. (his case)
That is impossible to prove, since morality is subjective. He cannot objectively prove AS wrong in all cases, no matter how hard he tries. There will always be a gray area, and that defaults to my side.
Since it is impossible for him to prove morality in this case, we default neg."

First of all i would like ask my opponent not to make assumption of probabilty of your winning this debate, stated as fact. It is very rude and insulting. That is for the viewers of this debate to decide. And without hearing my arguments first, you have no way of knowing what counters i will make to your arguments. If this debate was un-winnable, it would hardly be a debate would it? with all due respect, i know you care alot for this topic, but in your first round you seek to put down your opponent to an inescaple area. I would like to ask that we finish this debate out formally, and without suggesting incapabilities.

I accept my opponents judging of this debate as being one of morality.

As stated by my opponent, i will be trying to prove that AS is wrong in all cases.

PLEA FOR HELP-
Suicidal Intent is typically transient. Of those who attempt suicide but are stopped, less than 4 percent go on to kill themselves in the next five years; less than 11 percent will commit suicide over the next 35 years.
Terminally Ill patients who desire death are depressed and depression is treatable in those with terminal illness. In one study, of the 24 percent of terminally ill patients who desired death, all had clinical depression. Due to these results (http://www.euthanasia.com...) This shows that the persons wanting the suicide, can indeed be helped after a period of time.

GOOD DOCTORS-Pain is controllable. Modern medicine has the ability to control pain. A person who seeks to kill him or herself to avoid pain does not need legalized assisted suicide but a doctor better trained in alleviating pain. It is not impossible to withstand pain. But then some would ask why stay, what is the point?

SELFISHNESS-
Often times when an individual commits suicide, they only seem to think of themselves, and what they have to go through. However, they try not to tend to think about what their loved ones will go through. It is extremely selfish to give up your life, just so you can be released from pain. Even in this story you have given me. In this, it is no different from committing regular suicide. People who commit suicide, do it to escape from emotional. People who wish for assisted suicide, do it to escape physical pain.

Is this how much life is worth to us humans? We are just going to give it all up, all those years of living, Just because you don't want to deal with the pain. In my opinion, this is extremely cowardice. What about your family? Or friends? You cannot say that the person who asks for assisted suicide is not going to hurt somebody by having his wishes accomplished. This is indeed very wrong and selfish. To cause pain to others, without a care. Its one thing to be killed by accident ie a car crash. For that is not the individuals fault. But to give up there life, just to Escape from the pain without a care for any body elses objectives, Is THE most selfish thing to do.

My opponent makes a point to where its the individuals life, and he/she can do whatever they want with it. But does that nessicarily make it right? seeing as this IS a debate about morality, we must ask ourselves, is giving up our life the right thing to do, just because its our life to do with what we choose?
People with this state of mind, are a leading cause of low society.

example 1: A Man decides he is going to go out and do drugs. Why? Because its his life and he can do with it how he pleases. He decides to take a short drive afterwards. While hallucinations kick in, he loses sense of what he is doing, and kills some one. An innocent human being is now dead, because of this man decided that it didn't matter if his choices affected anyone, because it is his life, and his life only.

example 2: A teenager is fed up with problems at home with his family. He decides he can't take it anymore, and chooses to run-a-way, seeing as it is his life, and he can do whatever he pleases with it. He runs away never to return again. The Family of this Teenager, although they may have had problems, really loved this boy and now have to live with the knowledge that he could be anywhere, any place, surviving the world by himself. They now Have constant Worry to fill them everyday. Is this fair? Well its the teenagers life is it not? So this makes it perfectly fair.

MURDER-
My opponent claims that a doctor complying with the wishes of the patient, is not killing. As i have shown before, the majority of patients are just looking for there problems to be over, meaning they can be helped. They dismiss this fact though and proceed in killing the patient any way. No one should be able to decide they can play god, and choose who lives and dies. As my opponent says in his story, the patient is going to die in a month.

The doctor, having the ability to provide pain medicine, can alleviate the patient to live his full term of the month he has left. The patient, Can seek many oppurtunities to fullfill in his last hours of life. He can do something uplifting, such as mend old relationships, or do something he has never had an oppurtunity to do before hand in his life. The doctor in your story, ignores these facts and proceeds in ending the patients life, merely because the patient asked him to. How is this murder you ask?
First of all the doctor is playing the role of god. No one should choose who lives or dies. there is an appropriate time for everyone to die, and by denying some one the natural aspect of death, is considered murder, no matter what the reasoning behind it.

Should i go murder some one because i myself, see it is better to do so? Obviously the doctor feels it is better to follow the patients wishes, and proceed in ending his life.
The doctor thinks that the world will improve by his actions.
So if i feel the world would be a better place if i assasinated the president of the united states, that makes it not murder?

Definition of murder: to thus end another life, by one's own accord (dictionary.com)

Ending the patients life, is indeed not only the patients accord, but the doctor too for complying.

My opponent says that what he and i both think is wrong, may be of difference. This is indeed true. thats why the decision of what is more right, or what is more wrong, is left up to you, the voters and the judges.
Do you think it is right to be selfish?
Do you think it is right to hurt another's life?
Do you think it is right to end another's life out of a personal opinion?
Dear voters, you must ask yourselves these questions before deciding what is really considered right and wrong.
We must look at all aspects of a decision.

When we focus on just the person who wishes to attempt Assisted suicide, we do not take the harm principal into account and the factor in which others deal with. Most people would think, Just on first hearing, that this sounds justafiable. We need to learn, what the true sense of ethics is, if we are going to side ourselves with an Ethics statement. Ethics is all about right and wrong. What should we or should we not do?

Seeing as i am just about out of remaining characters, i will give a quick summary of my points in this debate before closing.
1.Most patients can be helped out of their death prone thoughts.
2.Doctors can ease may granted they are good doctors.
3.Selfishness is wrong, and AS is just as slefish as normal suicide.
4. AS hurts other as well as the individual.
5. Just because it is your life, does not make it moral to do with it in such ways.

I thank my opponent for such an interesting topic and look forward to his reply
thankyou.
-kudos
fo-shizzle
burningpuppies101

Con

Thanks for the fast response, and here I go.

First of all I would like to ask my opponent to realize that I am not making the assumption of my winning. That was an argument about why you cannot win, and therefore you should vote for me. I was not being rude or insulting. I was making an argument that included me winning. Am I supposed to create an argument that makes me lose?

Ok, good. I do believe that I will be able to poke some holes in your case then.

I'll refute your points first and then go to mine.

1. Plea for help. This argument is saying that assisted suicide is basically a plea for help, and that those committing suicide are depressed. You argue that we should solve the problem by pumping them full of anti-depressants, and forcing them to live out their tortured life of pain, both physically and emotionally. Before you say that I'm being extreme, let me point out that you basically are suggesting this, just in nicer terms. I'm stating the truth of it. But again, why should we force them to live out their life, if they don't want to? I can't force you to live, just like you can't force me to change my life. But in arguing against AS, you do such a thing.

2. Good Doctors. You claim that modern medicine is enough to take care of pain, so AS should not be out of pain.You say that it is not impossible to withstand pain. RESPONSE: What you have failed to address is the fact that pain doesn't always mean physical pain. In fact, it often doesn't mean physical pain, such as the kind you are arguing about. You forget about emotional pain, and the pain you cause yourself and those around you. Here is an example for you, so you can get what I am saying. Your name is Bill. You are a 35 year old male. You are in peak physical condition, and you are quite happy with your physical condition. You excercise daily, and are quite active in society. Everyone around you loves you, since you are a great friend and a faithful husband. One day, as you are biking to work, you get into a car crash. You are paralyzed from the neck down, and will not be able to move for the rest of your life. Your case is hopeless, and your life is filled with physical pain. You are given medication for your pain, but you need so much that you become addicted to morphine. You are filled with emotional pain, knowing that you will never be able to return to society. You will live out the rest of your life (about 40 years) in a wheelchair, using a machine to talk, since your vocal cords were damaged in the accident. You are living, but your life is a living hell. You wish it to end, but you cannot do it yourself. You ask your doctor to overdose you on your morphine. However, the law states that your doctor cannot do so, and you are FORCED to live out the rest of your life, in eternal suffering.

You said yourself I only need one example. Viola. Thank you. All my arguments can be applied to this example.

SELFISHNESS: Your next argument is that the patient is selfish in wanting his/her own death. You think that they only think of themselves, and what they have to go through. They don't think about those around them. RESPONSE: You are making the assumption that this is what people go through. Your argument is based upon an assumption, so we can't assume it to be true. Provide some facts, and maybe this argument will fly. But if you don't buy that, you can look at the converse of this argument. I can say just as easliy that those asking for AS are really trying alleviate the pain they cause those around them. Why?

1. Financial pain. Medicine costs money. So does treatment. So does a hospital bed. So does a caretaker if you can't take care of yourself. They all add up. By realizing how much of a burden you are on your loved ones, you alleviate their financial pain.

2. Emotional pain. Your loved ones feel obligated to keep you alive, but it kills them inside to see you dying slowly and a prolonged death. By asking for AS, you take that weight off their shoulders, and you ask for your own death, and your family members will not have to see you dying, as they will in my opponent's world.

His next argument is about the value of life, and how we would be cowards to give it up, only because we can't deal with physical pain.
RESPONSE: Ok, so lets sum up your argument in an example. Bob is terminally ill. There is a chance of a cure, but he is so selfish and in so much pain that he decides to ask his doctor to kill him with a gun. There are some options here:
a. The doctor refuses. This is what my opponent advocates. But this is not the important part.
b. I can actually forget about this argument, let it drop, and its ok, since I can let go of everything my opponent says, as long as I show one situation where it would be justified.

As for my opponents examples:
1. The drug addict. Well first off, this example isn't about AS. Its about drugs. If this were a debate on drugs, then maybe this example would apply.
2. Same thing. This example doesn't apply. I'll show you exactly why next.

Ok, so this is why his entire "Selfishness" arg doesn't stand. All those people do not have a valid reason. We can actually forget about that argument, since fine, I'm not going to bother to refute it. But I can still win this debate, because my opponent forgets one crucial part of my argument that holds it all together: The patient has a valid reason to wish for AS. In all your cases, its just one guy who wishes something for the sake of wishing it, and he doens't have a valid reason. But in my examples, which stand, the patient has a valid reason. This validity give my argument credibility, and therefore I can win this debate through those arguments.

MURDER: So this argument is about doctors playing God. But you have failed to realize the full implications of my argument. The doctor isn't playing God. I specifically addressed that, and if I didn't, I am now. Playing God would imply that the person is doing what he wants, when he wants no matter the consequences. However, in my example, the doctor is complying with the patients wishes. He is following what the patient wants, not his own agenda. So the doctor isn't playing god. He is more like a servant to the patients wishes. BUT the doctor consents with the patient, so they both are justified. The patient isn't forcing the doctor to kill him, and the doctor isn't forcing the patient to live.

So my opponent tries to refute my example by saying that pain medicine will save him. However, again, there are more pains than just physical. Not everything can be solved by pumping the body full of chemicals. You say that the patient should go do something uplifting. Let me ask you this. Have you ever been paralyzed from the neck down, in constant pain, and unable to do anything purposeful with your life other than grunt meaninglessly? You obviously have not, since you are being incredibly insensitive to the patients suffering. I don't mean to insult you, but all of your arguments are superficial, based upon the premise that pain is a physical manifestation, can be taken care of by huge doses of medicine, and we should force those people to live. I myself have to undergone any of those conditions, but I am being sympathetic to their wishes. We should not stop them in carrying out their life, if they truly have a valid reason. The doctor has no right to stop the patient, he can only refuse. My opponent thinks that the doctor is choosing to kill the patient to follow his own agenda. But you lost the main point! The doctor IS NOT following his own agenda. he would be if he decided to stop the patient and force him to live.

Conclusion:
My opponent has made the assumption that everyone who wants AS is selfish and is doing harm to society.
BUT HE FAILS TO REALIZE THAT THEY CAN HAVE A VERY VALID REASON. Again, if I can show in ONE instance where it wo
Debate Round No. 2
fo-shizzle

Pro

ok my opponent, i will acknowledge that you are not making an assumtion of your winning. It was more along the lines of a statement of fact. However i will dis-miss it, because i just realized i really don't care. in the end its the voters decision anyway.

PLEA FOR HELP
" You argue that we should solve the problem by pumping them full of anti-depressants, and forcing them to live out their tortured life of pain, both physically and emotionally." I would like to ask you how i am stating this in 'nicer' terms exactly? My whole argument on this, was basically telling you that they can be helped from emotional pain. You obvously don't seem to get that by going ahead and saying they are suffering 'emotional pain'. So how about i explain it terms you will more understand? 89% of the folks who were planning AS and were refused it, did not even end up wanting to commit it in the future 35 years. Thats more than enough of a mojority in this case, to use emotional pain of life as an argument. And you also make predictions about the patients life. You are absolutely dead-set on the idea that this patients life is going to be horrible. This is not taking into account that the patient may have friends, or family, or other loved ones. With that, you can not prove that this persons life will be an absolute wreck from then til the day he dies.
MY OPPONENT- "But again, why should we force them to live out their life, if they don't want to? I can't force you to live, just like you can't force me to change my life. But in arguing against AS, you do such a thing."

You seem to have over-looked my whole big paragraph about the selfishness issue. Either that or you have misundertood it, which i am assuming is what happened. With the statement above, you are confirming exactly what all suicide people think, therefor expanding this debate to not just those in hospital beds. i advise you to re-read my 'selfishness' paragrapgh.

GOOD DOCTORS-
MY OPPONENT- "You claim that modern medicine is enough to take care of pain, so AS should not be out of pain.You say that it is not impossible to withstand pain. RESPONSE: What you have failed to address is the fact that pain doesn't always mean physical pain. In fact, it often doesn't mean physical pain, such as the kind you are arguing about. You forget about emotional pain, and the pain you cause yourself and those around you."

I find it quite amusing that you would mention this after i basically just told you that emotional pain was a huge factor behind there wanting death. You really contradict yourself here. But it looks as if i will again re-state my meaning in an understandable way to my opponent. You just proved that by saying what you said above, that emotional pain is a reason to give up your life. thus is the same when referring to any depressed teenager who wishes life to end. Obviously this is cure-able as has been proven above with my PLEA FOR HELP paragraph.

IN RESPONSE TO YOUR STORY- Ok so by giving bills predicament, you are going to assume this is worse case scenario? that his life is totally cursed to be unpleasent for the rest of his days until he should cease to exist? And if so you are going to assume that Bills family, friends, and every one else who care about him will do nothing for him. Let me better explain this with a real story of my own.

One of the employees for our painting business, was recently injured in a car accident. He has lost both his legs. And on top of that his wife leaves him and takes his tow children. He is now left alone by himself, without legs and children and his wife. For a long period of time, he assumed death would be the best solution for this situation. However, over time, He realizes that he does not have to give up his life over this incident. He realizes he can get back up and do something to better his life and his predicament. He gets re-married and re-gains custody of his children. He is now just as fit in his life as you or i. He could have easily given up or discounted all hope. But he had family and loved ones there to give him support all the way through.

SELFISHNESS- "You are making the assumption that this is what people go through. Your argument is based upon an assumption, so we can't assume it to be true. Provide some facts, and maybe this argument will fly."

Ok so i am 'assuming' that disregaurding the thoughts and feelings of others is selfish? How do my arguments 'not fly'?
Putting youself in front of others is indeed slefish. The point i was trying to make was that, the patient and the doctor seem to disregard the family all together. I am sure the family would be very pressed into emotional turmoil with the death of the patient. Thus, selfishness. I don't know where the idea is forming that i am making 'assumptions' or what that has to do in relevance to anything i have said at all...

FINANCIAL PAIN- This argument really bugs me. You are suggesting that a family should let this individual die, just because it costs alot of money? I find this very sick and indeed very wrong. If this is the case with any family than i am sure there is a problem.

EMOTIONAL PAIN- My opponent seems to think that the world at end is the only way for the individual. Of course the family does not want to see the patients death. And they indeed don't have to, as i have been trying to prove throughout this debate.

REPONSE TO VALUE OF LIFE-
My opponent here starts out explaining but quickly changes the subject. My opponent says he can let this argument drop as long as he has one example of it being justified. He still has yet to do so. i also find it interesting that he would stray from this subject, which draws me to two conclusions.
1.He knows what i am saying is true and does not want to put himself on this argument
2. He simply lacks the will or motivation to do so.

MY EXAMPLES-
1."The drug addict. Well first off, this example isn't about AS. Its about drugs. If this were a debate on drugs, then maybe this example would apply"
Dear opponent, again you misundertood me. This example was simply an anology to your 'its my life' philosophy. Meaning in this situation, that the druggy, like the patient, decided it was his own life to do with what he wishes. In both cases they harm others due to their own selfishs insights. the patients, being the hurting of loved ones in order to make his self 'comfortable'.
2.the second one was just for emphasis to my first.

MURDER-
MY OPPONENT-"So this argument is about doctors playing God. But you have failed to realize the full implications of my argument. The doctor isn't playing God"

playing god is choosing who lives or dies by your own accord. Your defintion is not so relevant, to anything he would do. and just because the doctor consents with the patient, does not prove him in anyway justified. Im goingto need a little more than that my friend.

LAST PARAGAPH-
MY OPPONENT- "Let me ask you this. Have you ever been paralyzed from the neck down, in constant pain, and unable to do anything purposeful with your life other than grunt meaninglessly? You obviously have not, since you are being incredibly insensitive to the patients suffering. I don't mean to insult you, but all of your arguments are superficial, based upon the premise that pain is a physical manifestation, can be taken care of by huge doses of medicine, and we should force those people to live."

Again, are you to impose that from this point on life in now completely useless? it is this state of mind that causes people to want to do AS even more. Are world tends to look on the more negative aspect of every situation. i apply my above arguments here.

Sorry guys but i am just about out of remaining characters unfortunately. Which bites Because i have alot more to say. However it looks as if i will have to hold my arguments off for the moment. I would like to ask my opponent that this debate does not conclude our friendship
out-
burningpuppies101

Con

I'm going to save characters and jump right into it.
PLEA FOR HELP
Your refutation was that the problem is that 89% of the folks didn't want AS 35 years later. First off, you offer no source for any of your statistics. Your stie one shows different arguments, only one of which you have used. So we can disregard that argument, since you could have just made that up. Also, I am not dead set on the patients life being horrible. I am merely addressing one situation of this topic which can be justified. Second, I can drop this entire argument, assume it is true, and still win this debate. You said it yourself. Assuming your argument is vaild, which it isn't, since you haven't justified your claim with any reasoning, other than statistics you may have made up. But that aside, your "statistic" says it. 89%. Not 100%. You said it yourself, you have to prove it in 100% to win. So that remainig 11% is justified. Thank you, you have just defeated yourself.
SELFISHNESS ISSUE:
I have not overlooked your selfishness issue. I have addressed it. If you didn't see it, here it is again. If the patient truly has a good reason to, we should not stop them. You claim that they would be selfish in doing so. But you forget that I have provided some ways it would be better for the family. Read my argument.
GOOD DOCTORS:
I find it quite amusing that you do not realize that the remaining 11% should be allowed to have AS, and you want to stop it. You really contradict yourself here. But it looks as if I will again have to restate my meaning in an understandable way to my opponent. He talks about emotional pain being one of the reasons, and you stated a statistic saying 89% people don't want it later. However, he forgets about the 11%. He forgets that it is possible for people to be in constant pain emotionally and physically. And therefore, since he doesn't address those people who deserve AS, he has defeated himself. Also, his cure for emotional pain is pumping the person full of medicine until they don't know themselves, they are so addicted to morphine and anti depressants.
MY STORY: Bills predicament isn't the worst case scenario. It is what happens. A scenario is a scenario. My point is, that he is causing so much pain to those around him, and to himself, that he truly has a valid reason to wish for death. You cannot just not address this valid point and hope that the voters won't see it.
YOUR STORY: I agree that is a very nice thing. There is a happy ending. However, this guy doesn't really have any reason to want death. He has every chance of rejoining society, as he does. This guy doesn't have much reason to want AS. However, again, you forget about those people who have a good reason to want it. Take a person with cancer. It is severe. No cure. The guy's going to die. Chemotherapy isn't helping, its too late. This guy is confined to a bed, is fed through a tube, and can barely speak. He is in pain, and living hurts. He has no chance of recovery. He will die in 6 months. His family has to pay the bills, and it clearly hurts them financially. It also clearly hurts them emotionally, since they have to watch this person slowly die, knowing that they can do nothing about it. My opponent will say that this person should do something uplifting, to make him feel better. Well I ask my opponent, how much can you do, confined to a bed, unable to speak, fed through a tube, and in constant pain? What kind of uplifting things can you do?
SELFISHNESS 2. Ok, so here my opponent believes that his argument about the patient's selfishness flies, and here's his justification. He thinks that the doctor and the patient disregard the family, and that is selfish. He says that they family will be pressed into emotional turmoil, and that is selfish. What is more selfish, to not let your loved ones die in dignity, or to force them to live out their painful death? My opponent is assuming that the patient doesn't think of the family, and the doctor doesn't either. But this is a bad assumption. Again I argue that with a valid reason, AS can be justfied. Part of that reason would be the family. Of course the patient is going to take into account the family. I agree, not thinking about those around you is selfish. But if in AS the family actually benefits, for reasons I have posted and for reasons I'm going to have to defend, then AS is justified.
FINANCIAL PAIN:
No. I am saying that as much as we would like to say otherwise, money does matter. It shouldn't be the turning decision, but its a factor. Example: Jill is ill. She cannot eat without feeding, and cannot walk. Her family wants to help her. Their choices are between an electric wheelchair that costs $2000, a regular wheelchair that costs $1000, and a fully automated wheelchair, which functions as a bed, desk, and everything. You could live out of that chair. It costs $10000. The family, with tight finances, decides to go with the regular wheelchair. The point of this example is that finance is a factor. As much as the family would love to supply Jill with the $10k chair, its just not feasible. Now apply that to my case. As much as the family would love to spend money to keep a terminally ill patient alive (which isn't always the case, as in my whole argument), sometimes its just not feasible.
EMOTIONAL PAIN:
My opponents response is that they won't have to see the patients death. WRONG. The patient is going to die, whether or not the family likes it. It is the choice between a death with dignity, and by your own choice, or a death by slow painful loss of life, as my opponent advocates.
VALUE OF LIFE: Sorry about the no-response. I have been working on an off of this debate, and the formatting got messed up. The autosave doesn't always work. So as to the argument. It isn't cowardice to face death with dignity. Just because you do not wish to live a life of tortured pain and sorrow doesn't mean that you are a coward. If anything, it means that you are a brave person, since you are willing to face death in the eye and choose your own end.
EXAMPLES:
1. Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. However, my first analysis still applies. The drug addict had no reason do what what he did. The patient does have a valid reason. So again, this example doesn't work.
2. Ok, then same response.
MURDER:
Again, you have not grasped the argument at hand. The doctor is not choosing who dies or lives. He is merely complying with the patients wishes. You could think of it like the patient acting through the doctor.
LAST PARAGRAPH:
No. Life is valuable. If it is my life, I can do with it whatever I choose, provided I have a good reason. Life is not useless. If anything, by accepting AS, you respect life. We can still define those terminally ill and with good reason to want AS as still living. They still have life. In AS, those patients show respect to life, knowing that their lives have good reason to be ended. They are accepting that their life is about to be ended, and it should be ended in their own way, not by some painful end.
CONCLUSION:
Ok, so at the beginning of the round, I stated that my opponent must show that AS is wrong in all aspects, in all times. My opponent agreed. So in theory, I could drop his entire case, and still win, provided that I show an instance where AS is justified. Here is where I do so.
Throughout this entire debate, I have provided example after example showing why AS can be justified, with both of my Bill examples. My opponent has provided argument after good argument, showing why some people wishing AS are selfish, and should not be allowed to end their life. I agree, in some instances, AS will not be justified.BUT YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT IN ALL INSTANCES.
My opponent has not given me any specific reason for why we should be allowed to dictate how one lives their life, including how they end it.
My opponent has not even touched my argument about the non-existence of morality. Therefore it can be accepted and
Debate Round No. 3
fo-shizzle

Pro

OK so it seems as if were not going any where.This is my last argument so lets get this clear. Were just arguing the same points over and over again the same way in different words. This implies that one or the other doesn't understand each other fully. So first i will defend my arguments then give a short synopsis translate of this debate.

First my opponent claims that i do not have an accurate source. i would like you all to look at the second round of this debate, and confirm that i do have a blue hilighted source. it seems as if my opponent did not catch that so here it is again. http://www.euthanasia.com... If you would like to claim my source innacurate, please provide another with statistics.
PLEA FOR HELP (again)
Next you go on to say that the eleven percent are different from the eighty-nine percent. since this IS assisted suicide, and they are all given the same situation, i don't see how 100% proof is really needed. This leads to the whole argument to doctors doing what their patients ask. Meaning that, if these doctors as the other ones, refused to comply with the patients, the remaining 11% would not go on to look for death. Again, though i am now going quite used to it with this opponent, he undermines by saying " You have just defeated yourself". this is really getting annoying, as i have already asked you to stop making assumptions about the debate. Wait until the debate finishes and PLEASE let the voters make that decision. Remember you are supposed to be trying to convince the judges(aka the voters) not me.

SELFISHNESS-(again)

MY OPPONENT- "If the patient truly has a good reason to, we should not stop them."

Again and again i have argued this. I am trying to prove that the patients reasoning is NOT a good reason. but here we are again with no rebuttal...

and yes i have read your argument. several times in fact. this is what i mean by 'were not getting anywhere'

GOOD DOCTORS-

MY OPPONENT-"I find it quite amusing that you do not realize that the remaining 11% should be allowed to have AS, and you want to stop it. You really contradict yourself here."

Ok so your going to put your end of the deal on this 11%? so your going to that AS is RIGHT because 11% of the patients succeed in doing so?
translate: The other 89% of the people were stupid for not committing AS.
Obviously with such a vast number of people declining AS, theres got to be more than just Physical pain involved. If they are willing to get past it so easliy, and accept life for what it is. This makes them just like any other emotional suicidal person. Not much to stake your side of the odds on bud.

YOUR STORY- So you just basically said that this is not worse case scenario. exactly what i was trying to prove. this is usually where you would say something along the lines of "You just defeated yourself" meaning your argument is less than meaningless, and i am going to disregard anything you say about from here on out. However, i am not like this, and instead i would say something like " look here my opponent has just suppported my case. Lets see if he makes a proper rebuttal against it in the next round." By me saying this, i do not undermine, or insult him, and grant him another oppurtunity to offer another arg.

MY STORY-
MY OPPONENT- "agree that is a very nice thing. There is a happy ending. However, this guy doesn't really have any reason to want death. He has every chance of rejoining society, as he does. This guy doesn't have much reason to want AS. However, again, you forget about those people who have a good reason to want it. Take a person with cancer. It is severe. No cure. The guy's going to die."

Ok first off, have you ever lost your leg? i am pretty sure you'd be pretty down if it happened to you. and you also disregarded the fact that his wife left him, and his kids, etc. who are you to say that his pain is any less than some one elses? Well any way, My point was to prove that depression can be helped, and that even the patient who thinks life is just not worth it, can get over the sadness factor. Yes the guys going to die anyway, but what good will quickening the procedure do? If he still has time, and knows he still has time, he should make the best of it.

MY OPPONENT- "This guy is confined to a bed, is fed through a tube, and can barely speak. He is in pain, and living hurts. He has no chance of recovery. He will die in 6 months. His family has to pay the bills, and it clearly hurts them financially. It also clearly hurts them emotionally, since they have to watch this person slowly die, knowing that they can do nothing about it. My opponent will say that this person should do something uplifting, to make him feel better. Well I ask my opponent, how much can you do, confined to a bed, unable to speak, fed through a tube, and in constant pain? What kind of uplifting things can you do?"

What can he do you ask? he can be there for his family, and friends, who obviously don't want him dead. I am sure paying the bills for six more months, would not hurt the family so bad as to where they would rather have him die.
Unless he is on life support, which would be totally ridiculous.

SELFISHNESS 2-
MY OPPONENT-"What is more selfish, to not let your loved ones die in dignity, or to force them to live out their painful death?"

DIE IN DIGNITY??? your saying, that asking for some one else to end your life, somewhere involves dignity? i think not. And i think we have already covered the pain issue...

MY OPPONENT- "But if in AS the family actually benefits, for reasons I have posted and for reasons I'm going to have to defend, then AS is justified"

How is it beneficial? arguments you have already posted? like the sick one about financial debt? again, i am sure this patients life is worth more than money. Are you implying that it would be better to save money than to save a life? If that was the case, our world would be in deep turmoil.

FINANCIAL PAIN-
MY OPPONENT- "Example: Jill is ill. She cannot eat without feeding, and cannot walk. Her family wants to help her. Their choices are between an electric wheelchair that costs $2000, a regular wheelchair that costs $1000, and a fully automated wheelchair, which functions as a bed, desk, and everything. You could live out of that chair. It costs $10000. The family, with tight finances, decides to go with the regular wheelchair."

You have proved no point here. In the end Jill still got the wheelchair did she not? Just because it is not as good of quality as what she could have aqquired, the family, with love still bought her a wheel chair for her better benefit. Which proves my point more than yours. And any way, even if the family does not have enough money to support the patient, the doctors would not just kill the patient. And there is other options besides.

1:make a wish foundation
2: friends support
3: Other relatives
4: school funding
etc. I could go on. They could get enough money to help the patient out of his condition with these factors.

EMOTIONAL PAIN-
MY OPPONENT-"It is the choice between a death with dignity, and by your own choice, or a death by slow painful loss of life, as my opponent advocates"
I do not ever recall advocating 'A slow painful loss of life'. If i have please let me know where. But if i remember correctly i do remember stating that there is pain medicine which provides the cease to this problem.
And taking pain medicine, would not get you addicted to it into an overdose, because pain medicine such as novacaine etc will not cause the patient to be addicted. And there is simple numbing procedures to boot.

VALUE OF LIFE
MY OPOPNENT-"If anything, it means that you are a brave person, since you are willing to face death in the eye and choose your own end."
ok so every person in the world who chooses there own death is now brave?

Sorry i am out of characters, but the rest of my arguments are predictable
burningpuppies101

Con

Look, I agree. We are getting no where. Maybe thats because I am not getting my point across, or something. I'll try to make it more clear this round.

SOURCES: My bad, I didn't go in depth enough from your source.

PLEA: You misunderstand me. They are not all the same, or else there would be 100% of people who didn't want AS 35 years later. Let me put it this way:
You accepted you had to prove AS is wrong 100% of the time
Your statistic only states that 89 % didn't want it 35 years later
The other 11% might have a good reason.
You want to forget about the 11% and just lump them together and call it 100%.
You have just defeated yourself, because that 11% comes with the implication that they should be allowed AS.

SELFISHNESS: So your response is that they have no good reason. Your justification is that they are giving in to physical and emotional pain, and they are cowards. RESPONSE: 1. You claim I have no rebuttal. Well look at the past 2 speeches more carefully. 2. You are lumping together all the people who wish for AS, and making an assumption about their character. You assume that because they do not want to live for another 30 years, in constant unending pain, that they are cowards. But I already showed why they are: a. Showing respect for human life. b. We cannot forget that they could have a very good reason. Look to both of my Bill examples.

DOCTORS: My job in this debate is to show in at least one instance where AS can be shown to be right. You agreed, and you agreed that you had to prove AS is wrong in ALL CASES. In this respose you give me, you claim that I am going to try to prove AS is right from the 11%. No. I am going to try to create an exception whee AS is right in at least one instance. I have been able to do so with the 11%, so I have fulfilled my burden, and this is why I keep tell you that you have defeated yourself.

MY STORY: Again, you have misunderstood me. I'm sorry if I have argued unclearly, but I'll try to make it more clear this round. I was saying that there is no worst case scenario. Any scenario is a scenario, and should be weighed just as evenly with any other. You haven't even refuted this example, only saying that it doesn't apply, so we can forget about it. How am I supporting your case? I have shown in ONE example where AS can be justified, so I have fulfilled my burden.

YOUR STORY: Ok, so you make the argument that we should make the best use of time that we have. However, again, how much can you do if you are strapped into a hospital bed, in constant pain, and you don't have use of your entire body? Losing your leg is minor compared to some examples. Your leg can be replaced with prosthetics. If you are in late stages of cancer, and you are going to die a slow and painful death, I say that you should be allowed to die in dignity, and by means of your own choice. You say that he can be there for his family and friends. How? He can't speak, he can't function in society like you or me. And why would it be ridiculous if he is on life support? Thats what you argue, keep them living at all costs.

SELFISHNESS 2: Yes. Die in dignity. By choosing your own means of death, you retain some dignity. There is no dignity is dying a long drawn out death where you have to be pumped with morphine ever 15 minutes.

Your next argument is that you question the benfits. Here they are again. As sick as you might consider them, they are benefits.

1. Emotional pain. Watching your husband die a slow and painful death hurts you emotionally. Having to prolong that for 30 years is torture.

2. Physical pain. The patient doesn't have to go through this.

3. Financial pain. Again, as sick as you might think it, it matters.

FINANCIAL PAIN: Yes. She got her wheelchair. But the point I was making is that finances matter. And since they matter, from a purely Utilitarianistic view, AS can be justified. And I agree, the doctors should not just kill the patient. It should be the patients choice, and only his choice. Your other options are great, but money still plays a factor.

EMOTIONAL PAIN: Ok, so you say that you can pump the patient full of pain killers and anti depressants. But you still disregard my point about the emotional pain created by the patient and his family. So this point goes through.

VALUE OF LIFE: No. A person who chooses their own death, knowing it is the right thing to do, is brave. If we went with what you said, we could argue that a teenager who just broke up with their girlfriend is brave to die. Wrong. A spy who is holding national secrets, who chooses to take a cyanide pill, is brave. A person who knows they are going to die a painful death, and chooses to end it early, to spare his family, is brave.

And here I come to the end of my opponents arguments. He says his arguments are predictable, but we can't accept predictability as an automatic refutation of all my points. Therefore, I'm going to go through my points and show why I have won this debate.

1. Consent of the victim. My opponent doesn't really touch this argument from my first speech. He only attacks this from the angle of; The victim never has a good reason. But he forgets the examples I have given, and the fact that he tries to lump all victims in one pot, and argue they are all the same. So this argument falls through, and is a vote in my favor.

2. AS is not truly killing. He doesn't touch this one, so it can be applied to my 3rd argument.

3. Patients control of his own life. He doesn't argue this contention except to say that the doctor is taking thing into his own hands. But clearly this isn't the case. My opponent also claims that the patient will never have a good reason, so we shouldn't allow it. But again, he is lumping all victims together, ignoring that there could be exceptions to every rule.

4. Morality doesn't exist. My opponent doesn't touch this, and this falls through the entire debate, and is another vote in my favor.

My opponents arguments:

1. PLEA FOR HELP. He claims that we can just pump them full of medicine and anti depressants until they don't know themselves. That is the solution to AS. RESPONSE: I responded to this argument with EMOTIONAL PAIN and FINANCIAL PAIN. Those alone can refute this argument.

2. GOOD DOCTORS: He says that if we can't control the pain, then we should get another doctor. Again, apply my 2 "PAIN"s to here.

3. SELFISHNESS: His argument is that those commiting AS are being selfish and cowardly, since they don't want to face 30 years of pain and sorrow. He claims they are selfish since they don't think of those around them. My RESPONSE: Again, my opponent is lumping all patients together, and making a general assumption about them. He forgets about the exceptions, where people might be doing AS for purely altruistic reasons.

4. MURDER: He argues that the doctor is fulfilling his own agenda, and only does what the doctor wants. But I directly refuted this point in my second speech.

CONCLUSION:
ALL my points can be applied to the voting scale. My opponent has not proven why even with a valid reason, a person should not be allowed AS. His job was to prove that AS is wrong in ALL CASES. Not just select cases that he chose. Because he has not done so, I have won this debate.

Also, his points can be completely accepted by me, but I still win, since I have shown an exception. I have fulfilled my burden, but he has not fulfilled his own burden.

However, his points have not been disregarded, and have been refuted. That only gives you, the voter, more reason to vote for me.

I'll spend the rest of my characters thanking my opponent for this debate. I want to thank you for this interesting discussion of ours, and I hope to debate you again. I want to thank the voters for reading the 64000 characters of this debate, and reading the entire thing, and voting based off the arguments, and not off of your own beliefs.

I await the voters.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
is anyone going to offer an RFD?
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
First off, I have no idea who you are, oasis. Second, no, I have never been told that pathos and ethos are irrelevant. Third, I have never heard of the 2 terms.

Fourth, why am I losing by such a large margin? WHY ARE THERE NO RFDS!!! Thats what I'm here for, RFDs. I don't care if I'm losing by 1000-0, as long as there are good RFDs each time.
Posted by oasisfleeting 8 years ago
oasisfleeting
Haven't you ever been told pathos and ethos arguments are irrelevant? Stop with all the morality arguments because they only serve to turn this debate into fluff with no real substance.
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
i did not make the assumption that every does not have a good enough reason, or about the physical pain stuff, etc. just re-read the debate. the bill examples i did to respond to. thats where the whole selfishness issue was brung in
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
You made the assumption about how everyone doesn't have a good reason. You said that the reasons they would want it is from physical pain. You provided pain meds as a cure. But if you look at my Bill examples, they are clearly the exceptions to this. They truly have a reason. You didn't respond directly to why both Bill's should not be allowed to have AS, other than they have no reason to. But you didn't provide justification.

Also, you didn't reply to my argument about morality being subjective, and relying on context. That argument alone can win me this debate.
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
well its not really based on assumption. i posted a source and everything. What assumptions did i make? assumptions about morality are the only ones i can really think of. and my side has not been hurt. just wait til a few more people vote, and things will even out, i am sure. and i have proved AS is wrong in all cases. Just because you and me have a difference of opinion on what is wrong doesnt mean i didnt prove AS was wrong.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
true, my round is based upon the assumption that there might be a good reason for AS. but you never respond to this. 32,000 characters is plenty to adress that. If you did, you probably would have won. However, its not as cruicial as your assumption. Your entire case was built on an assumption, and you had to prove AS wrong in ALL cases. That kinda hurt you.
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
and if there was another round i would refute that. because yours is too. but oh well...
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
Well, not to be offensive... but if you read my last speech, I showed how your case was actually based on an assumption....
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
well seeing as my arguments are not based on assumptiom, it shows that she didnt even read the whole debate meaning out of her grudge for me, she voted for you.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
fo-shizzleburningpuppies101Tied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
fo-shizzleburningpuppies101Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
fo-shizzleburningpuppies101Tied
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 Rodriguez47 8 years ago
Rodriguez47
fo-shizzleburningpuppies101Tied
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 paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
fo-shizzleburningpuppies101Tied
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 Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
fo-shizzleburningpuppies101Tied
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 oasisfleeting 8 years ago
oasisfleeting
fo-shizzleburningpuppies101Tied
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 DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
fo-shizzleburningpuppies101Tied
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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
fo-shizzleburningpuppies101Tied
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 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
fo-shizzleburningpuppies101Tied
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:07