assisted suicide should be legalized
Debate Rounds (3)
first, only GOD has the last word on whether or not your time has came. this shouldn't be seen only religiously, but also with logic. there is no way you can take such a decision without even thinking about whethe or not you have that power, since you didn't have any in choosing when you will be born. and so, it's just absud to choose when you will dye.
the second point is that most f the time the reason why opting for assisted suicide is because people don't want to bear paint anymore. step back a minute an think. someone is very sick, we know he is going to died and everything seems so dark. it's more than normal the he will want to suicide himself just to run away form the pain. but comitting such an act is not just refusing that wonderful gift that is life, it s also running away and rufusing your responsabilities. for someone really grown up, it's understandable that pain is a normal phase in life, even that pain can show how strong or how weak we are. let's us not show that we are weak, please.
last but not least, assisted suicide is the perfect pretext for families not to spend money on a dying brother or sister. money is so pretious and important ot our eyes that we are ready to give up on our family just for a few more cents. i am not saying that money isn't a good thing, but just that it make people forget the love they have for their close ones.
for these three reasons, i stand in firm opposition to ha ving this law passed in any state and country. it's immoral and we are not the one choosing when we dye.
It appears that, based on your writing style and content, you lack knowledge, skill, and experience in making an effective debate with such poor writing structure. First off, you make many spelling and grammar mistakes that even a child in middle school would not make. You state that it is absurd for three reasons - what? Is this a debate or elementary language class? You don't have to write that, and while that is the format of an essay, the style of your writing is too simple and inferior to even qualify for a debate. Also, your arguments are weak and base them on reasoning and logic used by those ignorant of science and law. You lack any evidence or sources to back up your claims, and the ideas for each argument is too weak. I am sorry, but if you continue to debate like this, I will forfeit this debate as a result of your inferior debating skills compared to even a beginner in debating.
As for your arguments, I will still be refuting them; whether or not you understand them (due to your obvious lack of debating skill), will not be an excuse for countering my arguments. You claim that only God has the right to determine if you should die. Yet opponent does not think first if opponent is atheist, agnostic, spiritual, or even of other religions. As stated in my other debate, rights can be taken away, are superficial, and are completely made up by intelligent life forms. Clearly God is not an intelligent life form as He is a divine creator; clearly, He is natural and therefore cannot make rights as they are man-made and can be taken away. Besides that, you also claim that logically speaking, death is pre-determined by a variety of natural factors and shouldn't be determined by humans because they lack the knowledge and power. You are completely wrong - humans can choose when to die (that's why suicidal people and murderers exist) and they do have the power as long as they get the consent and have the means to assist the said person in suicide.
With your other arguments, they are too weak, irrational, and illogical to even refute. What does spending money have to do with this? I am sorry, but it is too vague, so please do explain it in the comments. Also, what does survival of the fittest have to do with being responsible for dying patients? Yes, ending their lives so you may not have to bear pain is seen as weak, but that is not an effective argument to convince the law to illegalize euthanasia. I hope for the best in you as your debating skills are extremely terrible as a child's.
so you claim that life can be taken away by men, and that god doesn't have anything to do with it? well, it implies that whenever i fell like dying, i can just see a doctor. come on, everyone knows how much life is pretious and how many people would end their lives at the first occasion. in fact, according to a WHO survey, 116 men and 45 women committ suicide every year in greetland. it that a normal thing? of course not, and instead of legalising suicide, each government would better try to understand why people would leave sadness arround and may be try to change that, than saying yes,, go ahead, kill yourselves! where is our bright and shiny future we so often talk about then?
Opponent also does not seem to understand my arguments; must I simplify it for you? I argued that rights are man-made, superficial, and they can be taken away when abused (similar to a privilege), and that since God is a divine entity and not a mortal intelligent life-form, He cannot get involved in such affairs. I also said, to refute your argument, that although death can be pre-determined by natural factors, they can be affected by unnatural factors as well (just like how factors like condoms, birth control, and abortion can determine if a baby is born or not). I also stated that humans do have the knowledge and power to decide if their loved ones should die or not.
However, when I mentioned about the existence of suicidal and homicidal people, opponent did not understand what I meant and assumed that I was going off-topic and irrelevant to the debate. In ways it is, which is why I have put it within brackets and not between commas. But it is also relevant to the debate since I am trying to use those kinds of people as a metaphor to simplify how humans have the knowledge and power over death. If you were to actually connect my argument with that "irrelevant example", you would understand, but clearly, irrational people such as you cannot comprehend metaphors and thus is useless to refute against your inferior mind. You are saying that such criminals should be put in jail; you are correct in that, yet you fail to understand what I am trying to prove with it. I meant that, in a metaphorical sense, murderers have the power and knowledge to determine whether a person dies or lives - as goes with suicidal people (but only with themselves). Do you understand now?
Yes, if you want to die, then by all means, commit suicide in private or see a doctor to assist in suicide. Life is precious as you said but if you are living a terrible life in which you must endure through endless pain and suffering everyday, such as an ill patient with an incurable disease or a child with abusive parents, then there is little point in trying to continue on with one's daily lives. Of course, some situations you can ease the situation, but in cases where you can't (like the patient example above), then that person going through such pain and suffering should simply kill themselves to end their lives and stop the suffering. Now, I won't go on about the negative effects of not assisting in suicide as this debate is about the legalization and not about euthanasia in general, so I will leave it at that.
After recommending to bring in sources, you finally start to by bringing in statistics. You fail to back that up as there is no link or citation of the source; thus, making your statistic unreliable and false. I suggest you do that in the next round, and make sure that it is a trusted source and not a random source, thank you very much. Yes, it may be abnormal with suicide rates skyrocketing more than ever when compared to the past and in certain countries such as Japan and South Korea, but the government can prevent it through other methods besides making euthanasia illegal. Some ways are to educate the public, understand the causes, discipline people at a young age, and the like which can eventually decrease and even prevent/reduce the suicide rate. I have unknowingly helped you by giving advice on how the government can prevent suicide rather than legalizing it, but opponent has continued to have incorrect spelling and grammar, as well as low conduct even after I have disciplined opponent to prevent it.
DYDY forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.