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

69 year old's should be given the opportunity for voluntary euthanasia

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2020 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 125344
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




There are too many old fools wasting everybody's time. They should be given a chance to opt out and clear the way for new blood.


Hello thank you for the chance to debate with you. This is my first time debating on this platform so please forgive any errors.
I will base my argument on 3 pillars-
A) Voluntary euthanasia makes no sense
B) They can still contribute to the society and their care and products constitute a large market share
C) It can be misused in many ways to escape various responsibilities both social and financial.
Debate Round No. 1


People become lazy and non-productive when they reach an age of 69. Therefore, We should give them an opportunity to end their lives before the onset of senility and old age set in. Thus, They can allow for more resources, Jobs and opportunity to be available for the up and coming younger generation. Knowledge is stored in computer memory. Thus, Why do we need old people when Mr Google can tell us how to do almost anything. Old people are slow and weak. Young people are stronger and faster. Thus, Young people are more productive and can produce more goods and services in a more efficient manner.


Alright, I will first begin by justifying the 3 pillars stated in my previous argument, After which I will provide rebuttals to your statements.

First and foremost, Voluntary euthanasia does not make sense in any context. The sole reason being that no one, Not even the individual in question has the right to decide about the value of their life. If you take statistics - the number of voluntary euthanasia requests are rather low. Besides there are many problems as well - it undermines medical research because if it is legalized you will have lesser incentive for advancement in medicine catering to the old. Apart from this, Voluntary euthanasia destroys public conscience - when a practice is made legal and is practiced widely people tend to believe it is the norm. So even if a person older than 69 decides to live, He will face a lot of social stigma and will even face tons of suggestions and pressure (not to mention in some cases, Even threats) to voluntarily end their life. It also gives a lot of power to doctors. Because lets face it, The ones above the age of 69, Will determine their course of action based on the advice given by doctors. At the end of the day, Doctors are human too, Capable of making the same kinds of mistakes with diagnosis and recommendations. They could also be really annoyed and have personal vendetta or motives prompting them take decisions not in the interest of the older patient. Hence voluntary euthanasia makes doctors less accountable. There are definitely more points but I believe I have conveyed my point with the above.

Secondly, They can still contribute to society. They pay taxes, Shop, Use services and volunteer. You see, Older people still have the power to make conscious decisions, Are able to think, Invest and are even political involved. They bring a lot of value to the society. By 2026, It is expected that the geriatric care services is going to be a 1. 73 billion dollar market with a compounded annual growth rate(CAGR) of 8. 4%. And this is just care. Let us talk about the various products they use, The medical service costs, Other investments they make. Assistive devices for elderly and disabled are expected to reach whooping 23 billion dollars by 2026 with a CAGR of 5. 5%. And forgetting all of this there are tons of entrepreneurs beyond the age of 69, A lot of people work beyond that age and if nothing else, They can at least fuel the economy by their expenditure and also taking care of the younger generation and passing down all they know.

Thirdly, It can be misused in many ways. Voluntary euthanasia can be used to escape various responsibilities a person has. Some could use it to escape certain legal and financial problems. It could also be a form of health care cost containment wherein people don't want to spend any more money. Besides, Younger people could add pressure on older members as a means of inheriting their wealth at an earlier stage. Besides, Some personal responsibilities could also be escaped from. How could we possibly know how to differentiate a legitimate voluntary request for euthanasia as compared to one with ulterior motives.

Now, Coming to rebuttals-
-"People become lazy and non-productive when they reach an age of 69. " - This is a generalization. I can prove this wrong by giving you many examples of people who clearly violate this statement. And even if you mean this for statistically larger number of people that's not true. Agreed that statistically larger numbers of them are not in their peak physical state but their mental state could be sharper than ever, Which still allows them to be productive.

- Just because someone is "stronger and faster" doesn't make them an asset to the society. It is the intention and use to which they put these abilities to use that matters. If they use this for say crime, It is detrimental to society not beneficial. Statistically, Older people are involved in crime and other activities by a lesser amount. Even if older people are slow and weak physically, As I said they can still contribute on a mental level.

- We have machines and automation to "produce goods" and they are constantly on the rise. I see no relation between younger people and increased ability to produce goods in today's world. Besides, Younger people lack experience which tends to be the guiding light in all these scenarios. Something older people have in abundance.

- As for your pint regarding "Mr Google can tell us how to do almost anything. " does not have much relevance at all. I mean google can give us facts and figures yes but experience, Lessons etc require a personal touch in order to be more successful. And anyway, We don't have older people in our society just to tell us stuff - they have a far greater importance in our life and society.

https://evidencenetwork. Ca/why-seniors-matter-and-how-they-contribute-to-our-everyday-lives-2/
https://qrius. Com/euthanasia-should-not-be-legalised/
https://www. Alliedmarketresearch. Com/elderly-and-disabled-assistive-devices-market
Debate Round No. 2


I will start my rebuttal by referring to Logan's Run, The movie. In this science fiction movie, All the citizens are aged below 30 years of age. Once you reach 30 years of age, You are liquidated by the system, So that the system can run more efficiently. This is a wonderful society. All the people are young and pretty and there are no old ugly grumpy people to have to put up with. Old people have increasingly more expensive medical costs as they get older and older. Their bodies deteriorate and organs fail to function properly so they need many artificial drugs and aids in order to survive and be mobile. All these medications, Special walking ramps, Elevators, Wheel chairs, Hearing aids, Glasses, Hair transplants, Walking sticks and special nurses all cost valuable time and money. In nature, Old animals don't live for very long. Thus, Becoming old and fragile doesn't occur in nature. Any animal that becomes slow and weak is quickly devoured by the resident predators which lie in wait for such opportunities. Thus, Human longevity is an unnatural phenomenon which doesn't occur in pristine nature. Thus, Humanity has strayed from away from nature and is living an abnormal existence which uses up valuable resources and energy. The planet is suffering from this over use of resources and many species are becoming extinct because of humanities greed for a more extended life span than would otherwise be provided for by nature. Thus, Extending life into the fragile and inefficient years, Of old age is at the expense of other species which are made to suffer due to the greed and ill considerations of self centred humans.


OK, First off, I cannot buy a science fiction movie as a viable argument to justify your case. That just does not make sense as it is fictional and needn't have any relation to this entire argument. That being said your point still fails because if anything Logan's Run ends with people breaking out of the whole system and finally embracing old age. It is far from a "wonderful society". But like I said, I can't use science fiction to prove anything. Its just a writers imagination which holds little to no value in such an argument given that it is written with the sole purpose of entertainment and doesn't account for so many variables which exist in our world.

And as I stated before, Your entire argument regarding "more expensive medical costs" works in my favor. These "medications, Special walking ramps, Elevators, Wheel chairs, Hearing aids, Glasses, Hair transplants, Walking sticks and special nurses" are all contributing to our economy, Providing livelihood to many young entrepreneurs, Employers, Employees and volunteers. Please refer to my previous argument where I have mentioned how big a market it is and how important it is to an economy.

To a certain extent I get your next point, Because it loosely goes over the problems of overpopulation which I do accept. Nevertheless the point that it isn't natural to live this long does not stand. That is the importance and benefit of science - to help us break some of the barriers nature has set for us so we can rise above and live more comfortable and longer lives.

As for usage of resources that is more of a question of overpopulation. You can still have the same problem if the next generation starts breeding like rabbits. Besides, The counter I can provide for that is the fact that we can solve this only by making advancements in science and technology to open new doors and unlock more resources. This is a part and parcel of progress.

And it isn't selfishness which prompts the "want" of a person to live a longer life. It is more with regard to the "survival of the fittest" - not just from a physical point of view, But also mental, Emotional, Social and financial. They all have a right to live and you can't just tell them not to by saying "Please make way for the next generation". Everyone has a right to live.

With these 3 pillars I stated in round one, Elaborated in round two and rebuttals in round 3, I rest my case
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shamayita 3 months ago
I wonder who is being obnoxious now? You are a hypocrite.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 months ago
You are like a shot of tequila with a turd floating in it. Lol
Posted by Shamayita 3 months ago
Probably. . . My definition of being obnoxious is:"extremely unpleasant ". . . It somehow doesn't match with you. . . Actually I'm well aware that I'm not everyone's cup of tea. I would rather be a shot of tequila anyway!
Posted by Akhenaten 3 months ago
You are just obnoxious even when you try not to be obnoxious. Lol
Posted by Shamayita 3 months ago
You didn't argue properly and when someone points out that, You say he is making obnoxious opinions!
Your logics are really stupid sometimes, Sorry to say so. Well only highly intelligent trollers like you can actually see the bad light. . . Normal people haven't got such powerful lenses. . .
Posted by Akhenaten 3 months ago
Of course, Arrogant and obnoxious people can never allow themselves to be seen in a bad light. Lol
Posted by Shamayita 3 months ago
No obnoxious opinions were made. . . At least I can't see it. . .
Posted by Akhenaten 3 months ago
It's a good thing that people can't vote on this website, Otherwise they would be defecating their obnoxious opinions all over the place. Lol
Posted by Akhenaten 3 months ago
If you think that retirement homes are there for the benefit of old people you are misinformed. Retirement homes spend an average of $5. 00 per day on food for each person. I would regard this as 3rd degree murder, If you understand anything about nutrition and vitamins. Fools, Who think like you, Will cause the extinction of many species.
Posted by Gavroche 3 months ago
For some reason, The cite won't let me vote, So I vote con, Just for anyone reading this I guess. Here is my RFD:
I generally agree with the pro in this debate, But the organization alone was enough for to vote con. The lazy argument was just not persuasive at all to me. I think the pro would have been far better off going for some sort of "keeping them alive violates their dignity" or something like that, Just because old people are pretty important to society, At least in the broad sense, Even at a personal level. Just that the fact that the globe is on quarantine, Almost solely for the protection of seniors is proof. OK, So for con: normative beliefs were extremely persuasive on this, But most of your claims about mistakes and so on are less powerful just because I think they could have been easily taken down on appeal to the right to death and autonomy, But I didn't vote on that because these are args the pro never made. The cites for con were terrible, The one expert opinion they actually used was some fiction movie. I'm glad the con indicted their authors. Great job in this debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ILikePie5 3 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied because neither side engaged in ad homs. S&G is tied because both sides were comprehensible. Arguments goes to Con because of their argument that old people are valued and don?t have to be weak, which Pro has a hard time defending against. Sources to Con because they provided Links to back up their claims while Pro did not.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.