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

Assisted Suicide Laws should be Universal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/29/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,847 times Debate No: 78034
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (73)
Votes (3)




This debate is closed. If you still can accept, it would be considered an immediate loss.


Assisted Suicide Laws should be Universal

Essentially, I'm arguing that Assisted Suicide laws (whether for or against) should not be limited to only the terminally ill.

If this definition is not clear to you, ask in the comments before accepting the debate.

This is a complex debate. I'm looking for a great debater to destroy me (in a nice way!). Voters must have more than 3000 Elo points. Sorry!


Assisted Suicide - Assisting a person to commit suicide. For example, someone (usually a physician) would prescribe or supply lethal drugs [1].

Law - The system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties [2].

Universal - Applicable to (almost) all people in a country or a jurasdiction

4 rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 characters, Voters: 3000 Elo Points.

For the sake of the reader, the format will be:

Round 1: Resolution, rules and Acceptance
Round 2: All arguments in this round (No rebuttals)

1. No forfeits.
2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments.
3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.
4. No trolling.
5. Feel free to run a Kritik if you want.
6. No deconstructional semantics.
7. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared
8. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
9. Failure to adhere to the rules above leads to an immediate loss



Debate Round No. 1



I want to thank my opponent Zaradi for accepting this debate. He's a fantastic debater and I look forward for an excellent and an exciting debate.

I was inspired to initiate this debate as I research further and learn more about democracy, freedom and justice. But I also want to give credit to FourTrouble who defeated me on a separate debate (unfairly of course ;) ). Some of his counter arguments were very valid and had a significant influence on this debate.


As per the resolution in the first round, this debate is not about whether Assisted Suicide should be allowed or not. This debate is about whether laws to prohibit or to allow Assisted Suicide should be applicable to everyone, or to only the terminally ill.

There are four possible scenarios on how Assisted Suicide laws can be applied:

1. No laws pertaining to Assisted Suicide exist, and would therefore be permitted.
2. Laws exist that prohibit Assisted Suicide.
3. Laws exist that permit Assisted Suicide to everyone.
4. Laws exist to permit Assisted Suicide to the terminally ill, and prohibit it from the rest.

The first three scenarios are clearly universal, so they are not necessarily the subject of this debate. I am arguing against the fourth scenario, where some have the right to Assisted Suicide and others don't.

Overview: Why the Terminally Ill?

In the fourth scenario, Assisted Suicide for the terminally ill is considered justified by a certain legislative body. This means that the legislative body agrees that the terminally ill have the right to die and the right of self determination. It also suggests that the legislative body agrees that those who feel loss of autonomy and loss of dignity [1] are justified to request for Assisted Suicide. My objection however is that it shouldn't be limited to only the terminally ill and should be made available to everyone. I will demonstrate my case below:

Contention 1: Undermines Equality and Infringes on Human Rights

Overview of Equality in a Democracy

Equality is the main ingredient of democracy. Political scientist Thomas Christiano writes "[D]emocracy […] requires that each person's interests ought to be given equal consideration in choosing the laws and policies of a society. This approach begins with Thomas Rainsborough's observation that 'the poorest he that is in England has a life to live as the greatest he.'" [2].

This is why equality is engraved in the constitutions of virtually every country around the world. In Canada (I'm Canadian), Article 15 of the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability" [3]. This is reiterated in Amendment XIV of the US constitution [4], and Articles II-80 and II-81 of the European Union constitution [5].

Undermines Equality

This law clearly discriminates against those who are not terminally ill. The law is basically stating that the terminally ill have the right to die and right to self determination, but others should not have those rights. It undermines equality as the terminally ill are privileged with certain rights, while others are denied these rights. This is not simply a theoretical argument. There are others who are not terminally ill, but also demand the right to assisted suicide. An elderly couple wanted assisted suicide and they weren't terminally ill [6]. A mentally ill Canadian wants access to Assisted Suicide [7]. Now there is a Swiss group that wants Assisted Suicide for the elderly [8]. How can it be justified to allow it for only the terminally ill, when others have the very same reasons that justified permitting it for the terminally ill? The disabled, the mentally ill and the elderly may also feel loss of autonomy and loss of dignity. These are subjective measures that are defined by the people themselves. Anyone has the right to feel loss of autonomy and dignity and may wish to die. Preventing them from Assisted Suicide undermines their right to equality.

If one assists someone who is not terminally ill to die, they may face significant punishments. It violates the freedom of choice of other citizens and infringes on their human rights. Therefore, I argue that equality necessitates that this law should be either made available to everyone, or banned altogether. That's because everyone is equal under the law. In other words, the law is blind.

If Image failed to load, here's the link []

Contention 2: Undermines the Human Value of the Terminally Ill

By stating that the terminally ill are permitted to die, but others citizens shouldn't be permitted strongly implies that lives of the terminally ill have less worth and are expendable. Basically, it sends a message that it's ok for the terminally ill to die. After all, they don't have much left in their life, right? They would be considered as burdens to the society. We shouldn't care for them as much. They are basically inferior to other humans. There is a definite risk where the society would be less willing to provide for their healthcare and health research.

And if the society devalues the human worth of the terminally ill, it would be much more likely for the terminally ill to be bullied into assisted suicide. A study published by the Centre for Policy Studies said: "Society’s most vulnerable risk being bullied into an early death by greedy or uncaring relatives or bureaucrats" [9].

However if the right to Assisted Suicide is applicable to everyone, the human value of every person would remain the same. No one is better than another. A law that treats everyone the same, values everyone the same. Therefore when the greatest physicist Hawking said that he would consider Assisted Suicide in a Q&A [10], why do you think someone even asked him the question in the first place? Most people know the great contributions that he has given. But to imagine that despite all his great contributions, someone would ask him this question because of his illness was very upsetting to be honest. But if everyone has the same right, regardless if they have the right to die or not, the terminally ill would no longer be singled out.

Thank you for reading.

I ask my opponent to kindly wait until the third day before posting his round. We have a long weekend in Canada and I will have limited access to a laptop.


[1] Stephen Dilley, Nathan J. Palpant, "Human Dignity in Bioethics: From Worldviews to the Public Square", pp. 270



Their imagination of a better world is a continuation of the ascetic ideal. This association of all that is good as not of this world expresses a hatred for the only one we’ve got—turns case. Fantasizing about a world without suffering produces creative impotence---only our relationship to life can escape this paradox of resentment. Turanli:

  • “to imagine another, more valuable world is an expression of hatred for a world that makes one sufferEscaping from this world because there is grief in it results in asceticism. Paying respect to the ascetic ideal is longing for the world that is pure and denaturalized. Craving for … a … perfect world, is the result of the ressentiment of metaphysicans who suffer in this world. Thephilosophercontinues to repeat, "'My kingdom is not of this world'" … This is a longing for another world in which one does not suffer. It is to escape from this world; to create another illusory world. This longing for "the truth" of a world in which one does not suffer is the desire for a world of constancy. Thisquest for another world, is the result of unproductive thinking. … "the impotence of the will to create"Metaphysicianstry to discover the true … world that is already there rather than creating a world for themselves. The way out of the circle created by the ressentimentis the will to life rather than the will to truth. The will to truth can be overcome only through a Dionysian relationship to existence. This is the way to a new philosophy, which aims "to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle" “

Their benevolence towards the oppressed is a thinly veiled attempt to exercise power over the subjugated. Nietzsche:

  • Benefiting and hurting others are ways of exercising one's power upon others—that is all one desires in such cases!Weshow benevolence to those who are already dependent on us in some way we want to increase their power because in that way we increase ours, or we want to show them how advantageous it is to be in our power—that way they will become more satisfied with their condition and more … willing to fight against the enemies of our power. Whether benefiting or hurting others involves sacrifices for us does not affect the ultimate value of our actions; even if we offer our livesthis is a sacrifice that is offered for our desire for power What is decisive is how one is accustomed to spice one's life;An easy prey is something contemptible for proud natures. They feel good only at the sight of unbroken men who might become their enemies and at the sight of all possessions that are hard to come by. Against one who is suffering they are often hard because he is not worthy of theirpride,—but they are doubly obliging toward their peers whom it would be honorable to fight if the occasion should ever arise. Spurred by the good feeling of this perspective, the members of the knightly caste became accustomed to treating each other with exquisite courtesy.— Pity is the most agreeable feeling among those who have little pride and no prospects of great conquests: for them easy prey—and that is what all who suffer are—is enchanting. …”

Suffering is inevitable-the drive to abolish it holds life in contempt. The tension of the should in misfortune is what cultivates human greatness. Nietzsche:

  • “modes of thinking which measure the worth of things according to PLEASURE and PAIN, … arenaivetes, which everyone conscious of CREATIVE powers will look down upon with scorn, … Sympathy for you!--to be sure, that is not sympathy as you understand it: it is not sympathy for social "distress," for "society" with its sick and misfortuned, for the hereditarily vicious and defective who lie on the ground around us; OUR sympathy is a loftier and further-sighted sympathy:--we see how MAN dwarfs himself, how YOU dwarf him! and there are moments when we view YOUR sympathy with an indescribable anguish, when we resist it,--regard your seriousness as more dangerous than any kind of levity. You want TO DO AWAY WITH SUFFERING; andWE would rather have it increased and made worse than it has ever been! Well-being, as you understand it--is certainly not a goal; it seems to us an END; a condition which at once renders man ludicrous and contemptible--and makes his destruction DESIRABLE! The discipline ofGREAT suffering--… it is only THIS discipline that has produced all the elevations of humanity hitherto? The tension of soul in misfortune which communicates to it its energy, its shuddering in view of rack and ruin, its inventiveness and bravery in undergoing, enduring,misfortune, and whatever … greatness has been bestowed upon the soul--has it not been bestowed through great suffering? In man CREATURE and CREATOR are united: in man there is not onlyclay, mire, folly, chaos; but there is also thethe sculptor, the hardness of the hammer, … do ye understand this contrast? And that YOUR sympathy for the "creature in man" applies to that which has to be fashioned, bruised, forged, stretched, roasted, annealed, refined--to that which must necessarily SUFFER, and IS MEANT to suffer? And our sympathy--do ye not understand what our REVERSE sympathy applies to, when it resists your sympathy as the worst of all pamperingthere are higher problems than the problems of pleasure and pain and sympathy; and all systems of philosophy which deal only with these are naivetes.”

The ultimate result of this negative orientation toward life is the inability to live life to its fullest. Instead, the affirmative holds life in contempt for its pains, never understanding that life is suffering, starvation, and dying. The desire to seek redemption from life through the creation of a future moral order annihilates life in the present. This is the worst possible danger: our existence becomes a dreary perpetuation of biological life, devoid of meaning, waiting only for passive death. Nietzsche:

  • “the world was made to appear,as an ever new vision projected by that grand sufferer for whom illusion is the only possible mode of redemption.Yet in its essential traits it already prefigured that spirit of deep distrust and defiance which, later on, was to resist to the bitter end any moral interpretation of existence whatsoever. It is here that one could finda pessimism situated “beyond good and evil”;a philosophy which dared place ethics among the “deceptions.” Morality, … became a mere fabrication for purposes of gulling: at best, an artistic fiction; at worst, an outrageous imposture. Christianity being the most extravagant set of variations ever produced on the theme of ethics. … a doctrine entirely moral in purport, using absolute standards; which relegates all art to the realm of falsehood and in so doing condemns it. … the furious, vindictive hatred of life implicit in that system of values, … From the very first, Christianity spelled life loathing itself, and that loathing was simply disguised, tricked out, with notions of an “other” and “better” life. A hatred of the “worlda curse on the affective urges, a fear of beauty and sensuality, a transcendence rigged up to slander mortal existence, a yearning for extinction, cessation of all effort until the great “Sabbath of Sabbaths”—this whole cluster of distortions, … always struck me as the most dangerous, most sinister form the will to destruction can take;as a sign of profound sickness, moroseness, exhaustion, And since according toabsolute ethics) life will always be in the wrong, it followedthat one must smother it under a load of contempt and constant negation; must view it as an object not only unworthy of our desire but absolutely worthless in itself. As for morality, … could it be anything but a will to deny life, a secret instinct of destruction, … the beginning of the end?—and, for that very reason, the Supreme Danger …”

The alternative is to embrace suffering as something positive and necessary to life. Reject the idea that suffering is something to be avoided. Wrisley:

  • “the meaning of our suffering that has been the problem, … The first possibility concerns a religious ethic that, … views suffering as undesirable, but which ultimately uses mendacious and deleterious means to provide a meaning for human suffering. The second possibility concerns the extent to which we can say Nietzsche endorsed the idea of giving meaning to suffering through acknowledging its necessary role in human enhancement and greatness. Since the religious ethic sees suffering as undesirable and thus something ultimately to be avoided … the means it uses to give suffering meaning are ultimately mendacious, … Nietzsche’s positive alternative—one that embraces the necessary role suffering has for the enhancement of human life … our attitude toward suffering that needs to be modified, i.e., we should modify so that we no longer see suffering as something to be avoided. Because of this, the middle position of avoiding suffering when possible and then seeing its positive attributes when it does occur does not recommend itself. …”
The K operates in a few ways:

1. The K negates the resolution in two places: a) it negates apriori because by allowing people to just opt out of their suffering and off themselves we decrease suffering in the world, which the K explains is bad. And this is apriori because before we can even address human rights we first need to understand what it means to be human. b) it negates by turning the aff case against him -- by advocating for assisted suicide to preserve human worth he violates the very thing he aims to preserve.

2. Violating human rights and worth only matters insofar as violating it results in some kind of harm which means he's in a double-bind -- either a) violating human rights results in some kind of suffering, which means that affirming bites into the K, or b) violating human rights doesn't actually have a bad consequence and there's no impact to the AC.

Debate Round No. 2


I ask that voters who are not familiar with Kritiks to refrain from voting on this debate. This is more to the benefit of my opponent.


Con challenged my resolution with several post-fiat Kritiks [1] which I will address below. By doing so, the BoP (Burden of Proof) falls on Con to justify that his Kritik definitely negates my resolution. It is sufficient for me to simply bring sufficient doubt to his claim to be awarded the win.

Defense Against Kritik

My opponent's Kritik rests entirely on Nietzsche's philosophy. Con however wants me and the readers to simply agree that Nietzsche's philosophy is correct. But why should I agree? Con didn't present any evidence of why Nietzsche's arguments are valid or correct. Therefore, the voter should treat this as a bare assertion. It's not my responsibility to justify why Nietzsche's philosophy is not correct. The Burden of Proof is on Con to explain why we should adhere to Nietzsche's philosophy.

Con argues that "longing for another world in which one does not suffer […] is an illusory". He also argues that he turned the case by saying that people's "imagination of a better world is a continuation of the ascetic ideal. This association of all that is good as not of this world expresses a hatred for the only one we’ve got."

But what Con has failed to understand is that my case has nothing to do with longing for a better world. It's neutral in that respect. I never argued that Assisted Suicide should be allowed because it allows for a better world. Conversely, I argued that I'm not against banning Assisted Suicide either. My only contention was that it should be applied equally. Whether that leads to a better world or worse is entirely subjective.

Con continues by saying that "benevolence towards the oppressed is a thinly veiled attempt to exercise power over the subjugated." But again Con doesn't understand that my argument is not about the oppressed. That's because if Assisted Suicide is banned from everyone, then everyone is technically oppressed. Where is the benevolence? Again, there is no link to my resolution.

In fact, Con's own argument is self refuting. Con argues that "we want to increase their power because in that way we increase ours, or we want to show them how advantageous it is to be in our power" and that "this is a sacrifice that is offered for our desire for power." So in this case, increasing the power of people to Assisted Suicide would (according to Con) increase our power. Therefore, Con's argument, if valid, would validate my resolution and defeat the Kritik.

Con also argues that "suffering is inevitable-the drive to abolish it holds life in contempt." [sic] Con again misses the point here. I didn't argue that we should abolish suffering. Banning Assisted Suicide can potentially increase suffering not decrease it. My resolution is not about suffering, but about equality. So Con's point is mute. Second, just because suffering is inevitable, does it follow that it cannot or shouldn't be reduced? I will address this in my Counter Kritik below.

Nietzsche argues that "And since according toabsolute ethics) life will always be in the wrong, it followed … that one must smother it under a load of contempt and constant negation." While I fully disagree with Nietzsche, but this point is completely irrelevant. I didn't argue for absolute ethics in the first place. Therefore this argument is refuted. My resolution is about the Law and not ethics. Ethics and law are not the same thing.

Con also argues that "the alternative is to embrace suffering as something positive and necessary to life. Reject the idea that suffering is something to be avoided." But this alternative doesn't conflict with my resolution. You can embrace suffering as something positive. What does this have to do with banning or allowing Assisted Suicide? If banning Assisted Suicide would lead to suffering, then one should (according to Con) embrace it.

As you can see above, nowhere in Con's argument did he explain why the law should not be applied universally. Absolutely nowhere.

Death of the Kritik

1. Con argues that the Kritik negates the resolution "apriori because by allowing people to just opt out of their suffering and off themselves we decrease suffering in the world". I've explained that my resolution is not about suffering, so there is no link to the resolution.

2. Con argues that "before we can even address human rights we first need to understand what it means to be human". This is a bare assertion. First, we know quite a lot about humans, and there's an entire division of science (Anthropology) which is dedicated to this subject [2]. Second, Con's basically arguing that if we don't know absolutely everything about humans, we can't even address human rights. As I said earlier, this is a bare assertion. I don't need to know everything about a car to know how to drive it.

3. Con argues that "by advocating for assisted suicide to preserve human worth he violates the very thing he aims to preserve". Did Con really read my arguments? I didn't advocate for Assisted Suicide. I only advocated for equality. So if Assisted suicide was essential for preserving human worth (as Con charges), why would I argue that the law can ban Assisted Suicide for everyone? Again, Con doesn't explain why the Law should consider someone above another. By Con's failure to do so, my resolution and arguments stand.

4. Con argues that "Violating human rights and worth only matters insofar as violating it results in some kind of harm". But if you notice, this is no longer Kritik of the resolution, but rebuttal of my second contention. Is there anything in the resolution that states "Human rights"? It appears that Con is now accepting my resolution, so the Kritik is no longer valid. But I'll respond to it anyways.

Con states that "violating human rights results in some kind of suffering, which means that affirming bites into the K". This point is really irrelevant. That's because it's heavily dependent on the Kritik. If the Kritik (which I refuted) was successful, Con would be awarded the win despite of this point. If the Kritik fails, this point would fail as well and I would be awarded the win. So this point is completely irrelevant, regardless if it's true or not. The rest of my response will be in my Counter Kritik.

Counter Kritik – Kritik of the Kritik

If my opponent was somehow right, we shouldn't fight to reduce suffering around the world. According to Con, suffering is inevitable, and seeking to reduce it is simply an illusory. Based on this argument however, preventing a woman from being raped is not necessary. Why should we reduce her suffering? I find this absolutely horrific. It also means that preventing child abuse, molestation ought to be embraced. Con also suggests that we shouldn't put laws to prevent genocides like the Holocaust. In fact, the law itself becomes irrelevant. Based on Con's analogy, why should we put laws to prevent any crimes?

Do I really need to explain to the reader why embracing rape is inherently wrong? Do I really need to explain why murdering an innocent person is inherently wrong? I find Con's argument as quite offensive. While I have a lot of respect for my opponent, I don't think he understood the impact of his Kritik. I ask him to kindly concede and admit his error on this subject.

The alternative, which is working to reduce crime and suffering is much more desirable. As Einstein who believes in determinism explains it: "I am compelled to act as if free will existed, because if I wish to live in a civilized society I must act responsibly. I know philosophically that a murderer is not responsible for his crime, but I prefer not to take tea with him." [3]

While I don't believe in determinism, I still respect Einstein's decision to act responsibly. Even though he believes that we can't stop anything from happening, including rape, murder and genocide, we should act as if free will existed. So even if Con was correct philosophically that reducing suffering was somehow an illusory and inevitable, we should still act as if we can reduce suffering. This is the only responsible thing to do. This alternative is better that embracing hate, murder and rape because it's an illusory. Therefore, I urge the voter to vote for me because I best uphold the role of the ballot.


The above link will break. Copy paste this link:
[3] Walter Isaacson, "American Sketches: Great Leaders, Creative Thinkers, and Heroes of a Hurricane", pp. 141



On his Overview:

That's not actually how K's work. K's operate as a gateway to affirming the resolution and act on a higher level (in this case ontologically) than a normative case (in this case the AC). In order for you to be able to even access offense coming off of your case, the K has to be refuted. If you don't win on the K debate, I win straight out. But even if you're refuting the K, I can still win by refuting the AC.

His first response against the K is simply that there's no warrant to the K, but the warrants are all in the cards I read off. Pro's unwillingness to read the quoted text doesn't mean that the K lacks warrants.

His second response is that he doesn't link because his case doesn't long for a better world. There's a number of problems with this response.

a) He does. Insofar as he's trying to allow equality in assisted suicide to respect people's humanity and other positive impacts that are absent in the status quo, he's longing for a better world, a world that isn't the world in which we live in.

b) Turn this response against him. If the entire point of his case isn't to look for positive impacts of allowing equality in assisted suicide, then we have no reason to affirm the resolution. Look to his round one statement where he split the burden of proof - he has to be making arguments in favor of the resolution and be making positive impacts toward affirming the resolution. If he isn't doing that by this admission, then he can't actually win the debate.

c) Pro's constantly being a moving target with his case. By his own admission he's not arguing for the benefits of assisted suicide, but he's not also against getting rid of assisted suicide, he just wants "equality" which means that he can either argue in favor of assisted suicide or against assisted suicide at his own whim. This is entirely unfair to me because I'm forced to defend one side of the resolution whereas his case allows him to defend whichever one strikes his fancy, and he can change at will. Hold him to defending the benefits of assisted suicide.

d) Pro's flat out wrong in what his own case argues. He can't argue for getting rid of assisted suicide for everyone to "maximize equality" because by his own case it means that everyone is expendable and everyone's human value is being thrown into the trash which means that we ought to prefer the status quo where at least we're preserving some people's human value. Giving everyone the option to have assisted suicide is the only way he can actually access any of his impacts, which means he's biting into the K.

His next response is his attempt to be a moving target again by saying that he can just ban it for everyone to be equal. I've already responded to this in multiple places. Don't let him take this stance.

But even if you do let him take this stance, he still links to this argument. His entire argument revolves around the concept of making everyone feel equal and making sure that no one is more valuable than another person which, according to his case, preserves human value and worth. This is a direct link into Nietzsche 1 and Turanli. He's biting into the K no matter which goalpost he wants to take.

His next argument is a turn on Nietzsche 1 by saying that allowing assisted suicide increases our own power which...somehow affirms...?

The argument he makes doesn't make any kind of sense and is a misrepresentation of what the card is actually saying. Nietzsche's argument is that we give small little things to the people below us to make them more content with just being controlled by us and wanting to stay in our control, much like a parent would offer a child candy if they stop crying in a grocery store, the affirmative's attempt to give citizens equality is just their way of exercising control and dominance. There's no real logic behind his argument.

His response to Nietzsche 2 is his attempt to be a moving target again. And even in his attempt to be a moving target, it still applies insofar as he's trying to give equality to everyone. And his second point is literally the entire point of the K, suffering is something that can't and shouldn't be reduced.

And it doesn't matter if he's not arguing for ethics because I am. If anything this functions as another reason why the K operates apriori to the AC because ethics operates apriori to law - to say otherwise is the definition of the is/ought fallacy. I'm arguing for the ought while he's arguing for the is.

And his argument against the alt is just him trying to be a moving target (again).

This answers all of the direct responses to the K. The K stands as a rejection of universally allowing assisted suicide as a reduction of suffering, which leads to the harms of the K and a negation of human value and worth and makes life meaningless. Notice how his responses are only about how the K doesn't apply to his case or it doesn't apply to the "law" of assisted suicide. He doesn't address the impacts or doesn't actually address any of the warrants coming out of my K, rather rejects that it applies to his case. Insofar as I'm a) showing you how he's linking regardless of which side of his moving target he decides to hop to, and b) making him actually defend one stance instead of being constantly fluid in which he links regardless, the K applies. This means that I'm still winning the K debate.

On Death of the K

I've already responded to his first point in multiple places.

His second point is a misrepresentation and it's literally the definition of ontology. He keeps interpreting things in a normative sense whereas my case addresses human worth from an ontological perspective. The K functions apriori because of this.

His third point is irrelevant and a repetition of how he's being a moving target. Insofar as he's trying to advocate for assisted suicide/equality (since they're apparently able to be used interchangably now in the AC) as a way to preserve human worth, he violates human worth by trying to reduce suffering.

His fourth point doesn't make any f*cking sense. The entire point of my argument there is that the things he's trying to extend off as his impacts (equality/human worth/the right to such things/etc.) are only worth protecting in the AC insofar as having them is a good thing and violating those things causes the victims of the violation to suffer. It means that either a) he links into the K because by not affirming we cause suffering or at least prevent suffering from being reduced or b) there's no real impacts behind the affirmative case and no real reason to value the impacts he's advocating for, meaning he can't win. His point here isn't responsive to my actual argument.

And the argument isn't actually dependent on the K, it's not even addressing the K. This argument is specifically about his argument and how his impacts actually function as impacts.

On the "Counter-K"

First, this is all literally an appeal to emotion. His argument is that rape and violence and all these things are wrong because "cmon man! you're being offensive!" without any kind of warrant as to why these things are bad.

Second, this doesn't actually address the warrants coming out of the K as to why suffering is preferrable and why it actually allows for the furthering and transcendence of humanity as a race.

The only part of the Counter-K that I actually contest as not applicable to the K is the whole tangent about murder and genocide - we can only suffer insofar as we're still alive, meaning anything involving death isn't what the K advocates for because it means that there's one less person that can suffer. This is another way how the K negates the resolution just straight out - universally allowing people to acceptably kill themselves reduces the amount of suffering being experienced in the world which is a link into the K.


Pro's case is a moving target - he can either defend both allowing everyone to have access to assisted suicide and allowing no one to have access to assisted suicide at the same time. This literally means he can access affirmative and negative offense at the same time while denying me any kind of offense. Force him to just pick one side to defend.

Moreover, his case doesn't make any kind of sense unless he's advocating for allowing everyone access to assisted suicide because the flipside a) neglects the needs and worth of the terminally ill and b) makes the claim that everyone is usable and everyone's worth is open to violation, which is in direct conflict with his case. This means he *has* to defend giving everyone access to assisted suicide for his case to even make sense.

Regardless of which side he ends up defending, both link into the harms of the K. Given that 70% of his last round was spent trying to separate the K from his case, and virtually all of the warrants coming out of the K and impacts from the K get dropped, this is catastrophic to his chances of winning the debate.

This means two things - A) I'm still winning of the K by default because it's sufficient to negate the resolution just straight up. And B) it turns his case because the very things he's trying to protecting by advocating for equality are violated and human life becomes worthless and devoid of any kind of value.
Debate Round No. 3


No Link

I demonstrated that my argument is not about suffering, but about equality.

a) Con challenges that my resolution is about suffering because I want to "respect people's humanity" and that I am "longing for a better world". As I said earlier, my argument may increase suffering if all people are banned from Assisted Suicide, which I explained is permissible under this resolution. People who have the right to Assisted Suicide may lose that right because of my resolution. Con's claim is false.

b) Con argues "[i]f the entire point of his case isn't to look for positive impacts of allowing equality in assisted suicide, then we have no reason to affirm the resolution". There are positive impacts of allowing equality, but not every policy debate is about suffering. Con doesn't justify the link.

­Moving Target!?

c) Con then argues that I am "a moving target" by not arguing for the benefits of Assisted Suicide, and not arguing against Assisted Suicide. Con apparently didn't read Round 1, so I'll rewrite what's already in Round 1.

"Essentially, I'm arguing that Assisted Suicide laws (whether for or against) should not be limited to only the terminally ill." [1]

I am not a moving target. This is essentially what I am debating for. Don't penalize me for Con's lack of effort to properly read the definitions of the debate before accepting it.

d) Con argues that I "can't argue for getting rid of assisted suicide for everyone to "maximize equality"". Con is blatantly wrong. I've already demonstrated that equality is an essential component of democracy, the constitution and the law. Therefore, it follows that maximizing equality is warranted and justified, and as such I uphold my Burden of Proof.

Con then says that "by [Pro's] own case it means that everyone is expendable and everyone's human value is being thrown into the trash which means that we ought to prefer the status quo where at least we're preserving some people's human value." That's exactly my point. You just proved to the reader that your link fails. As per Con's own admission, my argument states that we should uphold justice even if "everyone's human value is being thrown into the trash". That's because my argument is not about suffering, but about justice and equality.

Con argues that my argument is about making everyone feel equal. That's false. I didn't claim such a thing. I claimed that the law is blind, and basically doesn't give a damn about how we feel. So my argument is not about making everyone feel equal. What I argued is that the law must consider everyone as equal, regardless if they feel equal or not.

Nietzsche 1
Con argues that we should increase other people's power "because in that way we increase ours". So I reaffirm that "increasing the power of people to Assisted Suicide would (according to Con) increase our power" which Nietzsche considers a good thing. While I find Con's logic very unsound, his logic suggests that just like a parent who offers a child some candy to increase our power, we should allow Assisted Suicide to everyone as it increases our power.

Nietzsche 2
Con again claims that I'm a moving target which I explained is not the case, and it doesn't apply. My point regarding whether suffering should be reduce is addressed in the Counter Kritik.

There is no link between Con's argument and the resolution of the debate. And as I said earlier, I am not going to hold one position or another regarding Assisted Suicide, as I explained in Round 1. All that I am arguing is that it should apply to all people regardless whether it's warranted or not.

Con argues that I didn't "address the impacts" or I didn't "actually address any of the warrants coming out of my K". This is just nonsense. I explained the impacts in the Counter Kritik.

Death of the Kritik

1. I reaffirm that my resolution is not about suffering.

2. My opponent doesn't address this point at all. Con claims that "before we can even address human rights we first need to understand what it means to be human". He still didn't explain why that's the case. We know a lot about what it means to be human and we don't need to know everything to be able to address human rights. So while Con claims to address human worth from an ontological perspective, he still fails to explain why his ontological argument is valid.

3. Again, I reaffirm that my resolution is not about suffering. That's why Con's Kritik is dead.

4. Con claims that my fourth point "doesn't make any f**** sense". Really? I am irked that my opponent doesn't pay attention to the argument so I'll address it here again. Con states that "violating human rights results in some kind of suffering, which means that affirming bites into the K". I argued that this is irrelevant as illustrated below:

K: Resolution is about suffering, and reducing suffering is bad
V: Violating human rights results in some kind of suffering

P1: If K, Con wins
P2: If K and V, then Con wins
P3: If ~K and V, Pro wins

As you can see, Violating human rights argument doesn't change anything whether it's true or not so it's irrelevant. With all due respect, that should make sense.

Con says that "argument isn't actually dependent on the K, it's not even addressing the K"! Does Con read what he writes? In Round 2, Con stated that "violating human rights results in some kind of suffering, which means that affirming bites into the K" So it is very much dependent on the Kritik. So since I refuted the Kritik, then it's not biting into anything. Therefore, Con's argument is mute.

Nietzsche Philosophy

I argued that Con presented Nietzsche's philosophy without any justification. Con claims that "the warrants are all in the cards [he] read off", and that I am unwilling "to read the quoted text". The problem is that Con's cards explain what Nietzsche's philosophy is, and not why the philosophy is logical. So it's a bare assertion. There are other alternative theories shown below.

Anthony Appiah writes about Mill's harm principle and utilitarianism saying: "A central tenet of John Stuart Mill's moral theory is what is called the "harm principle", which says that the only justification for abridging someone's freedom is "to prevent harm to others." Although this was meant to be counsel to legislatures, the sort of utilitarianism Mill espoused, inasmuch as it aims to maximize well-being, must require us as individuals to try to minimize – or, at any rate, reduce – suffering" [2].

And there's no need to mention all the other religious philosophies that advocate for reduced suffering. Why should I agree with Nietzsche's philosophy? Con fails to explain. Furthermore, in response to Nietzsche's theory, Phillip J Kain writes that "But do we have to give suffering the ontological weight that Nietzsche gives it? Must it be taken as the primary reality? […] I think it acceptable to reject Nietzsche response to suffering and to push liberalism, socialism, feminism and Christianity as alternative responses to suffering. […] The point here is that it is legitimate to treat suffering as if it can be reduced even if we cannot prove that it can be." [3]

What's more interesting , even if Nietzsche was right, Kain explains why Nietzsche's view should be rejected: "After all, our construction has certain desirable consequences. Given the meaning we impose upon suffering, we do not have the slightest need for an Übermensch – he would not help us in the least to remove suffering. Furthermore, we would have no need for a doctrine of eternal recurrence – indeed, we should reject it as an abomination."

So in summary, Con fails to uphold his burden to show why we should uphold Nietzsche's point of view.

Counter K

Con argues that I am appealing to emotion when I argued that rape and genocides are bad. I thought it was common sense, But since Con shockingly doesn't agree, I'll explain why that's the case.

I'll start with rape. H.E. Baber explains: "Rape is bad because it constitutes a serious harm to the victim. […] Virtually everyone has an interest in avoiding involuntary contact with others … Being raped violates this interest hence … it constitutes a harm. In addition, people have an interest in not being used as mere means for the benefit of others… Furthermore, rape … has a tendency to generate further harms – anxiety, feelings of degradation and other psychological states" [4]. Rape victims are also prone suicide [5]. I don't want to dwell too much into other harms, but they all inflict significant physical harms on innocents, and that's an abomination. The harm principle as I explained earlier argues that we should prevent harms to others.

This is really not a joke. A Montreal blogger was calling to legalize rape [6]. This is a serious matter. That's why I argue that I should win as I best represent the role of the ballot.

Con argues that "suffering is preferable" and "allows for the furthering and transcendence of humanity as a race". That's a joke. Increasing suffering by killing each other, e.g. nuclear war, can lead to the extinction of the human race [7].

Con argues that murder and genocide doesn't apply to his Kritik. That's not true, and here's why. According to Con, we should embrace suffering. So someone killing someone's significant other should be allowed and embraced. The murdered may not be suffering, but other suffer for a long time. Therefore, Con's Kritik advocates for it which is quite disturbing.


My resolution is a very good argument and deserves a good debate. Con's Kritik fails as it doesn't link to the resolution. I've also shown that even if his Kritik is successful, the voter should still award me the vote as Con's Kritik is quite horrific and should be rejected altogether, and I best represent the role of the ballot.

Vote Pro.

Sources in Comment




Pro seems to find a lot of time to make new arguments in the final round. It's a shame he couldn't have thought to make a lot of these resonses earlier in the debate where we would've had more time to have substantive discussion over the resolution rather than just wait for the very last round to try and cheap his way through. Voters should keep in mind his new responses in the last round and my lack of ability to address them properly.

What this debate comes down to is pretty simple: Pro mishandles the Kritik and doesn't take it nearly as seriously as he should've. His case is a moving target that lets him unfairly take both sides of the resolution while excluding me from any kind of responsive position substantively (If I say why we shouldn't let everyone have Assisted suicide, he just flips to no one, and vice versa). It's also hilarious because his response to not being a moving target is to quote specifically where he explicitly says he's a moving target from the very first round. And because he lacks any kind of sufficient offense that can weigh against the K, you negate.

The K Debate:

A lot of the K debate comes down to if I link and should it really be something that voters look to or am I just a sh*tty person for arguing for this.

There's a major problem in trying to argue that the K doesn't link to Pro's case. In his attempt to argue that we should be giving everyone equality and not doing so is a violation of their human worth and all these other sorts of things that he's trying to extend out from his case, he kind of concedes that having these things violated is a pretty bad thing and it's not something we ought to be doing according to Pro. Pay attention kids because this is where he concedes the link to the K. If he's trying to argue that not giving everyone equality to ensure human worth is a harm to people (which is the entire point of his contention two and the general jist of his contention one, i.e. his whole case), then he's explicitly biting into the Turanli card of striving for a better, more ideal world that isn't the world we live in. That's the link.

The better part is that his attempts to sever the link undermine his own case. If he's trying to argue that the K doesn't, in fact, link, and that he's not actually trying to strive for a better world and improve people's standings in the world, then why are we even thinking about affirming in the first place? His response to this? Whining about how every policy debate doesn't have to be about suffering. You're right there, but this one is. Thanks for letting me run a K :D

He goes on to attack Nietzsche 1 with the same logic that I refuted last round. He doesn't respond to my defense of it. #shipspassing

Then the tangent about how I'm a horrible person for advocating for Nietzsche.

What my opponent fails to understand through his emotional appeal to "common sense" is that all of these "harms" to things like rape and torture and all these physical and psychological "harms", all of these things that he's arguing is bad is exactly what the K is calling into question. It's the entire flipping point of Nietzsche 2, which is saying that all of these things he says are "bad" are actually what make humanity great. Read through any and all of his rounds and you won't find a single response to this argument anywhere in his nonsensical understanding of the K. The entire point of the K is addressing why people not being equal is such a bad thing and he never questions this warrant. The entire point of the "Counter-K" is, basically, to call Nietzsche an a**hole. There's no response to the substance of the K.

And that whole section about Nietzschean philosophy? How convenient he saves all of this for the last round where I have the least amount of time and space to respond to all of this...even if it's not explicitly stated in the rules, voters shouldn't even consider these new arguments just out of fairness, but I'll cover them briefly.

His entire quoting of the harms principle is to say that the Harms principle is a thing, which doesn't do anything to say as why we ought to be reducing suffering over looking to Nietzsche. Says I make bare assertions and follows it up with his own bare assertion. #logic.

His quoting of Kain's response to Nietzsche is without warrant as well. Half of it is him just wordedly saying that I don't agree with Nietzsche. The actual substance of the card is the "The point here is that it is legiitmate to treat suffering as if it can be reduced", but doesn't actually back this up with any kind of reason why this is true or ought to be true. Another bare assertion.

Maybe he's just trying to use Kain 2 as a supplement to Kain to give it warrant. But Kane 2 doesn't even address the K: It's saying that having an all-powerful leader figure wouldn't actually solve for Nietzsche's framework because it doesn't actually reduce suffering, but that's never been the point of the K in the first place.

So in short, his attempt to address the philosophy behind the K just doesn't all.

But let's move over to Pro's side of the debate. Let's shed some light on exactly how unfair Pro's case is and how he misinterpret's his own ability to do things on the flow.

Pro's Case:

Pro's case is a clear example of what a moving target is. He gives himself two options for what he "can advocate for" in the debate: either giving everyone access to assisted suicide, or giving no one access to assisted suicide. Those are two pretty polar opposite positions, which makes the negative's job really hard for unfair reasons. If I start making responses for why giving everyone access to assisted suicide is a really bad thing, he can just negate literally the entirety of my rounds by saying "Okay, then no one gets it, affirm pls", and vice versa if I were to attack the other side. This means that we really don't ever get to discuss anything about assisted suicide in the first place, and instead I have to resort to running a K as the only real way I can address Pro's case without perpetually contradicting myself to try and respond to him.

This problem wouldn't really be that bad if later in the debate he picked a stance to defend: that way we'd just miss out on a round or two and then we could...y'know....actually debate. But he continually makes it unclear what he'd actually defend. You can see it clearly in his responses ("As I said earlier, my argument may increase suffering if all people are banned from Assisted Suicide, which I explained is permissible under this resolution. People who have the right to Assisted Suicide may lose that right because of my resolution." from round 4). His whole defense for being able to take both sides is "I made it clear in round one, you didn't read definitions clear enough", but the mere fact that I'm calling him out on being unfair should be a clear thing that I actually did read. His putting it in Round One doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to call him out on bad debate practices.

But let's actually examine his case closer to see if his claim to be able to do this actually holds up.

His first contention is saying that equality is super important to a democracy and only giving it to some people isn't making things equal. Okay fair. His second contention, though, is where things get interesting. His second contention is saying that how with things not being equal the terminally ill are just worth less as humans and viewed as expendable. He even goes on to say "However if the right to Assisted Suicide is applicable to everyone, the human value of every person would remain the same." But is that actually true. As his own case says people who are eligible for assisted suicide are being bullied into taking it. If we make this eligible to everyone, doesn't this open up the potential for everyone to be bullied into assisted suicide? Wouldn't that say that everyone is expendible and everyone's worth is being devalued? Pro never addresses this anywhere within the debate. This means that if he wishes to have giving everyone the option as a choice, he can't really access contention two as offense.

And let's consider the flipside again. Look at his contention one. Look at all those people who aren't terminally ill who are requesting the right to assisted suicide. He says that it's this loss of autonomy and dignity is what should be the decider of who ought to be able to request such things (said here "Anyone has the right to feel loss of autonomy and dignity and may wish to die. Preventing them from Assisted Suicide undermines their right to equality."). But that raises the question: wouldn't denying everyone the right to assisted suicide as you claim your case allows you to mean that everyone has a loss of autonomy and dignity since they can't actually make these decisions for themselves anymore? Again, there's no response to this from Pro. This means that if he want's to deny it to everyone, he can't actually access offense from contention one.


The debate breaks down really easily and it's a fairly straight-forward negative vote. The K easily stands and is the first place you reject the resolution. No matter which side of the field he wants to hop, he's doing it because he wants to make everyone equal and it's this not being equal that undermines people's value, which is the link into the K that stands.

Moreover, his case is a classic example of a moving target, even though he can't actually function as the moving target he wants to be.
Debate Round No. 4
73 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Posted by tejretics 4 years ago
The most hilarious K on this would be proving the universe is spatially infinite (e.g. multiverse) and saying, per Bostrom, that that would entail infinite intelligent Martians. And then say we don't impose our laws on Martians.
Posted by salam.morcos 4 years ago
Thanks whiteflame
Posted by whiteflame 4 years ago
RFD (Pt. 1):

Usually, when I go through a debate, I make a point to go through each individual argument, usually because they're relatively separate and require separate evaluation. I'll do some of that here, but most of this RFD will be focused on one issue, and I'm sure you both know what it is.

Does the Kritik link to the case presented by Pro?

I don't think I have to explain why this matters. The Kritik is the chief offense Con is using against Pro's case, and there's really not enough ink on the case to defeat it by other means. I will get into the issue of fairness later, as I think that's important, but fundamentally, the Kritik is most essential to the outcome of this debate.

The Kritik is relatively clear " it challenges the fundamental assumption that suffering is bad. Utilizing warrants from Nietzsche, Con argues that we must necessarily reject any case that seeks to separate humanity from its suffering, stating that suffering is a constant state of being and therefore should not only be accepted, but embraced as a means to grow.

Most of the challenges to the Kritik are rather weak. Pro mishandles it for the most part in R3, hitting at minor issues and trying to de-link in several ways that don't apply. What becomes the focus of his challenge is a specific no link argument that engages with the general link, seeking to show that he's not actually trying to reduce suffering with his case. Effectively, he's arguing that the chief point of his case is to uphold justice and equality, which is fundamentally separate from reduced suffering.

A few things are making me question this.
Posted by whiteflame 4 years ago
(Pt. 2)

The first is that I'm reading a lot of contrary terminology in Pro's opening round. If all he cares about is justice and equality for the sake of the law by its lonesome, then why is Contention 2 focused on human value? It'd be one thing if this point was solely focused on loss of life (though Pro would have had to pick the "no one gets asssisted suicide" argument to get this), and if the issues of autonomy and dignity weren't a part of these arguments. At the very least, Pro is suggesting a suffering component to his arguments, and then dropping that suggestion in the next 2 rounds.

Second, I have to wonder about why Pro's efforts to seek equality and justice aren't fundamentally seeking a better world. He tells me later that he couldn't care less about the people themselves, so he's effectively not trying to do this for them. I'll get into that bit later, but I'm wondering if you can divorce yourself from Con's Kritik at all using this method. Sure, it tells me that you're not worried about their suffering, but you're still trying to create a more idyllic world for some reason, even if the purpose is nebulous. Maybe that's not meant to relieve suffering, but if it just so happens to relieve suffering, that would still bite the Kritik.
Posted by whiteflame 4 years ago
(Pt. 3)

Third, and most importantly, I'm also having some trouble linking Pro's case to any impacts if I'm buying this. What, exactly, are the impacts of Pro's case if he doesn't link to human suffering? Justice and equality are nice concepts but they're not impacts in and of themselves. I'm left asking why we value these things. The only real explanation I'm given for equality is that it's a part of democracy, which just invites the question of why democracy is good. Every time I try to answer the question of why one of these is good, I'm basically given three choices: turn to another one of them, turn to human suffering, or turn to the sanctity of law. The first doesn't get me anywhere, I'm just going in circles. Pro himself denies the second, though it would have been by far the easiest way to access his impacts, because he doesn't want to directly engage with the Kritik. The third could have potentially worked, but I don't see Pro explaining anywhere why the law should be held sacred in and of itself " why we must necessarily do this for the sake of the law itself. Being consistent with our values might have some benefit, but it needs to be stated clearly, and I'm just not seeing it.

So I'm forced to do one of two things. I must either accept that human worth is harmed, and therefore that Pro is "striving for a better, more ideal world that isn't the world we live in", or I must accept that he's eschewing the human worth position, and thus producing no clear impact. I suppose the argument could be made that, in the latter case, even a weak and vague impact should be preferred over none, but when the impact is literally just nebulous terms with no clear positive aspects to them, I can't just grant Pro the impacts he's missing.
Posted by whiteflame 4 years ago
(Pt. 4)

Just to be clear here, this means that Con is correct that Pro is put between a rock and a hard place with regards to how he's handling this Kritik. He either bites it, and thus loses on the Kritik, or he doesn't bite it and lacks severely for substantial impacts. There's just no getting around that for me. The best case scenario for Pro is that I'm buying a very weak impact from him, while practically every other scenario (from winning the Kritik wholesale to showing that Pro has no impacts) favors Con. Pro doesn't really give me any reason to step over the line into his court, and instead spends his last round attacking Con's Kritik in novel ways, many of which seemed interesting but all of which were out of bounds.

But don't get me wrong, I thought Pro's case was rather strong from the outset. I still think it is. I think Pro's major mistake in this debate was in his attempts to circumvent the Kritik rather than engaging wit it. Con's Kritik, as per usual was beefy and well-supported, but it had avenues for attack, some of which Pro started in R3 and R4, but all of which just came off as weak. You've got a strong case " leverage it. Go deep into the impact level and examine why we care about suffering in the first place. Nietzsche is one philosopher, and as Pro points out, there are many who disagree with him. Delve into why that is " don't waste your time trying to run around the Kritik, especially when Con spends the requisite time on the link level (particularly at the end of R2) to start.
Posted by whiteflame 4 years ago
(Pt. 5)

Really, the only thing that's left at this point is the question of fairness in Pro's case. Pro straight up argues that he can wield both cases (i.e. everyone has access to assisted suicide and no one does) on the basis that he said this in R1: "I'm arguing that Assisted Suicide laws (whether for or against) should not be limited to only the terminally ill." Much like Con, I'm perplexed. I don't understand why Pro felt that he could run two diametrically opposed cases. Merely saying that your setup for the debate allowed something doesn't make it reasonable to do so. Merely stating that you can because both enforce the same equity is also not reasonable, especially when you separate them into separate possible scenarios and spend your opening round clearly focused on one (permitting assisted suicide to everyone). Still, I'd probably have been fine with it if not for the fact that Pro keeps trying to have his cake and eat it too throughout the debate, never taking up a solid position. What makes it more confounding is that, by the end of the debate, it doesn't help him to keep doing this. Pro made it clear already that he's eschewing any benefits to people, so why not just take a solid stance against assisted suicide, nix your arguments focused on improving quality of life, and go full bore with that?

In the end, it's not as though this sinks Pro's case. Con doesn't do a whole lot to examine how this should affect the debate as a whole, choosing just to explain why Pro shouldn't be able to run two cases instead. I agree with him, but it doesn't mean much. Whichever case I'm holding Pro to leads to the same basic result. I see the abuse, but Con's not providing much of a way to assess it as important.
Posted by whiteflame 4 years ago
(Pt. 6)

But this doesn't have to play a role in my decision. Though I can see a potential reason to vote for Pro, I'd have to go out on a bit of a limb to give him the debate, whereas Con has a strong argument working in his favor and solid reasoning for why I should dismiss Pro's case. I would be remiss if I ignored all of these factors, so I vote Con.
Posted by salam.morcos 4 years ago
Thanks Whiteflame. I always appreciate your detailed RFDs.

And if you vote for me, I'd *suprisingly* appreciate it even more :D!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 4 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by kasmic 4 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: In comments
Vote Placed by tejretics 4 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

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