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

Euthanasia must be made legal in India

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: 9/19/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,047 times Debate No: 18390
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




It is time to support the concept of right to die with dignity in the same manner as the human race endorses dignity of life. A man in PVS will be suffering more mental pain than that of physical pain.There are limits to human suffering, especially when there is no light at the end of the tunnel. A terminally ill patient cannot be kept on life support with the hope that, in the foreseeable future, there may be developments in medicine which may save him or her. Quality of life is as important as life itself. People argue that if euthanasia is legalised, it could be misused; but isn't that the case with most of the existing laws? Strong safeguards should be put in place to avoid any kind of misuse, and euthanasia should be allowed only when no amount of palliative care can help the patient recover. This debate has caused a schism within people from all walks of life. The people who matter most are those who have to endure unimaginable suffering, both physical and mental, and who may be forced to take the route of euthanasia. Death is never the first choice, and people opt for this path only because there is none other left to take. To die on one's own terms can be a boon for both the patients and their families who have to go through this ordeal. Being a human one should not forget the humane values and must work for legalising euthanasia.
Good luck to whoever accepts my debate!


Resolved: Euthanasia must be made legal in India.


Thanks to unni4debate for proposing this topic. I am nominally in favor of the legalization of euthanasia, but I will be using this debate to explore the idea of meta-ethical non-cognitivism. Non-cognitivism denies that moral statements are capable of being true or false because they do not describe some feature of the world. I will defend a series of philosophical arguments that justify this position.

1. A proposition is a sentence capable of being true or false.

This just allows us to understand what is meant by the word 'proposition.' It is purely definitional. Sentences like “Barack Obama is the POTUS,” are propositions. Statements like “Who are you?” or “Come here,” are not propositions because they are not true or false.

2. Truth is a relationship between the content of a sentence and the world.

I will defend this as the only coherent understanding of what it means for something to be true. A sentence is true if its content refers to some actual phenomenon and false is it fails to. The truth of the sentence “there is a cat in my room” is determined solely by the status of there being or not being a cat in my room in the actual world.

3. There is no phenomenon in the actual word that the sentence “euthanasia must be made legal in India” could refer to.

This is fairly straightforward. When someone says, “euthanasia should be made legal in India,” what does he refer to in the actual world that could make this true or false? There is clearly no fact of the matter that something “must be done” in the sense that there is a fact of the matter that something “is.” What would it even mean for that sentence to be true? The definition of truth does not and cannot account for sentences like this.

4. The resolution does not express a proposition.

Because it is not capable of being assigned a truth value, the resolution is reduced to the same level as sentences like “hello!” It cannot be defended as correct even in principle. Because Pro is logically incapable of giving any meaningful arguments, the debate goes to Con by default.

I will defend each of these arguments in more detail in the following rounds.
Debate Round No. 1


unni4debate forfeited this round.


Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


unni4debate forfeited this round.


Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit