assisted suicide is wrong

Thanks for the fast response, and here I go. First of all I would like to ask my opponent to realize that I am not making the assumption of my winning. That was an argument about why you cannot win, and therefore you should vote for me. I was not being rude or insulting. I was making an argument that included me winning. Am I supposed to create an argument that makes me lose? Ok, good. I do believe that I will be able to poke some holes in your case then. I'll refute your points first and then go to mine. 1. Plea for help. This argument is saying that assisted suicide is basically a plea for help, and that those committing suicide are depressed. You argue that we should solve the problem by pumping them full of anti-depressants, and forcing them to live out their tortured life of pain, both physically and emotionally. Before you say that I'm being extreme, let me point out that you basically are suggesting this, just in nicer terms. I'm stating the truth of it. But again, why should we force them to live out their life, if they don't want to? I can't force you to live, just like you can't force me to change my life. But in arguing against AS, you do such a thing. 2. Good Doctors. You claim that modern medicine is enough to take care of pain, so AS should not be out of pain.You say that it is not impossible to withstand pain. RESPONSE: What you have failed to address is the fact that pain doesn't always mean physical pain. In fact, it often doesn't mean physical pain, such as the kind you are arguing about. You forget about emotional pain, and the pain you cause yourself and those around you. Here is an example for you, so you can get what I am saying. Your name is Bill. You are a 35 year old male. You are in peak physical condition, and you are quite happy with your physical condition. You excercise daily, and are quite active in society. Everyone around you loves you, since you are a great friend and a faithful husband. One day, as you are biking to work, you get into a car crash. You are paralyzed from the neck down, and will not be able to move for the rest of your life. Your case is hopeless, and your life is filled with physical pain. You are given medication for your pain, but you need so much that you become addicted to morphine. You are filled with emotional pain, knowing that you will never be able to return to society. You will live out the rest of your life (about 40 years) in a wheelchair, using a machine to talk, since your vocal cords were damaged in the accident. You are living, but your life is a living hell. You wish it to end, but you cannot do it yourself. You ask your doctor to overdose you on your morphine. However, the law states that your doctor cannot do so, and you are FORCED to live out the rest of your life, in eternal suffering. You said yourself I only need one example. Viola. Thank you. All my arguments can be applied to this example. SELFISHNESS: Your next argument is that the patient is selfish in wanting his/her own death. You think that they only think of themselves, and what they have to go through. They don't think about those around them. RESPONSE: You are making the assumption that this is what people go through. Your argument is based upon an assumption, so we can't assume it to be true. Provide some facts, and maybe this argument will fly. But if you don't buy that, you can look at the converse of this argument. I can say just as easliy that those asking for AS are really trying alleviate the pain they cause those around them. Why? 1. Financial pain. Medicine costs money. So does treatment. So does a hospital bed. So does a caretaker if you can't take care of yourself. They all add up. By realizing how much of a burden you are on your loved ones, you alleviate their financial pain. 2. Emotional pain. Your loved ones feel obligated to keep you alive, but it kills them inside to see you dying slowly and a prolonged death. By asking for AS, you take that weight off their shoulders, and you ask for your own death, and your family members will not have to see you dying, as they will in my opponent's world. His next argument is about the value of life, and how we would be cowards to give it up, only because we can't deal with physical pain. RESPONSE: Ok, so lets sum up your argument in an example. Bob is terminally ill. There is a chance of a cure, but he is so selfish and in so much pain that he decides to ask his doctor to kill him with a gun. There are some options here: a. The doctor refuses. This is what my opponent advocates. But this is not the important part. b. I can actually forget about this argument, let it drop, and its ok, since I can let go of everything my opponent says, as long as I show one situation where it would be justified. As for my opponents examples: 1. The drug addict. Well first off, this example isn't about AS. Its about drugs. If this were a debate on drugs, then maybe this example would apply. 2. Same thing. This example doesn't apply. I'll show you exactly why next. Ok, so this is why his entire "Selfishness" arg doesn't stand. All those people do not have a valid reason. We can actually forget about that argument, since fine, I'm not going to bother to refute it. But I can still win this debate, because my opponent forgets one crucial part of my argument that holds it all together: The patient has a valid reason to wish for AS. In all your cases, its just one guy who wishes something for the sake of wishing it, and he doens't have a valid reason. But in my examples, which stand, the patient has a valid reason. This validity give my argument credibility, and therefore I can win this debate through those arguments. MURDER: So this argument is about doctors playing God. But you have failed to realize the full implications of my argument. The doctor isn't playing God. I specifically addressed that, and if I didn't, I am now. Playing God would imply that the person is doing what he wants, when he wants no matter the consequences. However, in my example, the doctor is complying with the patients wishes. He is following what the patient wants, not his own agenda. So the doctor isn't playing god. He is more like a servant to the patients wishes. BUT the doctor consents with the patient, so they both are justified. The patient isn't forcing the doctor to kill him, and the doctor isn't forcing the patient to live. So my opponent tries to refute my example by saying that pain medicine will save him. However, again, there are more pains than just physical. Not everything can be solved by pumping the body full of chemicals. You say that the patient should go do something uplifting. Let me ask you this. Have you ever been paralyzed from the neck down, in constant pain, and unable to do anything purposeful with your life other than grunt meaninglessly? You obviously have not, since you are being incredibly insensitive to the patients suffering. I don't mean to insult you, but all of your arguments are superficial, based upon the premise that pain is a physical manifestation, can be taken care of by huge doses of medicine, and we should force those people to live. I myself have to undergone any of those conditions, but I am being sympathetic to their wishes. We should not stop them in carrying out their life, if they truly have a valid reason. The doctor has no right to stop the patient, he can only refuse. My opponent thinks that the doctor is choosing to kill the patient to follow his own agenda. But you lost the main point! The doctor IS NOT following his own agenda. he would be if he decided to stop the patient and force him to live. Conclusion: My opponent has made the assumption that everyone who wants AS is selfish and is doing harm to society. BUT HE FAILS TO REALIZE THAT THEY CAN HAVE A VERY VALID REASON. Again, if I can show in ONE instance where it wo