Assisted Suicide Laws should be Universal

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. Summary 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. Summary 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