Topic that was agreed upon in a message

"The point is, the life of a man is his own. If he chooses to end it, if he gives up hope, that's his conscious choice, we must respect it. Even if a miracle would've happened, he has asked to be euthanized. He was aware that there could be a miracle, but he chose this. We cannot judge him for that choice. We should accommodate it." > False, the point of my argument is the value of human life and that it would be huge gain even if just 10 lives were saved in total. The counterargument of my opponent does not address the argument that is therefore extended and since this is the final round and my opponent will not be able to counter it, it is accepted as a fact according to debating rules. This should play a role while voting "Okay, but aren't you causing more harm when you allow your patient to suffer needlessly, and against their will. And if you believe in heaven, aren't you doing them a favor, by sending them to a place in which they are so much happier than they are now. If anything, not euthanizing the patient is against the Hippocratic Oath." > The Hippocratic Oath clearly banns Euthanasia because killing is harming of a sort despite its intention, so my opponent's claims about Euthanasia not violating the Hippocratic Oath are false. > Potentially, you may be robbing someone of his right to life because you are denying him a miraculous recovery. "The church is also against homosexuality right now. Is that something you would support?" > False the church is not against homosexuality, it is against gay marriage, witch could provide an excellent topic for another debate, because it is not definite if it is right or wrong, for this debate though it is considered neither and therefore proves nothing. "And my opponent's point that people should not be able to have power over life and death is flawed. Because if we followed that, doctors couldn't save people, nor could they deliver babies, and paramedics couldn't decide whether to save the old man or the little boy with his puppy. Basically, the world wouldn't work, men have to have some control over life and death, otherwise, we get absurdities, such as doctors who can't euthanize you, but they can't save you either." > The power over life and death does not include saving lives because the life already exists so we are neither taking it away nor giving it, this is also true in the case of birth since the infant is already alive before it is born. Therefore my opponent's argument does not stand. "And his point about doctors going against their beliefs if the euthanize, flawed. A doctor is not forced to. There are many doctors who won't perform certain procedures, but there are always doctors who will. We can always let someone who believes euthanasia is morally acceptable do the euthanizing." > This is false. If the law states that doctors have to kill their patients if they request it, they MUST do so this will cause certain doctors to a.)Go against their beliefs in order to keep patients and the money they provide b.)Lie about the patient's condition in order to not Euthanaze them c.) Be segregated based on their beliefs in handling terminally ill patients. >So the problems I mentioned in round 2 will occur. My opponent responds to this: "a. He wouldn't have to do that." Later on, he contradicts himself by not adding such a possibility in his proposed law: "Basically, I propose that euthanasia is legal, and doctors are allowed to administer it, if patients that have been diagnosed with a terminal illness desire it. They have to get a second opinion from at least one other doctor before getting euthanized." - So yes he would have because the law would make him do so if the patient desired it "b. He wouldn't have to do that either." - Yes he wouldn't HAVE to, but he would do so in order to not go against his beliefs and/or religion. "c. He could do this. Doctors however already do this with many types of treatment. I would not be causing any new problems." - My opponent fails to provide an example. Despite this, I disagree to this happening in the other treatments because segregation based on beliefs is wrong. "If we applied this logic to all situations, than we would not be allowed to do anything. Often my important choices are influenced by my environment, so that means that under his logic; the government would be able to take this choice away. I couldn't vote, because I might be influenced to make the wrong choice, I couldn't do anything important. That's absurd." > This is wrong because in the case of Euthanasia a wrong decision can cost A LIFE as compared to 1 vote out of 300,000. We should prevent people from making these choices by all means possible and we do so by not giving doctors and negatively affected (psychologically) patients the power over life and death. "Consulting does not mean two doctors with constant supervision. It's simply asking another doctor to look at my charts, and tell me what they think." > This is still time consuming and if this is the case, a corrupt doctor could easily assure the other doctor that the patient is dying, through charts that show that death is just a great probability. Remember, that the doctor cannot just kill any patient; he can only kill a patient whose condition is crucial, meaning that people who have a 40-60 chance of survival can be killed because a chart gives them a greater possibility of death. "Okay, first, the 2 doctors works. It won't be an issue. Second what I meant was that the two doctors thing so[l]ves the problem, bribes pressure, pessimism, all of those go away." > The issue has already been addressed above and my opponent's argument has been proven false. "My opponent says that philosophy is often based on opinion. Utilitarianism is based on pure logic, so my opponent is wrong. Mill proves happiness is the only desirable end, and that since we want to achieve happiness, we should follow a moral system that does so. That's where utilitarianism comes in. It is clearly the logical philosophy. Second, my opponent claims that consequences cannot be predicted. Actually, he is wrong. While there is a small chance that he could have recovered, it is so small; it is negligent with our choice. Also, we are not robbing him of his last days because he and his family have given them up freely. He can enjoy his last days earlier, and without having to suffer his pain." > My opponent is mistaken, by definition (the one provided in Round 2), philosophy is always based on opinion. > Logic also tells us that killing is still considered killing despite its consequences and is therefore immoral this is explained in another ‘superior' philosophy: Deontology. >I have already explained that the chances of survival are greater that what my opponent believes and this point was unrefuted so it is accepted. This means that the result of the action can not be predicted with 100% accuracy as is necessary in moral dilemma that my opponent's philosophy provides a proposed course of action for. Therefore moral philosophy, by definition, cannot be used to support Euthanasia because of the different circumstances in each terminally ill person's case and because the result of it cannot be predicted accurately. In conclusion, my opponent fails to refute my argument about the value of human life and the problems that would occur in healthcare (violating beliefs and values and segregation) because he does not provide solutions to the problem in his proposed law. These should be taken into consideration as facts because my opponent does not have a second chance to refute them. Therefore I negate, Thank you very much.