Assisted suicide should be illegal.

== What's this debate about? ==The resolution is "assisted suicide should be illegal," not "assisted suicide vs deadly drugs. " My burden isn't to show that deadly drugs should be legal. I only need to show that assisted suicide should be illegal. There's nothing about the resolution, definitional note, rules, or nature of this debate that prohibits me from arguing both the status quo and deadly drugs. This isn't a high school policy debate. Nowhere on DDO does it say Pro and Con must advocate a single case. R1. To be clear, R1 is the opening round, and it defines the parameters of the debate, not R2. The words "deadly drugs" or "single case" don't appear in R1. R2. It's obvious I was arguing for the status quo. The words "status quo" weren't necessary; it was implied. You can't legalize assisted suicide without changing the law. All my contentions except deadly drugs don't say anything about changing the status quo. Notably, I emphasized keeping assisted suicide illegal: "Assisted suicide undermines equality, liberty, medical care, and the power of suicide. There's also a host of potential unintended consequences. Taken together, all of these points make a compelling case that assisted suicide should remain illegal" (quoting myself from R2). I wrote this after 9,000 characters that didn't mention deadly drugs at all. I only spent 3 lines discussing deadly drugs; it was an afterthought, not the focus of my advocacy. R3. I addressed Con's misunderstanding the first chance I had: the start of R3. The resolution, R1, and R2 weren't ambiguous: all contentions obviously applied to the status quo because they don't support changing the law at all, and deadly drugs was a 3-line afterthought, not the focus of my advocacy. As I said in R3, don't punish me for Con's mistake. Definitions. Con also seems to misunderstand what assisted suicide is, as defined in R1. The right/crime at issue is intentionally helping a patient end their life. We're not talking about the right to kill oneself. Suicide is currently legal in all states and most countries. [Con's 6] Everyone already has the freedom to take their own life. That's not the issue here. The debate's about whether doctors should have the right to intentionally cause the death of another human being. I want to make sure this is absolutely clear, because Con says multiple times in R3 that he's simply arguing for the right to kill oneself, and that just isn't what the debate's about. Fairness. Con says it's unfair that he has to argue against two cases while I only have to argue against one. But limiting discussion to a single case wasn't a requirement of this debate. Con could have argued as many cases as he wanted. Instead, Con chose not to argue any. That doesn't make the debate unfair. It's not my fault that Con had multiple strategy options but then chose to limit himself by not employing them. Again, don't punish me for Con's mistakes. Education. Con says arguing two cases isn't educational. On the contrary, it's far more educational to consider all relevant issues instead of limiting the discussion. Confining the debate to two niche advocacies isn't educational. Great thinkers, politicians, philosophers, and theorists don't pidgeon hole themselves into discussing a single opinion; we shouldn't either. Reasonableness. Con says arguing against two inconsistent cases is unreasonable. But the cases here aren't inconsistent. The only difference between the status quo and deadly drugs is the available means of suicide. Both are distinguishable from assisted suicide in the same critical ways: (1) doctors can't intentionally cause death; (2) no arbitrary limits on who can commit suicide; (3) no slippery slope to involuntary euthanasia; (4) no corruption of doctors. These are the key distinctions and they're fully consistent. Even if the cases are opposed in some ways, they're still independent proofs of the resolution: both argue against assisted suicide. Nowhere in R1 or on DDO does it say Pro or Con can't advocate multiple independent cases. If Pro and Con were discussing ice cream flavors over dinner, and Pro argued, "vanilla isn't the best because hazelnut and lemon are better," nobody would say Pro's argument isn't fair or reasonable. Pro's burden isn't showing which flavor is best; it's only to show vanilla isn't the best. Likewise, Con can't show vanilla is best by arguing only against hazelnut and then completely ignoring arguments for lemon. Multiple independent cases aren't only fair and reasonable, they best emulate real world situations. Burdens. Con says rebuttals alone can win an equal burdens debate. While that may be true sometimes, it's absolutely not true in this debate. Arguing that deadly drugs shouldn't be legal doesn't show that assisted suicide should be legal. You can't argue for a change in the law without making an offensive case; rebuttals alone aren't enough. Con failed to meet his burden and therefore cannot win the debate. == Arguments ==I'm gonna summarize my arguments while responding to Con's stuff from R3. Unintended Consequences(1) Assisted suicide leads to involuntary euthanasia. Con concedes that assisted suicide and involuntary euthanasia are grounded on the same logic. But, Con argues the Netherlands legalized voluntary euthanasia before it legalized involuntary euthanasia. That's one of the weakest arguments against a slippery slope that I've ever seen. Yes, before a country legalizes involuntary euthanasia, it's presumed that they'd legalize voluntary euthanasia. That's how slippery slopes work. Assisted suicide and euthanasia (both voluntary and involuntary) are grounded on the same *logic. * The empirical evidence demonstrates how this logic plays out, showing a slope from assisted suicide to voluntary euthanasia, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia. This outcome undermines bodily freedom and the right to life. (2) Con admits risks of abuse. Anyone can already commit suicide without assistance from a doctor, so there's no reason to accept these risks. There's no unique benefit here that outweighs the harms. The impact is people getting away with murder. Con also says his case allows a private deathbed, which increases the risk of abuse. Also, note that Con's own *every suicide is a potential murder* argument applies to his case but not the status quo. (3) See R2 for reasons that assisted suicide would expand the categories for whom assisted suicide is available, as well as reducing interference with suicide attempts. Con drops these points in R2, and offers no reason to believe these outcomes won't happen. Expanding categories means less equality and greater magnitude of harms. Limiting interference means more successful suicides. (4) Minorities: more suffering means more assisted suicide. More minorities choosing assisted suicide because of institutional discrimination shows there's a potential unintended consequence from legalizing assisted suicide. (5) Assisted suicide lowers demand for pain control, which could disincentivize R&D. Equality. Con asks that we enforce a distinction between persons not with respect to social security or education or other government services, but with respect to the most fundamental question of all, namely, whose lives should be treated as inviolable under law and whose may be subject to intentional destruction by others. Con asks that we accept, judge, and decree that certain persons are worth total respect while others don't merit such respect. This creates a second class of citizens. Con's response in R3 is incoherent. You can't justify equal protection if some lives are worth more than others. Saying life has inherent value doesn't mean anything if what matters under the law are differences in instrumental value. Why treat people equally if they're not actually equal? Con never answers this. See R3 for why Con's position leads to infanticide and murder. Con's criteria are also arbitrary (who decides which lives aren't worthy of preservation? ). Also see R3 for my argument that consent doesn't justify assisted suicide (i. e. it's like trying to justify a slavery contract). Right to Refuse. A patient who asks to be taken off life support effectively asks for assistance in suicide. The doctor must cause death. This blurs the line between assisted suicide and refusing treatment. The problem is that assisted suicide empowers doctors to refuse assistance. As a result, there's a risk that assisted suicide will undermine the right to refuse treatment. A brightline distinction between refusing treatment and assisted suicide isn't possible unless assisted suicide is illegal. Corruption. Medicine is about preventing or curing disease, not causing death. Con agrees that suicide isn't a medical treatment. And Con can't deny that historically suicide has always been a moral issue, not a medical one. Thus, legalizing assisted suicide corrupts the role of doctors. Remember, patients can already commit suicide without a doctor's assistance, so the only effect that assisting suicide has is approving the suicide. That's something better left to moral institutions, not medical ones. Those left behind can't judge a suicide approved by a doctor; this turns doctors into priests. Suicide. Preapproving suicide shields it from judgment and deprives its social power. Bouazizi's suicide was inspirational precisely because it was shocking; it reflected the value we place on life. Nothing can reflect the value we place on life the way a suicide can. Protests don't have that effect. Suicide is unlike anything else we do; to say its effect on those left behind is non-unique totally mistakes its nature. Bouazizi's suicide didn't have a non-unique impact. Conclusion. Con's rebuttals are weak, lacking in substance, and incoherent. Moreover, Con refused to argue that assisted suicide is preferable to the status quo. Why legalize it if suicide is already an option? Con never answers this. Thus, Con has failed to meet his burden.