Choose any Topic!!!!

Seeing he said nothing about the definitions, I believe that he accepted all of them. I will now make my opening arguments of the debate. This is the second debate I am doing with lannan (the first one is on edeb8), so I hope it will be proven enjoying, as this one has more characters to write to. And I am sorry for being mistaken that my opponent misread the debate, when it was actually his preffered stance. FrameworkMy framework will be based on Libertarianism. Libertarians seek to maximize automny, and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment [1] [2]. (Quoted from Wikipedia [3]. )Also, America, in it's Consitution says, ""to secure these rights [:]. .. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [4]. " So I will be showing about all these things, from Euthanasia. I will be talking about some laws like the Harm Principle also. And I will be talking about Util for a bit also. I think this will be enough for my framework, I can extend my framework if my opponent has any contradictions, or misunderstandings with the framework. C1: Right of LifeMy first argument and second argument will be basically the same thing, my first argument will be about the Right of Life. All people have the right of life (and the right of death). People have the right to live and die because, if they don't, then that means that one's life is dictated by someone elses's life, which harms their liberty. America, in it's Consitution says, ""to secure these rights [:]. .. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [4]. " If we ban Euthanasia, then it shows that we are harming the liberty of a person. I will be giving some premises for this. P1: If we are banning Euthanasia means that people will no longer have libertyP2: If we are harming liberty, that makes that we are making him/her not secure. P3: If people are not secure, it is harming his or her life. C1: Therefore I have shown that we should legalize Euthanasia just on this alone. But that wasn't the main point of the argument anyways. People have the right to die. Like the people of Euthanasia *want* to die to get less pain. Why are we stopping them from doing their wish? If we are harming this, we are harming liberty, which I already shown. Like dying because they want to, they have their liberty, they can die if they actually want to. Ones who want to ban Euthanasia are basically saying that we are not letting them die when they *want* to die. That's really unreasonable, they have the right to die if they want to. Because they have the right to die, and we ban Euthanasia, we are basically banning their liberty, and all the things I have shown above. For this argument alone, you ought to vote for Pro (though I will make more arguments then this)C2: LibertyI've already explained most of this in my last argument. We have the liberty to do what we want [5]. The people on Euthanasia want to die. Why do they want to die? Because they don't want to suffer pain, that's why they are dying. If we ban them from wanting to be dying, then that means that we are banning to do what they want, which harms their liberty. Now, my opponent might say that they wish to bomb the entire universe, and we should let them for their liberty. That's why I made this argument, to also talk about the harm principle. John Stuart Mill, who made the harm principle says, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others [6] [7]. " To paraphrase it, John Stuart Mill is saying that we have the liberty to do what we want unless it harms others. What harm does someone dying give? They are suffering, and they want to die. Then they die because they don't want to suffer. This doesn't harm anyone, even the family members, because they know that the person was suffering. So, it doesn't harm the harm principle, so we should legalize Euthanasisa. C3: They can if they want toMy argument will be about that they can if they want to. I won't really go on the part of liberty, as I already said that a bunch of times in my last few arguments. So I will be talking about Util. They are killing themselves to not feel the pain from the surgeries they are doing for example. Why are they doing this? Because of Util, or maximizing happiness. Util: the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people [8]. Now, Euthanasia helps the ones that want to kill themselves because it helps them from getting more pain. It doesn't help anyone if we ban Euthanasia. Happiness is a moral good action that helps, so I will be saying about Happiness also. Euthanasia maximizes happiness because first of all, they are killing themselves for less pain. Pain= bad, obviously, because breaking your arm hurts, so if less pain, then more happiness. So, if we legalize Euthanasia, then there will be more happiness. Just for happiness, please vote for Pro. ConclusionI have shown that Euthanasia is helped by the Libertarian framework because banning Euthanasia will cause liberty to be harmed, which makes the Libertarian Framework come on my side. I also showed liberty, the harm principle, and Util to bring up my case, and make it stronger. Because of this, vote for Pro. Onto my opponent in the debate. Sources[1] Woodcock, George (2004). Anarchism: A History Of Libertarian Ideas And Movements. Peterborough, Ont. : Broadview Press. p. 16. ISBN 9781551116297. for the very nature of the libertarian attitude—its rejection of dogma, its deliberate avoidance of rigidly systematic theory, and, above all, its stress on extreme freedom of choice and on the primacy of the individual judgment [2] "Libertarianism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2014-05-20. libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value [3] . http://goo.gl...[4] . http://goo.gl...[5] . http://goo.gl...[6] . http://goo.gl...[7] . http://goo.gl...[8] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...