Lincoln-Douglas Debate on Euthanasia

It's always nice for me to get back into LD. .. The roadmap for this round will be NC, AC, voters, in that order. NEG/CON CASE: V: Justice - nowhere does Pro argue that his value of Morality should be preferred over Justice. This is crucial, because I do give you a reason to prefer Justice to Morality. I contended that Morality was a vague, ill-defined notion. Pro tried to assert that humanity has established certain joint moral principles; yet, this very debate shows disagreement as to what morality is. I believe euthanasia is moral, Pro does not. This same principle was advanced in my example of prochoice vs. prolife factions. Morality is just too nebulous a concept--and if we can't adequately define it within the round, then we will be unable to determine if we have achieved it. Pro fails to offer a definition for his value in his last speech, further complicating the matter. Thus, I submit that Justice, defined as "giving each their due" as the better value for this round. Additionally, Pro challenges my assertion that human dignity is the root/fundamental due owed to all human beings, claiming that the due of life is more important. This, however, misses my point. Without human dignity, life is worthless. Without human dignity, life would be merely an institution whereby people can be used, abused, and cast aside. Therefore, I contend that human dignity is, indeed, the core due that all agents are owed. C: Consequentialism - firstly, I'll offer a quick clarification. As I explained my criterion in the NC, I am seeking to maximize human dignity, not good in general. Thus, my criterion is more so "maximizing human dignity. " Con argues that if we look to the consequences we aren't being just, but if we're looking to the consequence of human dignity--our chief due--we are ensuring that as many people as possible are given what they're due. That is just. Furthermore, if you cross-apply my Hume card here, you can see that if utility is the core of morality, to be moral we have to look to consequences. Thus, my criterion actually achieves Pro's value better than Pro's criterion does. Finally, based on the evidence, we can make reasonable predictions--there is such a thing as predictive validity. C1: Pro makes two errors here: (1) he assumes the right to life supersedes the right to human dignity, and (2) he assumes that the consequences of life outweigh those of a loss of dignity under my criterion. I'll address each of these in turn, but first let me point out that Pro never contests the fact that refusing euthanasia is akin to torture, and thus a violation of human dignity. Extend this--the impact here is that I'm showing that the Pro's stance inherently violates human dignity. This only leaves one issue to be settled, is the violation of human dignity that will invariably occur worse then the loss of life? As to Pro's first objection, my value-level analysis addresses this issue. Life is worthless without human dignity. We could be constantly tortured, brutalized, violated, tricked, and maltreated while being kept alive. Life--the quality of being alive--is itself not intrinsically valuable unless it is accompanied by a sense of human dignity, which would preclude such mistreatment as I outlined earlier. Pro's second point regarded my criterion; but, as I clarified, my criterion was looking specifically at maximizing human dignity, not good in general. Thus, violations of human dignity will weigh more heavily under my criterion than will losses of life. C2: Pro never rebuts the idea that if one form of euthanasia is allowed , then both must be. Extend this. Pro's only objection with this contention is that neither form of euthanasia should be allowed. This violates a patient's right to refuse treatment, including a patient's right to do so on religious or ethical grounds. It is an affront to a patient's autonomy (I will defend autonomy later in this speech. ) AFF/RRO CASE V: Morality - I have already addressed why justice ought to be preferred in this round. C: Deontology - I made three points in response to this. (1) Pro concedes that his criterion does not exclude euthanasia from being permissible, but he does debate the other two concerns I raised. I will now address those points. (2) Pro says to reject autonomy, but to do so would be to violate deontology's premise. Deontology (and dignity) argues that people should be treated as ends, not as means to an end. Pro even states this point in his AC. Kant, the foremost deontologist, also asserts the importance of people as ends in and of themselves. This is important because if we are willing to impinge on people's autonomy, we are treating them as objects whose freedoms can be ignored. Autonomy is not something that can be ignored; it is the ethical instrument that embodies our agency as human beings. If we infringe upon someone's right to choose, including the choice to be euthanized, we are denying that person's agency, and are thus denying that they are "ends" in themselves. Hence, by rejecting people's agency, Pro's undermining his own framework. (3) Pro states, by way of attack on my third point, that "utility is specific to utilitarianism. " This misses the point I was making when I argued that "utility is the core of morality. " Ultimately, if morality is based upon utility, instead of deontology, than a consequentialist framework better links to morality than a deontological one. This is a prima facie reason to prefer my criterion to Pro's criterion. Pro refuses to explain how the majority of his contentions link to his V/C structure. Yet, you evaluate arguments through your V/C, so if your arguments have nothing to do with the V/C, then you can't evaluate them. This is a great way to reject the vast majority of Pro's advocacy. C1: Firstly, Pro drops the argument that I make that simply because an animal does something, does not mean that humans ought to do it. Male lions eat their rival's young as an instinctual behavior. I don't think any sane ethicist would argue this practice be observed in humanity. Pro makes a big deal about our "natural instincts," but he has yet to show what bearing, if any, natural instinct have on this debate. Ought equals moral desirability, but yet, instinctual does not equal moral. Secondly, many addicts overcome their addictions, but I would posit that the example of an addict is ill-suited to this scenario. An addict feels compelled to do something, yet a patient is not under any such compulsion. Pain can be alleviated enough to allow them to think clearly. A better analogy would be a person suffering from terminal lung cancer. If you ask a cancer patient to find the pattern in the following: 1,3,5,7. .. they will be able to do it. It does not impede their ability to think rationally. Furthermore, people are afraid in many cases--I am afraid when I take a hard exam, I am afraid when I rock climb, I am afraid when I am about to have surgery. But, in all of these cases, I am still responsible for my actions. I am responsible for getting an A, for finding the best way up the wall, for giving my consent to the procedure. This demonstrates that fear/distress alone is not sufficient grounds for deeming people irrational or denying them their agency. Pro also never addressed the argument I made that "by saying that a patient cannot make decisions, you're saying that for as long as they live, they're not competent to manage their own lives. This seems incredibly degrading, especially as some euthanasia candidates can live for a few years. " Extend this point. Finally, Pro never rebuts my third argument--that he is relying on a few specific examples which don't speak for euthanasia as a whole. Extend this too. C2: Pro never responds to the evidence I offered showing how rare miracle cures are, and how unlikely it is that medical advancements will occur in time to save one's life. Extend this. Instead, Pro offers a personal example. This is an extraordinary occurrence, but, as I noted earlier, a few specific examples cannot invalidate euthanasia as a practice. It's cherry-picking. C3: I defended autonomy already. Next, Pro says that I am missing his point, which is that we shouldn't cause families pain. However, Pro is conversely missing my point: that the pain a family undergoes is not as important as the pain the patient is feeling. It is the patient's human dignity that is at stake, it is the patient's autonomy that is in jeopardy, it is the patient who the doctors must treat. Therefore, the patient's suffering is more morally significant than the suffering of the family, and so we should weigh it more heavily under the framework. Pro drops this point entirely--extend it. C4: Pro makes an especially egregious drop here--I stated that "Institutional checks and review boards have been successfully overseeing doctors for years, preventing them from forcing their patients into surgeries they don't want or to take medications they refuse to take. Why would euthanasia suddenly be the exception to this precedent of good regulation and oversight? " Pro's only come back is that, because abuse might happen, we shouldn't negate. This is ludicrous--abuse occurs in every human endeavor. We just can't stop moving forward because something "might" happen, especially when the very real benefits outweigh the very unlikely harms. C5: Pro never gives us a better word to interpret his contention. C6: Cross-apply "morality as vague" argument here. VOTING ISSUES: 1 - Prefer Justice as it is more clearly defined 2 - Prefer Human Dignity Consequentialism as utility is the root of morality 3 - It is against human dignity to let people live in hellish pain (NC C1) 4 - There would be checks against abuse in the NEG world (AC C4) 5 - NEG better respects autonomy, which is integral to human dignity b/c it treats people as ends To maximize our just due of human dignity, we must NEGATE.