Making Euthanasia Illegal is Selfish

BOPRealistically, we are both agreeing what the BOP is, but we aren’t agreeing to as what are the right terms to identify the BOP. I agree that I am to frame the debate under the assumption that selfishness is an essential property of banning euthanasia, and him the opposite, however the key word is selfishness, and I am to make links to it, while my opponent is to deny that there are any legitimate links. I don’t feel like I should waste more time on this, since the debate is about the resolution and not the Con’s BOP, which should be easily identifiable. Rebuttal 1 I gave this definition because it shows how ‘homogeneous’ has a specific point in which both sides (of the equation, or in this debate, viewpoints) can agree. I thank my opponent for including the other definition so voters can properly examine the discussion without confusion. "Second, I never said that individuals cannot ever have common values. "I never said that you said that individuals can ever have common values, however I did say that you said that individuals can ever have common values concerning euthanasia. This debate is about euthanasia, I would not be talking generally about all values. Con is trying to give voters an image of me being too broad in my rebuttals, when the fact is that I did say in my argument "and in the case of euthanasia", to avoid being too general. "Contextual examination of each individual's advocacy can tell vastly different stories, even if they are comrades in a particular ideology or in one side of the debate over euthanasia. "What Con is saying is that each individuals reason to ban euthanasia, can be for different reasons, even if they share similar political or philosophical ideologies, or common opinions concerning euthanasia. Apparently this validates heterogeneity, and ultimately validates whether 'making euthanasia illegal is selfish. ' If two religious people both want euthanasia to be banned, one person because of the slippery slope argument, and one person because he has strong religious reasons against it, it does validate heterogeneity (different reasons against it), but it doesn't ultimately validate the fact that they acknowledge others needs, which makes this argument false. "In the context of a dying man and his family, we might classify the same action as unselfish because of the man's concern for his family outweighs his desire for the alleviation of his personal pain. Pro offers us no justification for excluding contexts which prove inconvenient to his case, and instead cherry picks a particular way of examining the action which causes the action to appear in a certain way. "Let me justify myself. I am excluding this context, as it has to do with whether people 'would want to be euthanized', and not with 'people would want euthanasia to be banned', which is what the resolution of this debate is all about. I am not cherry picking a particular way of examining this, I am trying to make sure that examples are exactly related to the resolution, and not involving selfishness/selflessness regarding things like:i) Family needs, because this has nothing to do with making it illegal or not. ii) Need to ease pain, because this has nothing to with making it illegal or not. These are unselfish reasons to not be euthanized or to be euthanized, but these aren't reasons why "banning euthanasia" is not selfish or not selfish. Con is discussing the context of this debate vaguely, without acknowledging the resolution. Rebuttal 2"Pro goes on to talk about the importance of freedom of choice to democratic societies, and basically commits himself to some political argument. "Yes, I committed myself to this political argument because it proves that freedom of choice, is a basic fundamental right, which you have clearly opposed in R2; "but the case of euthanasia does not appear to fit within the realm of these basics. " You acknowledge that basic rights such as food are fundamental interests, which are inherently homogeneous to all. Therefore, it is essential to prove that freedom of choice is a fundamental interest, to prove that it is inherently homogeneous to all, to ultimately prove that my opponents argument of heterogeneity is false. "I could probably make the argument that some people believe, out of empathy for others or a utilitarian desire to bring about "the greatest good", that exercising power over people's decisions is acceptable, so long as the agent exercising power is doing so for the sake of the interests (or for the sake of the expected maximization of utility) of the individuals over whom power is being exercised. "Yes you can make that argument. However, how does this prove that making euthanasia illegal is not selfish, and that it still doesn't acknowledge both groups of people who would choose either;i) a peaceful deathii) a death with suffering"It doesn't really matter whether I make this counterargument, though because his rebuttal here fails to even affirm that pushing for a ban on euthanasia is inherently selfish. "My rebuttal is not intended to affirm that pushing for a ban on euthanasia is inherently selfish, because this is a rebuttal not one of my main points. It is quite obvious that my intentions of my rebuttals were to prove that your reasons why banning euthanasia is not inherently selfish, were false. Rebuttal 3"I never said that ideological values weren't particularly selfish, which means that the alleged tensions between that statement and my claim that selfish motives exist in ideological agendas is nonexistent. "Con highlighted the difference between basic interests and ideological interests in round 2. The fact that he said that banning euthanasia does not appear to fit the realm of these basics, and the fact that he says that basic rights are inherently homogeneous (which would give them selfish qualities), and the fact that he is saying that banning euthanasia is not inherently selfish, give a completely valid reason to believe that he is trying to prove that ideological values aren't particularly selfish. This proves the contradiction which he has stated in round 2 is existent, which refutes his 'heterogeneity' argument. Rebuttal 4"Though he's willing to admit the action of the patient to be unselfish with respect to his immediate circumstances, he calls it selfish for failing to account for the interests of the other 7 billion people on the planet"If the patients opinion is that euthanasia should be banned, just because he doesn't want to put his own family in emotional distress, he is simply saying that his situation shouldn't result in euthanasia, so everybody elses shouldn't as well. He is selfish because he doesn't want people to have that choice. It is not the interests of 7 million different opinions, it is the interests of two opinions and that is: 'I would euthanize myself' and 'I would not'. ConclusionI trust voters to realize that my opponents argument is not legitimate. (Con cannot bring up new arguments in this round, as agreed to in the introduction)I trust voters to realize that thus far my opponent has ignored the reality of the fact that banning euthanasia doesn't acknowledge the needs of a huge group of people. I trust voters to realize that thus far he spent his time rebutting my rebuttals, and that he hasn't been able to rebuttal my main points from R2, however I expect him to rebuttal my main points in the final round to disable my ability counter argue his rebuttals to my main points. Con says: "Pro can't claim victory by telling one story about the action while ignoring all the rest. "I am only accepting stories that involve 'illegalization of euthanasia' and not stories that stray away from the resolution we are supposed to be debating. My opponent has not proved at all how banning euthanasia is unselfish,and he hasn't given one decent situation where banning of euthanasia is unselfish, so he doesn't deserve the victory of this debate.