Assisted Suicide Laws should be Universal

I ask that voters who are not familiar with Kritiks to refrain from voting on this debate. This is more to the benefit of my opponent. Overview Con challenged my resolution with several post-fiat Kritiks [1] which I will address below. By doing so, the BoP (Burden of Proof) falls on Con to justify that his Kritik definitely negates my resolution. It is sufficient for me to simply bring sufficient doubt to his claim to be awarded the win. Defense Against Kritik My opponent's Kritik rests entirely on Nietzsche's philosophy. Con however wants me and the readers to simply agree that Nietzsche's philosophy is correct. But why should I agree? Con didn't present any evidence of why Nietzsche's arguments are valid or correct. Therefore, the voter should treat this as a bare assertion. It's not my responsibility to justify why Nietzsche's philosophy is not correct. The Burden of Proof is on Con to explain why we should adhere to Nietzsche's philosophy. Con argues that "longing for another world in which one does not suffer […] is an illusory". He also argues that he turned the case by saying that people's "imagination of a better world is a continuation of the ascetic ideal. This association of all that is good as not of this world expresses a hatred for the only one we’ve got." But what Con has failed to understand is that my case has nothing to do with longing for a better world. It's neutral in that respect. I never argued that Assisted Suicide should be allowed because it allows for a better world. Conversely, I argued that I'm not against banning Assisted Suicide either. My only contention was that it should be applied equally. Whether that leads to a better world or worse is entirely subjective. Con continues by saying that "benevolence towards the oppressed is a thinly veiled attempt to exercise power over the subjugated." But again Con doesn't understand that my argument is not about the oppressed. That's because if Assisted Suicide is banned from everyone, then everyone is technically oppressed. Where is the benevolence? Again, there is no link to my resolution. In fact, Con's own argument is self refuting. Con argues that "we want to increase their power because in that way we increase ours, or we want to show them how advantageous it is to be in our power" and that "this is a sacrifice that is offered for our desire for power." So in this case, increasing the power of people to Assisted Suicide would (according to Con) increase our power. Therefore, Con's argument, if valid, would validate my resolution and defeat the Kritik. Con also argues that "suffering is inevitable-the drive to abolish it holds life in contempt." [sic] Con again misses the point here. I didn't argue that we should abolish suffering. Banning Assisted Suicide can potentially increase suffering not decrease it. My resolution is not about suffering, but about equality. So Con's point is mute. Second, just because suffering is inevitable, does it follow that it cannot or shouldn't be reduced? I will address this in my Counter Kritik below. Nietzsche argues that "And since according to … absolute ethics) life will always be in the wrong, it followed … that one must smother it under a load of contempt and constant negation." While I fully disagree with Nietzsche, but this point is completely irrelevant. I didn't argue for absolute ethics in the first place. Therefore this argument is refuted. My resolution is about the Law and not ethics. Ethics and law are not the same thing. Con also argues that "the alternative is to embrace suffering as something positive and necessary to life. Reject the idea that suffering is something to be avoided." But this alternative doesn't conflict with my resolution. You can embrace suffering as something positive. What does this have to do with banning or allowing Assisted Suicide? If banning Assisted Suicide would lead to suffering, then one should (according to Con) embrace it. As you can see above, nowhere in Con's argument did he explain why the law should not be applied universally. Absolutely nowhere. Death of the Kritik 1. Con argues that the Kritik negates the resolution "apriori because by allowing people to just opt out of their suffering and off themselves we decrease suffering in the world". I've explained that my resolution is not about suffering, so there is no link to the resolution. 2. Con argues that "before we can even address human rights we first need to understand what it means to be human". This is a bare assertion. First, we know quite a lot about humans, and there's an entire division of science (Anthropology) which is dedicated to this subject [2]. Second, Con's basically arguing that if we don't know absolutely everything about humans, we can't even address human rights. As I said earlier, this is a bare assertion. I don't need to know everything about a car to know how to drive it. 3. Con argues that "by advocating for assisted suicide to preserve human worth he violates the very thing he aims to preserve". Did Con really read my arguments? I didn't advocate for Assisted Suicide. I only advocated for equality. So if Assisted suicide was essential for preserving human worth (as Con charges), why would I argue that the law can ban Assisted Suicide for everyone? Again, Con doesn't explain why the Law should consider someone above another. By Con's failure to do so, my resolution and arguments stand. 4. Con argues that "Violating human rights and worth only matters insofar as violating it results in some kind of harm". But if you notice, this is no longer Kritik of the resolution, but rebuttal of my second contention. Is there anything in the resolution that states "Human rights"? It appears that Con is now accepting my resolution, so the Kritik is no longer valid. But I'll respond to it anyways. Con states that "violating human rights results in some kind of suffering, which means that affirming bites into the K". This point is really irrelevant. That's because it's heavily dependent on the Kritik. If the Kritik (which I refuted) was successful, Con would be awarded the win despite of this point. If the Kritik fails, this point would fail as well and I would be awarded the win. So this point is completely irrelevant, regardless if it's true or not. The rest of my response will be in my Counter Kritik. Counter Kritik – Kritik of the Kritik If my opponent was somehow right, we shouldn't fight to reduce suffering around the world. According to Con, suffering is inevitable, and seeking to reduce it is simply an illusory. Based on this argument however, preventing a woman from being raped is not necessary. Why should we reduce her suffering? I find this absolutely horrific. It also means that preventing child abuse, molestation ought to be embraced. Con also suggests that we shouldn't put laws to prevent genocides like the Holocaust. In fact, the law itself becomes irrelevant. Based on Con's analogy, why should we put laws to prevent any crimes? Do I really need to explain to the reader why embracing rape is inherently wrong? Do I really need to explain why murdering an innocent person is inherently wrong? I find Con's argument as quite offensive. While I have a lot of respect for my opponent, I don't think he understood the impact of his Kritik. I ask him to kindly concede and admit his error on this subject. The alternative, which is working to reduce crime and suffering is much more desirable. As Einstein who believes in determinism explains it: "I am compelled to act as if free will existed, because if I wish to live in a civilized society I must act responsibly. I know philosophically that a murderer is not responsible for his crime, but I prefer not to take tea with him." [3] While I don't believe in determinism, I still respect Einstein's decision to act responsibly. Even though he believes that we can't stop anything from happening, including rape, murder and genocide, we should act as if free will existed. So even if Con was correct philosophically that reducing suffering was somehow an illusory and inevitable, we should still act as if we can reduce suffering. This is the only responsible thing to do. This alternative is better that embracing hate, murder and rape because it's an illusory. Therefore, I urge the voter to vote for me because I best uphold the role of the ballot. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate) The above link will break. Copy paste this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_(policy_debate) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] Walter Isaacson, "American Sketches: Great Leaders, Creative Thinkers, and Heroes of a Hurricane", pp. 141