People have the right to be euthanized.

I will start off by quoting my opponent and then I will respond to what they have to say. "He notes Thomas Jefferson claimed the right to life comes from a creator. This commits the fallacies of both appealing to tradition and appealing to authority. Rights do not derive from the Founding Fathers just because the Founding Fathers described our rights in a legal document." I started off the debate arguing that rights came from a creator and I used the founding fathers to merely show that they believed the same thing. And since they wrote the law of the land, it is clear that they did not believe that people have the right to kill themselves. This isn't to say that they were always right, but my argument does show that euthanasia wasn't a right they believed people had. Hence they also didn't believe that was a right endowed by a God. And by the way it should be noted that my opponent never actually gave an argument for where rights come from. I believe they lost the debate due to that fact alone. "Moreover, it would breach the separation of church and state to suggest that an alleged creator's values ought to determine our legal standards. Please extend my arguments from the last round that have explicitly outlined why God is irrelevant to this debate." Again, the separation of church and state isn't mentioned in the constitution so they don't have an argument here. And the founding fathers literally believed that rights (not all legal standards) came from a creator. "The proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest." Bare assertion. Besides that, if our only mission in life is to be selfish, then humanity is in trouble. "So long as we do not harm another or infringe on another person's rights, we do have the right to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness regardless of other people's standards." The United States doesn't give people the right to pursue happiness! I have already said that and I don't know why my opponent keeps making the same arguments. It wasn't in the constitution and therefore isn't a right of ours. Besides that, the right to pursue happiness was referring to financial success. Not euthanasia. As for me dictating peoples rights, that is ironically what my opponent is doing. I am saying that due to the fact that our founding fathers saw rights as things endowed by a God, and due to the fact that euthanasia isn't one of them, then we don't have that right. My opponent is the one who thinks that people have this right merely because of her beliefs. "My opponent claims that objective morality nor rights can exist without God. That is a fallacious bare assertion and I do not have time to argue that point, nor is it entirely relevant or important to this debate." Wrong. My opponent is misrepresenting me. I never once mentioned objective morality in this debate. I did say that objective rights couldn't exist without a God and I did support that claim. If my opponent doesn't want to address that, then that is perfectly fine with me. But the voters should think about how little my opponent has actually addressed my arguments. "They note there are examples of euthanasia in the Bible - for instance in 2 Samuel 1:9-10 it says, 'Then he begged me, 'Come over here and put me out of my misery, for I am in terrible pain and want to die.' So I killed him." My opponent said earlier that they wanted to leave God out of the debate and now they bring up the Bible again. The Bible also mentions demonic possession and murder. Yet it doesn't actually support those things and it doesn't support euthanasia as well. The verses my opponent gave show people wanting to die but not God encouraging the practice. "Con points out that the Constitution does not observe the right to euthanasia. Please extend my arguments noting that this does not mean that it is not a right - it simply means the federal government has chosen to regulate something that IS a fundamental right." I didn't address the other issues (abortion) since this debate is about euthanasia. Euthanasia is basically banned all over the united states. The right has not been regulated due to the fact that the United States doesn't think it exists. "Once again 'Separation of church and state' was also a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which reads: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...' Since nearly 1/4 of Americans are unaffiliated with religion, it doesn't make sense morally or legally to upheld the outdated and oversimplified standard of 'God' in determining rights." First of all, Thomas Jefferson was writing the letter not to say that rights didn't come from a God. He wrote the letter for a church to prove to them that the government wouldn't violate their religious rights. "Con cites the 14th amendment as protecting the right to life. The 14th amendment protects citizen's rights under due process of law, however Con hasn't proven that citizens do not have the right to choose death. I have argued that we do have that right which means the 14th amendment would and should protect that right." I have proven that the constitution doesn't give people the right to choose death (which they conceded), I have proven that euthanasia is basically banned everywhere in the United States...what more do they want? "Con says this is irrelevant because of the Constitution, but I've already explained this fallacious appeal to authority and tradition. We aren't judging based on what the Constitution says but what it ought to say." I get accused of appealing to authority meanwhile my opponent appeals to what the supreme court said in a decision to prove their point. I think that is very ironic. But aside from that, the case didn't legalize euthanasia so my opponent has no argument here as well. "He uses the term human and person interchangeably which is not supported by philosophy; indeed there is a philosophical difference and standard for personhood that goes beyond simply being human [5]. I've explained this at length and why sentience is a valid criteria for establishing personhood." I gave a simple definition proving that a human and a person were the same thing. I also discussed than a persons worth is due to their existence. My opponent tries to refute these arguments by citing a Wikipedia article. But since they didn't actually refute my arguments or bring any up themselves, their point remains invalid. "This ignores my point. I noted that if I have diabetes, I not only have the ability to eat sugar but the right to eat sugar -- in other words I have the right to do dangerous and unhealthy things even if I know they will probably kill me." I don't remember seeing a law that gives people these rights. But I think it is more accurate to say that we have the ability to do these things. "Con says that he can describe euthanasia as murder even though I specifically outlined the difference. Murder is killing with malicious intent without justification or excuse." I define murder as unlawful killing so that is where we disagree. In conclusion, 1. We do not have the right to govern our own body. My opponent's opinion on that right's existence does not mean it exists. 2. Ending someones life early is pointless since they have an eternity of peace awaiting them. This point was dropped in the debate. 3. The 14th amendment gives us the right to life. Not the right to choose death. 4. Illness and etc...does not make someone a non-human. 5. Animals are not valued like humans are which is why humans should not be ended like an animal would. 6. The cost of a persons life doesn't mean they don't have the right to live. 7. Rights do not come from me or my opponents opinions.