Winter Regular tournament R1: Resolved, the USFG should legalize Euthanasia

Though not without addressing a few issues. My opponent seems misguided in this debate. He stated in his opening round, " I will be arguing for voluntary, and non-voluntary Euthanasia, and in some specific cases, involuntary Euthanasia. " I spent my last round defining what these other two forms of euthanasia are. Now, my opponent expresses horror and disgust at what I'm speaking of in terms of involuntary euthanas, but I'm just simply arguing against what he had sad. This policy would legalize Involuntary euthanasia which my opponent even said was murder. As Pro he has to stand by his opening round statement and defend each of those three areas of euthanasia in order to fully win the debate and he has already expressed horror against one as he recognizes it as legalized murder, as so do I. To see here my opponent has to defend these key points and if he cannot then the debate ends with a Negative Ballot. Rebuttal 1: Resource DelegationMy opponent just simply ignores the fact that my opponent's entire argument doesn't apply since it's PAS not Euthanasia. Oregon even prohibits Euthanasia as seen by the Department of Human Services (Oregon) even confirms this as I have shown last round. My opponent has DROPPED this thus nullifying this debate argument. [1]My opponent misquoted the original source. It was the International Euthanasia task force Source, not the Public health quote. Though I cannot bring up counter costs since this is the last round I can still bring up a key argument in this debate. Think of this. It's cheaper if you are homeless, no house bills, electrical bills and more. It's cheaper than living in a home. Why is this argument flawed? Though it's easier to live homeless most people would prefer to live in a home and bear the costs. The same can be said here. Not to mention that I have said that people in these situations are in the wrong state of mind and while it is more preferrable to live people "think" they want to die. Rebuttal 2: Quality over QuantityMy opponent's argument here is misgided as it's based on PAS not Euthanasia. The very issue that he quoted was a PAS quote which leads to a major difference. Keep in mind that any arguments about PAS is untopical for my opponent. The difference is like PAS is giving someone a gun to kill themselves with and Euthanasia is when someone tells you to shoot them. MAJOR difference. What "hypocracy" my opponent is referencing is the Hypocrit Oath, but there's no time for that argument since it's the final round. Though when you see the situation I described it's completely understandable why most people are against it since killing someone is WAY different than handing someone the instrament to their death. Rebuttal 3: Euthanasia Regulation Again I'll say it again. My opponent misused the quote. The Oregon DOHS is not the source he's refurring to. I'll say it again PAS is not euthanasia. It's completely different and doesn't relate to this debate. My opponent hasn't given an American example of regulations that would occur. Plus with what he stated in his opening round how would the government use the "sometimes" Involuntary euthanasia? Who knows, but when you give the government a power and right they usually don't give it back. No, that's not what I'm talking about. Murder and Euthanasia, for the case of this debate, isn't the same thing. Rebuttal 4: Passive EuthanasiaMy opponent completely ignores the Palliative Argument. This is important as they help analyze the patient before death and before they choose what happens next. That is assuming they are in the correct state of mind and do not have dileria. This argument holds a great deal of weight in this debate as without it we cannot know if the individual is actually ready to make their selection and a great deal of the time they will select wrong due to their irrationality. FrameworkMy opponent is completely ignoring the definitions I have provided on what these different kinds of euthanasia are and this is an issue since my opponent's "sometimes" is arguing for Government sanctioned murder. The definition my opponent provided was Voluntary Euthanasia. I addressed the other two elephants in the room. Contention 1: Unreported EuthanasiaMy opponent doesn't think my debate argument is topical, but it is. I will provide an example to show why it is. So this really is Topical unlike what my opponent believes. It would be like if someone defined Potato products and I talked about Yams, Tater Tots, and fries. It still falls under the unbrella even though it isn't the normal argument. My opponent is simply confused here as this isn't really the normal type of Euthanasia which is Voluntary Euthanasia, but these are things he advocates for and must defend. My opponent drops the impact here, so I'll extend it across the board. Contention 2: Slippery SlopeDespite my opponent just yawning away my debate argument we can see that this isn't just that simple. Under this resolution and what my opponent is advocating for is murder. What else do you call euthanizing someone without their consent or because they don't want to? This is blatantly muder, but my opponent has accepted defending this type of euthanasia in Round 1. My opponent has dropped key arguments that show places that have actually legalized euthanasia and do all these things that Pro himself dictates as horrible. My opponent is mistaken on this interperation of "Curing. " What my opponent is advocating for is pure murder as it kills the individual and ends their life. If you cure someone they're still alive. There's a huge difference here and my opponent is on the short end of the stick. Contention 3: Self Ownership and sickness I can agree with my opponent that we both hate pain and suffering and it is human nature to feel bad for those suffereing. There's a great deal of things I can disagree with him here and bring up arguments like a "Burnout" DA, but this is the final round. Though the issue here is that puts people into a temporary state of Irrationality. Not to mention the whole dileria argument that I had brought up from my last round. My opponent attempts to doge this argument by providing a Red Herring, but his argument must be disgarded as such. ConclusionHere at the end of the debate we can see the simple fact that there must be a ballot in negation. The reason for this is that at the beginning of the debate my opponent had stated that he would defend these three types of euthanasia: Voluntary, Non-Voluntary, and Involuntary. Throughout the debate my opponent has expressed disgusted at these types of euthanasia. We can see that in this debate my opponent drops the biggest impact of the debate and it is that of Government sanctioned murder. My opponent himself pratically also acceptted this type of argument to be true and that this shouldn't be allowed which flowed this debate argument into my favor. Since it is the only impact left in this debate there must be a Con ballot. He has also dropped several ethical arguments from Utilitarianism and Kant's Categorical Imperatives. Most of my opponent's were based around PAS which is NOT euthanasia and this untopical argument must be thrown out of the debate. Thank you and please Vote Con! SourcesAs promised to my opponent I will provide all sources from my opponent in a cancelled debate which can be found bellow. (. http://www.debate.org...)