Lincoln-Douglas Debate on Euthanasia

I am going Con case then Pro caseV: Justice - I will not argue that justice is bad, nor that we should not aim to achieve it. Instead I will argue that I achieve a just society greater than my opponent, and the he fails to achieve any justice at all. Specifically he says that dignity is the root of what we are do, while if we justify euthanasia, we lose our natural right to life (Locke), taking away a right given to us by solely being human. This is why euthanasia does not achieve "giving each their due".VC: Consequentialism - My opponent argue that if we look to the consequences, we are being just. The problem with Consequentialism however is that it is completely impossible to know every outcome of every action, while if we look to my VC of Deon. we can be sure whether the action itself is moral or not. Consequentialism only allows my opponent to guess the consequences and hope they are moral. This is why my VC should be preferred over his. If we use Deon and only perform actions that are moral, then we are a just society, thereby I achieve my opponents V better than he does. C1 - My opponent argues that our dignity is taken away by allowing suffering, but, just as I stated against his V, what is really taken away through giving euthanasia is the person's RIGHT TO LIFE. We must act to make sure that every person has their natural rights, including the most important right to life. Therefore, if it truly does "violate dignity", then that is a better consequence than violating the RIGHT TO LIFE. Because my opponent favors looking at the consequences, this argument should hold some power since it shows he does not uphold the best consequences and therefore is not acting just.C2 - According to my opponent, since one form of euthanasia is allowed, it all should be. But, I argue that we should not allow ANY form of euthanasia as it violates the right to life, and therefore is not a just act. If we must reform our medical system to erase forms of euthanasia used right now, then so be it. It will make our society more moral and more just.Affirmative Case:V - my opponent argues that since no definition of morality is provided then we can't look to it at all, but as an educated debater, and the voters being educated, one should not have to define what morality is. He also talks about the subjectivity of morality, but as a race we have come to agree on certain things which are moral and which are not, and taking human lives (murder) has been decided to be immoral. Since euthanasia takes away human life and is not used as self defense, we should not allow it and therefore compare it to murder rather than war.VC - 1. I concede to the categorical imperative argument, but I argue that we do not have a right to euthanasia, therefore it is not allowed. 2. Disregard the autonomy argument, as autonomy is a paradox. Autonomy is not a natural right, but rather a right given by the government. Can the government force us to be autonomous if we choose not to? That, while upholding autonomy, violates autonomy. 3.utility is specific to utilitarianism, which I am not advocating. But as a further argument, there is no utility to euthanasia, as I will prove, because all it accomplishes is violating life.First I want to say that my opponent tries to argue that my contentions don't link to my V/VC, but this is not necessary. My first 4 contentions describe real world reasons why we should reject euthanasia. My 5th and 6th contentions do link back to frame work and that is all that is necessary.c1 - 1. my opponent talks about animals but that was not the point of C1. The point was to show that is goes against our natural instincts to survive. 2. in times of extreme stress the brain can become confused and you don't always use the best judgment. If distressed people could make a rational decision, then we would not have drug addiction problems because the stress from the withdrawals wouldn't make us resort back. C2 - It does not show that it is improbable either though. My uncle suffered severe brain damage in an accident and multiple times the doctors told us he would not get better and to just pull the plug there but he did end up getting better. Things do happen and we should let nature run its course.C3 - again, disregard autonomy as I've explained. Also, my opponent did not understand my argument here. With suicide it is also the victims choice but it still hurts the family that they did not seek help but rather just took the easy way out. We shouldn't aim to cause emotional tribulations in the families of the victim either.C4 - Just as I stated in MacDonald, money is a powerful tool of persuasion. It has been shown to happen so we should not rule out this possibility. C5 - intention was the wrong word sorry. As I've already stated euthanasia is not like self-defense or death penalty, therefore it is not moral.C6 - Con only crossapplied an argument I already addressed. This Contention still stands.