Lincoln-Douglas Debate on Euthanasia

As the last speaker in this debate I hope to win over as many votes as possible. I will attempt this by outlining why I think you must vote for the Affirmative (Pro) today. My road map will be Neg-Aff-Voters. Thank you for a great debate Con!Neg: V: Looking at my opponents Value of Justice, it is the stronger, more defined value today. This does not mean he has won however, as he still must uphold it, which I will argue he does not. His second argument is that the "due" due to the people is dignity, and autonomy (which I will cover later), but again I stress that we ought to insure every person is given their right to life (a natural right) over dignity. The dignity my opponent speaks of is that by not allowing euthanasia, we are violating autonomy. However, he does not address my argument about Autonomy being a paradox (Pro VC), therefore you must extend this argument. This is detrimental to my case as it means, since Con agrees it is an unachievable paradox, there is no way he can uphold HIS OWN value of justice because he is unable to give the people their "due".VC: My opponent argues that we can predict the consequences but again I stress that if we can't be 100% sure the outcome is moral, then we should not do an immoral action (euthanasia). C1: I will stress, as I did in the V analysis, that we must strive to achieve the natural right to life over any so called dignity my opponent speaks of. I will also stress that, since autonomy (the chief due) is unachievable and a paradox, then the only thing we can try to achieve is Life, and that is why Pro must be valued over neg.C2: My opponent here argues that it violates the right to refuse treatment but passive euthanasia from the doctor's doing is not the same as people actively saying they don't want treatment, which is their call. Obviously religious/cultural reasons would have exceptions made.Pro:V: Already addressed, Neg Value is stronger but achieved better through my case than his, as he could never give the person their "due" of autonomy.VC: His 2nd argument is already addressed through his failure to refute the "autonomy is a paradox" arg, therefore it should be disregarded. 3rd he argues that he better upholds my V, but even if this is true I still better uphold his V of justice, which my opponent and I have conceded to being the best V in this round, therefore you should look to who better upholds that Value.C1: My opponent tries to make a huge deal out of the "we aren't animals" argument but that was never my intention. Whether or not you believe in evolution, we can observe natural instincts in humans that would try to protect us from dying. Our brain is hard wired to avoid death as shown in "miraculous" events where starving men would be attracted to food that nourished them the most, thus keeping them alive longer. That was the point of that argument, which he never fully addressed.C2: I concede to miracles are rare, and the personal example only shows one instance, but even if they are rare we should hope to achieve them. Look at the 2 possible outcomes for a seriously injured patient: 1) the treatments don't work and he dies just as doctors said, or 2) miraculously the patient is cured, unlike what doctors warned. Even if it's rare, there is a chance for the second one, but euthanasia would take away that second option.C3: This is a big argument for my opponent, saying that the patients autonomy is more valuable than the suffering of family. But again I will stress that he conceded to the paradox argument, and therefore, since he can't save the paradoxical autonomy, we must save the suffering and grieving of the family members.Voters:1. Because my opponent argues that we must achieve the chief due of respecting patient's autonomy, but fails to defend autonomy when I declare it a paradox, his strongest arguments fall. My opponent cannot achieve his Value because he cannot give the "chief due", while I achieve it because I give the patient life, a natural right.2. My opponent also loses all arguments saying that we must protect the dignity (autonomy) because of the failed refute to my autonomy argument. Therefore we must put life above dignity.3. My opponent argues he achieves my value better, but since he cannot achieve his value (the one conceded to being stronger) while I can, I must win the debate based on framework alone. If he argues that my value is insuperior, yet can't achieve his superior value, I must win this round.4. By allowing euthanasia, my opponent goes against natural instincts of the human to survive, and prevents any chance of miracle cures of happening, therefore you must vote Pro in order to protect these things.For these reasons and more, I strongly urge a vote for Pro today.(Thank you bsh1 for a great intro into DDO and for an awesome round that perfectly represents the LD rounds we both enjoy. I am down to discuss memories about awesome LD rounds you've had/opponents who said crazy things anytime. This debate is much better than most of the stuff I hit in my own league, unfortunately, so thank you for a great experience.)