assisted suicide is wrong

Look, I agree. We are getting no where. Maybe thats because I am not getting my point across, or something. I'll try to make it more clear this round. SOURCES: My bad, I didn't go in depth enough from your source. PLEA: You misunderstand me. They are not all the same, or else there would be 100% of people who didn't want AS 35 years later. Let me put it this way: You accepted you had to prove AS is wrong 100% of the time Your statistic only states that 89 % didn't want it 35 years later The other 11% might have a good reason. You want to forget about the 11% and just lump them together and call it 100%. You have just defeated yourself, because that 11% comes with the implication that they should be allowed AS. SELFISHNESS: So your response is that they have no good reason. Your justification is that they are giving in to physical and emotional pain, and they are cowards. RESPONSE: 1. You claim I have no rebuttal. Well look at the past 2 speeches more carefully. 2. You are lumping together all the people who wish for AS, and making an assumption about their character. You assume that because they do not want to live for another 30 years, in constant unending pain, that they are cowards. But I already showed why they are: a. Showing respect for human life. b. We cannot forget that they could have a very good reason. Look to both of my Bill examples. DOCTORS: My job in this debate is to show in at least one instance where AS can be shown to be right. You agreed, and you agreed that you had to prove AS is wrong in ALL CASES. In this respose you give me, you claim that I am going to try to prove AS is right from the 11%. No. I am going to try to create an exception whee AS is right in at least one instance. I have been able to do so with the 11%, so I have fulfilled my burden, and this is why I keep tell you that you have defeated yourself. MY STORY: Again, you have misunderstood me. I'm sorry if I have argued unclearly, but I'll try to make it more clear this round. I was saying that there is no worst case scenario. Any scenario is a scenario, and should be weighed just as evenly with any other. You haven't even refuted this example, only saying that it doesn't apply, so we can forget about it. How am I supporting your case? I have shown in ONE example where AS can be justified, so I have fulfilled my burden. YOUR STORY: Ok, so you make the argument that we should make the best use of time that we have. However, again, how much can you do if you are strapped into a hospital bed, in constant pain, and you don't have use of your entire body? Losing your leg is minor compared to some examples. Your leg can be replaced with prosthetics. If you are in late stages of cancer, and you are going to die a slow and painful death, I say that you should be allowed to die in dignity, and by means of your own choice. You say that he can be there for his family and friends. How? He can't speak, he can't function in society like you or me. And why would it be ridiculous if he is on life support? Thats what you argue, keep them living at all costs. SELFISHNESS 2: Yes. Die in dignity. By choosing your own means of death, you retain some dignity. There is no dignity is dying a long drawn out death where you have to be pumped with morphine ever 15 minutes. Your next argument is that you question the benfits. Here they are again. As sick as you might consider them, they are benefits. 1. Emotional pain. Watching your husband die a slow and painful death hurts you emotionally. Having to prolong that for 30 years is torture. 2. Physical pain. The patient doesn't have to go through this. 3. Financial pain. Again, as sick as you might think it, it matters. FINANCIAL PAIN: Yes. She got her wheelchair. But the point I was making is that finances matter. And since they matter, from a purely Utilitarianistic view, AS can be justified. And I agree, the doctors should not just kill the patient. It should be the patients choice, and only his choice. Your other options are great, but money still plays a factor. EMOTIONAL PAIN: Ok, so you say that you can pump the patient full of pain killers and anti depressants. But you still disregard my point about the emotional pain created by the patient and his family. So this point goes through. VALUE OF LIFE: No. A person who chooses their own death, knowing it is the right thing to do, is brave. If we went with what you said, we could argue that a teenager who just broke up with their girlfriend is brave to die. Wrong. A spy who is holding national secrets, who chooses to take a cyanide pill, is brave. A person who knows they are going to die a painful death, and chooses to end it early, to spare his family, is brave. And here I come to the end of my opponents arguments. He says his arguments are predictable, but we can't accept predictability as an automatic refutation of all my points. Therefore, I'm going to go through my points and show why I have won this debate. 1. Consent of the victim. My opponent doesn't really touch this argument from my first speech. He only attacks this from the angle of; The victim never has a good reason. But he forgets the examples I have given, and the fact that he tries to lump all victims in one pot, and argue they are all the same. So this argument falls through, and is a vote in my favor. 2. AS is not truly killing. He doesn't touch this one, so it can be applied to my 3rd argument. 3. Patients control of his own life. He doesn't argue this contention except to say that the doctor is taking thing into his own hands. But clearly this isn't the case. My opponent also claims that the patient will never have a good reason, so we shouldn't allow it. But again, he is lumping all victims together, ignoring that there could be exceptions to every rule. 4. Morality doesn't exist. My opponent doesn't touch this, and this falls through the entire debate, and is another vote in my favor. My opponents arguments: 1. PLEA FOR HELP. He claims that we can just pump them full of medicine and anti depressants until they don't know themselves. That is the solution to AS. RESPONSE: I responded to this argument with EMOTIONAL PAIN and FINANCIAL PAIN. Those alone can refute this argument. 2. GOOD DOCTORS: He says that if we can't control the pain, then we should get another doctor. Again, apply my 2 "PAIN"s to here. 3. SELFISHNESS: His argument is that those commiting AS are being selfish and cowardly, since they don't want to face 30 years of pain and sorrow. He claims they are selfish since they don't think of those around them. My RESPONSE: Again, my opponent is lumping all patients together, and making a general assumption about them. He forgets about the exceptions, where people might be doing AS for purely altruistic reasons. 4. MURDER: He argues that the doctor is fulfilling his own agenda, and only does what the doctor wants. But I directly refuted this point in my second speech. CONCLUSION: ALL my points can be applied to the voting scale. My opponent has not proven why even with a valid reason, a person should not be allowed AS. His job was to prove that AS is wrong in ALL CASES. Not just select cases that he chose. Because he has not done so, I have won this debate. Also, his points can be completely accepted by me, but I still win, since I have shown an exception. I have fulfilled my burden, but he has not fulfilled his own burden. However, his points have not been disregarded, and have been refuted. That only gives you, the voter, more reason to vote for me. I'll spend the rest of my characters thanking my opponent for this debate. I want to thank you for this interesting discussion of ours, and I hope to debate you again. I want to thank the voters for reading the 64000 characters of this debate, and reading the entire thing, and voting based off the arguments, and not off of your own beliefs. I await the voters.