Question: Is a Bipartisan State Resolution a Viable Answer to the Israeli-Palestinian Dispute?

A one-state scenario would result in an Israeli minority governing a Palestinian majority. "Is the two-state solution in peril?". Haaretz. May 21, 2009: "Israel's left has long cautioned that unchecked settlement expansion and failure to disengage from the Palestinians will inevitably lead to an apartheid-like situation where a Jewish minority exercises control over an Arab majority. The consequence, they argue, would be the demise of a democratic, Jewish state."

Without one political party having the majority, governments usually consist of two large parties, which will consistently disagree with one another. This, in effect, prevents either party passing their motion, since the other will attempt to veto it. As a result, the government is unable to effectively react to the current situation. If, as opposed to the present system in most large democratic nations, whereby the government is split into two, the number of seats granted to the leading party gave them the power to determine the state's response to its environment. This would enable a more efficient, dynamic government which would have the capacity to bring about the changes required by the nation to advance itself. Obviously the main argument against this point is that the people are no longer being proportionally represented. However, an elimination process could be used to remove minor parties in favour of the voter's next choice, until one party has more than half of the seats. In this way the voter is still represented, possibly not as well as before, but since no party is capable of perfectly fitting everyone's needs, this should not be a very large problem. This method creates a strong central government that has the power to give the people what they want and fulfill the nation's goal. Yours, Solomon

In response to my argument about people being in the wrong nation, the Pro said that they could just move. The Pro is proposing that 40% of the population of most states just pack up and leave. This would be impractical because most people don't have the money required to do this. They would have to leave their homes and jobs without guarantee of either when they got to their nation. This could not work, so the Pro would have to prove that the split would work without a large scale move. On the military danger argument, the Pro is seriously mistaken if he thinks that splitting the nation would remove the target from our backs. It is illogical to think that making our self weaker would keep us safer. The terrorists and others that dislike the United States would take this opportunity to strike while we are weak, not let their chance go away. This proves that splitting the nation would be dangerous for everyone. Onto my opponent's arguments. The Pro states that I do not look to the long term, only the short term. This is partially true. If the plan is wrecked at the beginning, there will be no chance to see if it works in the long term. I do look to the long term though, because splitting the nation would not solve enough problems to be worth it in the end. Next the Pro says that lower population states are underrepresented, but splitting the nation would not fix this. It can be assumed that the new nations would have similar governments to the current one, so higher population areas will still have more say in the government than lower population areas. Because splitting the nation does not solve the problem, this argument is invalid. The Pro goes on to say that we should split the nation because people are different in different places. America has taken pride in the idea that she is a nation of immigrants, willing to accept everyone and use their differences for the good of all. People are different everywhere in the US, so splitting the nation would go against American ideals. According to Google, a nation is a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. By this definition, all Americans are definitely one nation. The Pro's argument that people are interested in things that are closer to home has no effect on the resolution. People are interested in things that happen close to them and less interested in things further from them. Splitting the nation would only make people less interested in things happening further from them, not more interested in things closer to them, so this argument does not change anything. The Pro's reasoning behind the idea that people will change their party in the new nations is flawed. While this might work in an area where one party heavily outweighs the other, I have already shown that the dispersion is even enough that this outweighing is very unlikely. Also, if this conversion idea worked on the large scale that would be necessary, everyone would have already changed to one party and we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. If people haven't all agreed in the almost 300 years that we've been a nation, they aren't likely to any time soon. Pro's argument about how political geography does not hold any water. While the presidential election map does have large clumps of same party states, this is not all that must be looked at. There is the New England clump, which would be one nation, but there is also the west coast with similar views. They would want to be one nation because of similar political ideas, but geography would make this impractical. Also, the presidential voting map does not show everything just by the majority outcome. If you look at the CNN link I gave in my first round, you will see that in states like Michigan 54% voted Obama, while 45% voted Romney. Just because the state is blue does not mean that everyone would want to be part of a nation dominated by Democratic ideas. Pro's final point is that people would be less confused and more knowledgeable about what is happening in the split nations. This is illogical because people that are interested in politics will stay interested in politics and those not interested will not become interested because the topics of discussion change. Pro tries to defend the coexistence of his two points by saying that a split will prevent the nation from going to extremes, but this is faulty logic. The two different ideas balance each other out, but one party would have nothing to balance it out. A nation with only one party is much more susceptible to extremes. This can be seen with Nazism and Communism. Both governmental systems use only one party with all the power so there is no one to challenge them. I fail to see how the Pro believes that one party will prevent extremes. The Pro says that he wins because he explained how America is not working, gave a solution to the problem, and will make more people happy. Unfortunately, he has only shown that America is not working. It is clear to see that there are problems in America, but the solution that Pro proposed does not solve any of them, it only creates new problems. Because splitting the nation will only create more problems, this will clearly not make anyone happier. I do understand the reasoning behind the split, which I have proved. It is the Pro that does not understand the reasoning for staying together. I win this debate for two main reasons. First, the Burden of Proof is on the Pro because he is advocating change, but I am saying we should stay together. I have shown how the Pro does not solve any problems, so that should be enough reason for you to vote for me. If that isn't enough though, I have also shown the dangers that would come from splitting the nation.

Thank you, Ajabi. I would like to note the resolution does not specify nuclear proliferation in a specific country or area. Also, justified, as shown above, means that it is marked with any good or legitimate reason. That does not make it right. Thus the BoP is shared. ==Contention 1: The US’ right to self-defense== In the world, there are quite a few countries that pose a threat to the United States [1]. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen are the top three countries to pose the biggest terrorist threat to the US, and there are other possible threats as well [1]: In regards to the Cuban Missile Crisis of the Cold War, former President John F. Kennedy said both during [2] and after [3] the crisis that if countries that already pose a threat to the US, which are at quite a large number, acquire nuclear arms, the US could be at a critical state: “"I see the possibility in the 1970s of the president of the United States having to face a world in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations may have these weapons," he forecast. “I regard that as the greatest possible danger."” [3] As of now, the US regards Iran as one of the biggest military threats to them [4]. Although its plan to create a nuclear weapon has been postponed, “they do seem to have had such a program and are no capable of enriching their own weapons-grade uranium.” [2] Literally if multiple countries, most or all of which are a threat to the United States, acquire nuclear weapons, the US will have no choice but to unilaterally use military force to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms and weapons. Really, countries like Israel are seen to pose a bigger threat on the US than Iran [2]. Even though protecting Israel is optional, however, it should be noted that the US should be obligated to protect the peace for both itself and the rest of the world, even if there is no or little threat. ==Contention 2: Preserving peace and the US as the only world superpower== If the US were not to use unilateral military force to counterproliferate nuclear weapons, obviously the result would be the possible rise in nuclear weapons. P1) Lack of unilateral military force by the US helping counterproliferation against nuclear weapons causes nuclear proliferation to be POSSIBLE P2) The US currently is not using unilateral military force to counterproliferate nuclear weapons C) Nuclear proliferation is possible The Cold War was almost an all-out nuclear war due to the Cuban Missile Crisis [5]: “It played out on television worldwide and was the closest the Cold War came to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war.” If we don’t use unilateral military force by the US to counterproliferate these nuclear weapons, chances are a nuclear war will start. As the world’s only superpower, the US should try to preserve peace in the world. Thus, it is justified for the US to use unilateral military force to counterproliferate nuclear weapons. ==Contention 3: Owning nuclear weapons is immoral and unethical== To many people, it is thought that unilateral military force is not justified as the US owns nuclear weapons themselves. However they never stop to realize that doing this would include counterproliferation of nuclear weapons in the US as well. If the US uses unilateral military force for nuclear counterproliferation because owning nuclear weapons is immoral, obviously counterproliferation would happen in the US as well and they would have to trash their stockpile of nuclear arms. It is unjustified to own nuclear weapons. It is also unjustified to use military force unilaterally IF the country using it continues to possess them. However it is justified to do so if the US agrees to dispose of their nuclear weapons. ==Conclusion== I have no more arguments to make since I am drawing a blank after contention 3. However, I have shown exactly why unilateral military force by the US used to prevent nuclear proliferation is not necessarily right, but justified. Thus, the resolution is affirmed. I pass the floor to con. Thank you. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com... [2]http://debatepedia.idebate.org... [3] http://www.foreignaffairs.com... [4] http://www.reuters.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

I oppose the statement! Israel's attacks are not justified! Let's understand the reality! Israel is attacking on the world's most precious creatures which is human being! are the human beings worth killing for no reason? of course NO! Israel does not have any rights to kill innocent people! if there are political conflicts, they should use other peaceful ways to reduce the conflicts! WAR is not the tool for solving the problems! if you wash blood with the blood it wont be cleaned! lets make another way of making peace! Israel is not attacking Philistine! but they attack on ISLAM! they want to show that how cruel they are, and how they had forgotten their humanity! Israel is seeing political and economical benefits on attacking Hamas! they want to occupy Bait-ul-Muqadas (بیت المقدس) at the cost of killing Muslims! I strongly oppose that Israel Attacks are not morally justified!!!

Texas is the only state that was an independent nation before joining the Union and today Texans are still very independent people and extremely proud of their heritage. [1] These days, many Texans feel that their interests are not being properly represented at a federal level and that, as the second largest economy in the United States [2], Texas would be better off if it were to secede and become an independent republic once again. [3] That's why I affirm that the State of Texas should organise a referendum on independence and, if the outcome was in favour of secession, Texas should declare itself a sovereign nation state, and the United States of America must recognise Texan sovereignty and not interfere with the Texans' right to self-governance. Thank you. [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2] http://www.usatoday.com... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

The resolution states that 10 year olds should be allowed to stay at home alone by default. Let's assume pro's sister enjoys the following:- She is responsible enough and willing to stay at home alone.- Her neighborhood is devoid of considerable danger, e.g., drug transactions or pedophilia.- Her house is childproof. However, not every 10 year old enjoys or exhibits the aforentioned. Many are irresponsible or are in crime-ridden neighborhoods. Ergo, not every 10 year old should be alone at home.

Ok, so the basis winning basis is topicality and technicalities. I will prove the major point that you cannot vote pro because his way is still voting. "Voting - casting one's preference for a particular measure or resolution." My Response: My opponents definition of voting is so one-dimensional. Voting doesn't always have to based on preference, that's why i gave my own definitions of voting. E.g. Senator Lieberman voted for the Bush Tax Cuts, however he admitted to the press he was personally against them. He admitted that it would help stimulate the economy, BUT HE WAS PERSONALLY AGAINST IT. now with this example in mind, my opponents definition of voting cannot stand. You must look at my definitions. [Definition - Voting] 1. a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative. 2. a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion Now, back to my main point. My opponent's proposed plan is still voting. Why? Because each person is giving their consent to a proposal. They are voting pro or con. Doesn't matter if its reps vs. dems, or everyone together. ITS STILL VOTING. Therefore, you cannot affirm the resolution.

Premise I: Financial SacrificeThe US contributes $3.15 bn a year to Israeli Defense (1). This may seem like a lot, but it's very cheap for the US. That makes up only 0.0008% of total US Spending (2). The benefit of removing that money from Israel must outweigh the negative effects.1) http://www.businessinsider.com...2) http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... Argument I: Benefits v NegativesIt's not a question of how much the Arab nations hate Israel. Palestine especially. Numerous nations have threatened Israel, like Iran. These nations have the backing of groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda, who recently conquered an entire Iraqi city of 325,000+ people (3). This becomes a major issue for a nation like Israel, where the West Bank and Gaze Strip bulge into Israel. A quick look at the city of Jerusalem should give us insight.It's a sensitive situation in Jerusalem, and wars between Arab nations are not known their emphasizes on preserving civilian life. To allow an opening for war would be a disaster. The US being so involved is what prevents such an issue. If Hamas got the chance at Jerusalem, an easy target, 511,000 Jewish/Christian citizens would be at risk (4). There is a total population of 8,000,000+ in Israel, 6,062,600+ of whom are Islamic and Christian. Putting them at risk to save 0.0008% of our budget which be a crime against reason and humanity.3) http://news.yahoo.com...4) http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks to my opponent for his reply.CON seems to focus solely on the issue of whether Israel commits war crimes, the first of my three points, and does not reject my arguments that if they are happening then we should care and if we care then the appropriate method is through economic boycott and sanctions like BDS.In this round I will therefore solely focus on the issue of whether Israel commits war crimes and human rights abuses.Does Israel Kill Indiscriminately?Two fundamental basis of International Military Law (IML) are discrimination and proportionality[1]. When either of these are not met the killing can be called indiscriminate. Simply put armed forces are required to recognise the difference between civilians and military and to ensure that any incidental civilian casualties are proportional to a legitimate military goal. or to put it another way, incidentally killing one civilian while trying to kill twenty terrorists is a tragedy - incidentally killing twenty civilians while trying to kill one terrorist is a war crime.CON argues that because the IDF says they cannot attack a target if it endangers innocents, they must not be able to. In the face of the bias inherent in using a a source with a vested interest in not being found guilty of war crimes, the much stronger and more neutral sources I cited in R1 and the mere existence of an IML presupposing that states cannot be trusted to judge themselves guilty or not of war crimes, I find this argument very lacking.Further, by reference to evidence we can see CON's claims are false.For instance Israel has been willing to fire heavy munitions into civilian homes and even level entire neighbourhoods both killing residents and pushing those who survive into a life of homeless poverty[2]. The first link includes quotes to Israeli soldiers own testimonies on this, so it is hard to refute.The UN Report On Protective Edge[3] also includes examples of them killing families of 20 odd civilians with precision weaponry for no valid reason.If Israel doesn't indiscriminantly kill civilians, what happened to the 22 members of the al-Daya family that were killed? What about the use of indiscriminate fletchette ammunition (which inherently makes it a war crime on par with Palestinian militant group's missiles) to kill five mourners at the Abd al-Dayem funeral? The 15 civilians killed at the al-Maqadmah mosque? The killing of all 8 members of the Al Hajj family? The 9 dead, 3 women (One of them pregnant) and 6 children, on the attack on the Al Qassas family? The 19 killed, 11 of which were children including an 8 month old baby, when a 1,000 or 2,000 lb bomb was dropped on the Al Najjar household? The 19 killed in the attack on the Abu Jabr house in a refugee camp?Human ShieldsCON states the IDF does not use human shields but his only evidence is his personal testimony that the Israel police cars are inconsistent with that. I beleive this can be disregarded because:1) The Jeep is that of the Israeli Border Police (IBP) that operate in Palestine, not the police that CON would see within Israel and be familiar with.2) That picture is from 2004 [4]. Based on his profile, CON would have been approx 3 y.o. at this point in time and I think it is reasonable to assume he wouldn't have developed an indepth knowledge of the vehicles used by different police branches at this age.3) It is consistent with other unrelated pictures of IBP vehicles.[5]4) In 2004 the IDF was using people as human shields by Israel's own admission. It was only on 2005 that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that human shields (or the "neighbour procedure" as it is euphemistically known) was illegal with Israeli defence officials claiming that "the Israel Defense Forces made use of the ‘human shield’ procedure on 1,200 occasions over the last five years"[6]. I will present the case momentarily that they continue to use people as human shields afterwards even though it now violated their own laws as well as international ones, but this shows CON's argument for why they weren't using human shields can't possibly be true.5) There is compelling evidence to show that Israel is still using human shields. The Youtube link I included in R1 is from NGO Breaking the Silence, where IDF soldiers have spoken out about the culture of human rights abuses and war crimes. He explicitly states that they sued human shields and he is not the only IDF witness[7][8].Other systematic approaches looking at the evidence have concurred. For instance the UN report I cite in R1[9] examines this in detail throughout paragraphs 1032 to 1106. Although to dense to quote their reasoning and the individual evidence they use to come to the conclusion (it relies on evidence from Palestinians AND Israelis however) they conclude:"1105. The Mission also finds that the intentional use as human shields of those whose accounts are presented above qualifies as inhuman treatment of and wilfully causing great suffering to protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. As such, the Mission considers the conduct of the Israeli armed forces in relation to such persons to amount to grave breaches of the said Convention. The use of human shields is also a war crime under article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii) of the Rome Statute."6) Even Israel admits there are still occasions when people use human shields[10], that example being from a few years ago when soldiers ordered a child to open a package they thought might be boobytrapped so the child would get hurt in the event of this being the case rather than them.Although Israel only very rarely recognises when soldiers commit human rights abuses (this example being a rare time they do)[11] and the punishment was very lax, it shows that your argument of "Israel never uses human shields" is even more pro-Israel than Israel's official position.This is followed by an argument that Hamas uses human shields. Part of my argument in R1 raised the issue that human rights abuses and war crimes are not allowed if someone commits them to you first. Con has not challenged this so I think this argument is irrelevant.Further, neither argument fits the definition of a human shield as presented in international law:"493: The Mission finds it useful to clarify what is meant, from a legal perspective, by using civilians or a civilian population as a human shield. Parties to a conflict are not permitted to use a civilian population or individual civilians in order to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. It is not in dispute that both Palestinian armed groups and Israeli forces were fighting within an area populated by civilians. Fighting within civilian areas is not, by itself, sufficient for a finding that a party is using the civilian population living in the area of the fighting as a human shield. As the words of article 57 (1) show (“shall not be used to render”, “in order to attempt to shield”), an intention to use the civilian population in order to shield an area from military attack is required. "[9]Even the IDF admits that merely taking part in military action in proximity to civilians does not in and of itself justify the classification of "human shields. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, and former Head of the International Law Department of the IDF Military Advocate General, explained in a conference at the University of Haifa: "In a scenario like the Gaza Strip you cannot expect the other side or demand the other side to act only from empty areas, to go out of all the populated areas, fire only from there or from the beach area when no people are there, it's not something that is expected. Therefore to say that the fact that they are operating from populated areas, in itself is a war crime or is in breach of the law of armed conflict, is not a plausible argument"[3] Simply put, the expectation that Hamas should march out into barren areas like 17th century line infantry is frankly bizarre and inconsistent with IML. Urban warfare is almost as old as human civilisation and it is not inherently wrong or criminal. Soldiers specifically shielding themselves with civilians is and this is something that so far we only know that Israel is guilty of.Israel is good because of XCon provides several reasons why Israel should be viewed as good. As none of them contest my R1 argument that the prohibition against war crimes is absolute and there are no reasonable excuses for them, I beleive it is irrelevant. However in the short space left, I'd like to show how they're still misrepresentations.Israel does provide some services to Palestine, but the rationale for this is not benevolent. Israel has been economically blockading and damaging Palestine for a long time[12], keeping them from developing their economy and keeping them dependent on Israel. this allows Israel to use it's power to coerce Israel - for instance by shutting off those vital services it supplies[13] in contravention of IML[14].Similarly Israel's warning to Palestinian civilians to evacuate entire neighbourhoods before they attack is Israel's rationale for then declaring entire areas terrorist zones - allowing IDF to shoot kill any civilians with no heed for the basic principle of distinction.[3]Lastly in regards to administrative detention, the unsupported claim that they are all terrorists do not hold up. In fact "Israel has administratively detained Palestinians for their political opinions and non-violent political activity."[15][1] http://goo.gl...[2] https://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://goo.gl...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://goo.gl...[11] http://goo.gl...[12] https://goo.gl...[13] http://goo.gl...[14] https://goo.gl...[15] http://goo.gl...

From what I can gather, your resolution isn't clear, you support some global religious influence on politics? Let me know but realize your resolution leaves some room for interpretation and that's not generally good for Pro. Looking forward to your arguments and thanks for setting up the debate.


Question: Should the Practice of Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide be Legalized?

Assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legally recognized options. Your argument against physician-assisted suicide hinges on the Hippocratic Oath, yet this oath is not as rigidly followed as you suggest. For instance, the oath also requires treating one's teacher as a parent and teaching others the "art" of medicine for free. If doctors were truly bound by this oath, no medical school would charge tuition, and every doctor would be violating the oath by accepting any form of payment. Moreover, the oath states that doctors should not use a knife, which would make surgeons violators as well. The "first, do no harm" principle, often cited, actually says "I will keep them from harm and injustice." This has been interpreted to include preventing unnecessary pain and suffering, as well as respecting patients' autonomy in personal and private decisions. The Hippocratic Oath has been significantly revised and is not universally adhered to. In the 1970s, many medical schools abandoned the oath due to its outdated principles. Some schools now use alternative versions or oaths developed by other medical associations. Claiming that the Hippocratic Oath is universally accepted and followed is inaccurate. Morality has a place in medicine, but it should not be imposed by outsiders in the doctor-patient relationship. The morality guiding a physician's actions on euthanasia should be their own, and many doctors believe it should be allowed, especially for terminal patients. If a doctor is uncomfortable with the practice, they can refuse to participate, just as with abortion. The guidelines and legal standards surrounding euthanasia are crucial, but Oregon's experience shows that they can be navigated. The "Kevorkian method" you criticize actually demonstrates discretion, as he assisted only one in five people seeking help, due to medical need. Guidelines could be based on those used when doctors determine that further medical intervention is futile and recommend hospice care. The requirement for a second opinion is often met by patients who have seen multiple doctors by the time they reach this stage. Psychological evaluations are unnecessary for terminal patients seeking euthanasia, as they would be an unwarranted governmental intrusion. The concerns of the family are considered by the patient, but allowing euthanasia helps prevent situations where patients cannot make decisions for themselves. Living wills and advanced directives already override family desires in cases of incapacitation. Legalizing euthanasia would improve end-of-life situations, as seen in the Terry Schaivo case. If euthanasia were legal, her terminal status would have invalidated

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words! Same goes to you.Intrinsic/ExtrinsicThanks for clarifying. You make the false assumption that if euthanasia is legal, life is not only invaluable when not desired, but society only respects what a person can provide for everyone. This is not the case where euthanasia is legal, and would not be the case if it was legal throughout the world. Nobody would have the power to kill someone if the person doesn't want to die. That is still murder. So no matter how "useless" some people feel a person is, it doesn't matter. I'm sure loads of people consider certain people "useless" now, yet those people don't commit suicide. Why would it change if it was legal? You die anyway, you don't have to face consequences. The society does respect the human individual, the only difference is that the option to kill yourself (under ideal circumstances) is now available. Other than personal moral values, there's nothing wrong if someone chooses to kills themselves even if it's because they feel unproductive. People die all the time. People who don't want to die do die, and people who do want to die cannot legally and painlessly (for the most part).So not only is other people's view on your life irrelevant, but society most likely would not turn into some corporate working machine, only accepting people who contribute 110% to society.LifeYou're right, helping someone enjoy life is much better than killing them. But what if you can't? What if they can not enjoy life? But remember from The Netherlands, there are still steps taken in order to ensure this is truly the person's wish, as well as rehabilitation programs, anti-depression programs, health care, etc. - All geared toward helping the person overcome thoughts of suicide. The only difference is if they still hate life, they can escape it all, painlessly - which I don't see to be a big problem.You have inspirational ideas, and I do agree we should help people see how good life can be, but what if they just don't want to see it and just want to be set free? You want to deny them the right to be at peace and not suffer (in multiple ways) because you think they can be happy? "I think you can do this, even if you've already tried multiple times, therefore I won't let you do what you want to do"? Is that what you're saying? Why is "giving up" such a bad thing? Because you think death is bad? Because you think they have more to offer? Because you think they can think otherwise in the future? Because you think... Get my point? What about them? What about the person who actually feels like they would be better off not on Earth? You're trying to help, that's fantastic, but it's their lives. You're right, the person could be something (I love your example) spectacularly important, however with your example, Stephen Hawking had an incredibly intelligence by the time he was diagnosed with ALS, and was able to continue to use it and build on it without being discouraged very often. Although he did "attempt suicide" by not breathing, even Stephen Hawking agrees with me (or the other way around) that assisted death (or euthanasia) should be legal [1].Medicine"They could have survived..." 'could' being the key word there. If someone wants to die, they've thought about it, believe me. It would take a lot more than "it might take a while for treatment to kick in" for someone to want to end their life. Keep in mind, death is a 100% guarantee to stop suffering, whereas treatment is not, and you do continue to suffer for some time, whether you recover or not. To some people, this is a pretty good idea.You do (once again) bring up a great point with the motivation to cure diseases. You're wrong about the point of a cure. The point of the cure is to prevent disease. There would still be lives to save if some day we came up with a Cancer vaccination, and that can still be done even if current Cancer patients choose not to live through it. I would bet a lot of money that if people had the option to kill themselves if they contracted a bad disease, doctors wouldn't just give up and let them all die. They'd keep working for a cure. When people become doctors, they do so to save lives. They are the kinds of people who wouldn't want to see anyone kill themselves because a cure isn't present at the time. They would keep researching.SuicideI agree that depression and disparity are horrible. How is relieving oneself of that depression and disparity horrible? Suicide is an escape. An answer. A permanent answer, yes, but it is an answer. Your argument is basically "you can be so much if you don't commit suicide, so don't do it!" What if this person doesn't want to do it? Every person who has committed suicide has done exactly what they wanted to do - no longer exist. Both the victims of suicide and "victors" of beating suicidal thoughts get what they want in the end. "Death" is the lack of a functioning body and conscience. No electrons firing, no neurons receiving (I hope I got those right), nothing. Do you remember before you were a sperm? No you don't. That's death for you. Nothing. Last time I checked, "nothing" is a hell of a lot better than suffering. However your argument about the person being in the right mental capacity makes sense, check out the Netherlands - The patient must have been given alternatives to euthanasia and time to consider these alternatives. There must be no other reasonable solutions to the problem. So not only is the person offered help, they are given plenty of time to consider it, and even if they don't want it, it is most likely highly recommended, considering the second point, stating there must be no other reasonable solutions to the problem. Depression therapy is a reasonable solution, so that would at least be tried. If it works, great, if not? Why not let the person fulfil their wish and enter nothingness?Helpfulness in SocietyThe reason I brought up values in society is because you did, and this was the point I was countering. This is one little point, which does/would not turn into the only reason we would value human life.In your example, she does not know she missed out. For all she knows, she died happy, fulfilling her wish of death. The family also doesn't know, as she's dead, and they know she dies happy. "What if?" Is a pretty big question and can really be asked to anything. Abortion is legal. "What if the zygote grew up to be a scientist who hooks a satellite into Saturn's orbit?" Well, then that would have been cool, but hopefully someone else will, and abortion is still legal (in lots of places).Once again, what's so wrong with someone wanting to be put out of their misery? It's pretty selfish not wanting someone to die because you'd be sad.The doctors are not the ones who make the decisions, the doctors are the ones who follow through with the patient's decisions, if the law allows it. The doctors are not the ones granting life and death. The patient makes the decision to die or not.You bring up a great point with the Hippocratic Oath, however what's more destructive; Suffering with depression, pain, misery, hate, loneliness, and hardship? Or... nothing? Ending a life is not destroying a life.Thanks a lot for some good points, I'm glad we're having a good debate! It's not too often you see a good topic with worthwhile conversations.[1] http://www.independent.co.uk...

Who would be allowed to pursue euthanasia? Would you say only terminal patients would be allowed access? from there which terminal patients would be allowed? What if the 5 year old cancer patient decided he would rather speed up his death than wait it out. Would parents be allowed to choose to end their children"s lives? You used the term sound mind, what exactly does that mean to you just so we are both on the same page? My issue with using "sound mind" as your reference point for who is allowed to opt for assisted suicide it may unfairly include/disclude certain persons. What if the illness is something that effects mental competency? How far into that illness would the patient be able to make the decision? As you can see my first issue with allowing euthanasia is it is so vague a claim to make, when the policies would need to be so specific for it to be put into practice. Another issue is there are other possibilities such as palliative care. Palliative care is for those who no longer want to treat the illness. All care instead is aimed at relieving the symptoms to allow for as normal a life as possible with little to no pain. With just palliative care you are not extending life but you are also not choosing to give up. The three months more of life for these terminal patients could be huge. 3 months is enough time for a new treatment to become available. This means someone being told they were terminal and would not survive could have the chance to live if a cure was found, they would just have to be around to see it happen. Allowing doctor assisted suicide would take away that chance to be around for the cure. The last big issue that jumps out to me is the fact it is doctor assisted. The Hippocratic oath swears to do no harm, which any doctor performing euthanasia would be going against. How many doctors would be willing to perform the deed. I beleive it would turn into a joke much like the doctors one goes to to get a medical marijuana card. Doctors unable to perform well enough to make big money would see this as a niche to make a lot of money. Then they would be giving out diagnoses to allow to option more than necessary, just as happened with medical cards, because of the increase in money.

I want you to look up who Tony Nicklinson is and tell me why euthanasia was not a legal option for him? It was clearly his choice, and other people(judges and attorneys in the court system) made him live in lockout syndrome even longer. He ended up refusing food and starving himself to death. Your statements saying we need to find better medical research obviously doesnt apply to cases like such, and most patients who want Euthanasia have similar cases. Going back to what you said, your saying we should make people like Tony Nicklinson live if he doesnt want to anymore? (look him up for a better understanding of his story)

I would like to start off by quickly refuting my opponent's arguments. What proposition failed to realize was that euthanasia is carried out only when a person agrees to be put to death. Whatever the case is, a person has a right to determine his/her own life. My argument is freedom - which America promised to its citizens. If euthanasia is proved illegal, then that person has to live in agony and he/she can't even die. Sometimes, dying can make things better, especially if it is a choice.

I patienly waited, like my opponent asked. Forfeting wouldn't be fun or fair, so I waited. I wish my opponent best of luck. Depression: Throughout this entire debate my highlighted that depression cause you to be irrational and contemplate suicide, yet the medical community beg to differ says there are benefits to suicide. Charles Darwin, along Einstein and Edison, is one the the most influential scientist of all time. He concluded depression has a secret purpose and our medical interventions are making a bad situation even worse. Like a fever that helps the immune system fight off infection increased body temperature sends white blood cells into overdrive depression might be an unpleasant yet adaptive response to affliction. Maybe Darwin was right. This would a person more attentive and less likely to look at euthanasia for a solution. Researchers have discovered that depression is as common as the common cold. If depression really made people think irrational then we would have a much higher suicide epidemic. Depression makes a person think and rule out euthanasia as an option. Instead of going to extremes people with depression would talk to their doctor and not give euthanasia a thought as a solution. They would take anti depressants, meaning we can't include them in the pool of suicide since people with depression think more rational than the average person. [1] Saving lives: I did more research and turns out my opponent missed important details. There was in fact, like he said, 6000 donors last year, those are donors who are still alive not people who are willing to donate after they die. According to organdonor.gov, "Currently, more than 100 million people in the U.S. are signed up to be a donor sign up and join them". That is more than 33% or 1/3 Americans. [2]Just as an example, let's look at the 300 number from Oregon my opponent argued agaisnt me. Since, 1/3 Americans are organ donors that leaves 100 people organ donors from Oregon. Since 1 donor saves 8 lives, that is 800 lives saved from only 100 people who chose euthanasia. This in fact does benefit society. That 300 number is only from Oregon, think about people from other states who need organs. If a person does chose to with euthanasia, those people would save lives and leave a legacy with them, instead of being statistics who died from terminal illnesses. Cost: My opponent is being very one dimensional and not hollistic by only using the 300 number. Think about the people from other states. We are facing the worst economic collapse since The Great Depression. This puts many people at risk of losing their health insurance. This leaves ill patient with huge medical bills that put more stress on them. Some who don't have insurance use government programs such as, Medicare and Medicaid. Who pays for this? Us the taxpayers. Why would I want my tax dollars going into people who will eventually die with suffering, when that money could be going to savable patients that would contribute to society. Of all 50 states many people are not only making their families go bankrupt, they're also pushing the US into bankruptcy. All wasteful spending must be reduced, denying euthanasia is a wasteful cost. Pain: My opponent says that suicide is a sign of weakness. Forcing someone to suffer is better. So, I guess someone taking pain killers is also a sign of weakness. I think not. There is no medication that can make all pain go away. Sure, medication can take away physical pain. That leaves many patients still suffering from psychological and emotional distress. Knowing that there is a possibility you could die, possibly soon, puts tremdous anxiety on the already ill, which can make the disease they are fighting much worse. CON, also says that Cancer and AIDS is only a small sample size. Tjis is terribly illogical since 12 million Americans suffer from Cancer, that's 4% of American. [3]Also, It is estimated that more than one million people are living with HIV in the USA and that more than half a million have died after developing AIDS.[4] That does not seem like a small sample size when it reaches millions. Of course, these aren't the only terminal illnesses. I would like to know where the cure is. This "research" has not led to much progess Right: In the end, it is just a person choice to commit suicide. A person's life belongs only to them, and no other person has the right to force their own ideals that life must be lived. Rather, only the individual involved can make such decision, and whatever decision they make should be respected. Freedom, is fundemental in America. It is the right we all are guaranteed. Suicide is the most basic right of all. If freedom is self-ownership ownership over one's own life and body then the right to end that life is the most basic of all. If others can force you to live, you do not own yourself and belong to them. My opponent didn't deny whether or not banning euthanasia is agaisnt freedom of religion. As long as no one else is hurt we should follow our own fate. What if someone's religion says suicide is mandatory. Sure, many religions condemn suicide(Christiantiy, Islam, Judaism). Though many religions condone suicide(Confucianism, Shintoism, Jainism). [5] By saying researching on sick patients my opponent is implying that a person with a terminal illness should be forced to be tested on. That seems to deny more rights and more freedom. Overall, unfortunately if people want to kill themselves they will do it. In anyway, no matter how horrific. The government can't stop them. The only thing euthanasia is, a calm, safe, painless, compassionate way to end someone's life with digninity and freedom. Sources: [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.organdonor.gov... [3] http://m.cancer.org... [4] http://www.avert.org... [5] http://en.m.wikipedia.org... This was a really fun debate. Very stimulating. Finally, I would just like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and discussing in an orderly fashion. Good luck to my opponent and the voters. Thank you. :)

There is no good reason that suicide should not be legal. If a person no longer wishes to live that is their right. Why should you or someone else keep them from taking "the easy way out" as you have stated? No one else should have dominion over another person"s life unless the person is mentally impaired to a point that they haven"t the ability to convey a desire to live. (vegetative state). I work in a nursing home where people beg for death when they are suffering yet they are not permitted to die until their body is too damaged to continue. It is sad and diminishes their dignity. You claim they should not have an easy way out, Why NOT??

It isn't that I don't feel anything for Laura It is because that if you allow this behavior, sucidies will go up tremendously I understand Laura's situation but death should NEVER be the answer Literally try anything else but practically killing yourself? No. There are many methods of treatments for depression (Psychology, Meds, Counseling with Family) Death shouldn't be one of those methods Basic summary: Euthansia should never be allowed because it would cause a snowball reaction of tremendous suicide rates, There are many other methods for dealing with depression like psychology, meds, Counseling with Family Vote Reformist!

As Americans, we pride ourselves on a variety of rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. The Declaration of Independence establishes that one of our inalienable rights is the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". One of these rights is a right to die. Across the United States, thousands are living with an incurable illness with no hope of recovery. These people are living in unthinkable suffering, knowing that the views of a vocal minority [1] are being imposed on them, enforcing this suffering onto them. Imagine not being able to control bowel movements, or having control of only the portion of the body from the head up. Life would be a living hell. I would firstly like to address the idea of rights, and how they apply to this case. As I mentioned earlier, the United States citizens, as well as citizens of nearly every other developed country in the world, have express rights. There is no right to impose your views on others - quite the opposite, as imposing your view that somebody should be silenced on somebody is a violation of the principle of freedom of speech, and governmental imposition of religious beliefs on others is a violation of the right of freedom of religion. So why then is it acceptable for a vocal minority to impose their belief that allowing somebody to end their suffering is somehow wrong on everyone else? If we are 'free', why are we not 'free' from the impositions of others in the case of euthanasia? I would also like to make a point regarding ownership of one's body. The very definition of a slave is a person owned by another person [2]. Slavery has obviously been abolished in the United States for many years, establishing that a person can only be owned by themselves. Generally, you can do what you like with your property, as long as you are not harming anyone else. That's why lawmakers don't usually attempt to prohibit overeating! Euthanasia is usually an attempt to end intolerable suffering that is seriously detrimental to the sufferer's quality of life. If you are in charge of your own life, why should others be able to direct what you do with it, if the only person you will be harming is yourself? This debate is now open, and anybody can take up the challenge to present an opposing view. After all, you've got that freedom. Sources [1] http://www.gallup.com... [2] http://wordnet.princeton.edu...

By saying murder you are making it seem like the physician is going around killing these patients, which is not the case. These patients have to meet the following criteria 18 years of age or older " Capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself " Diagnosed with a terminal illness with only 6 months to live The attending physician decides if the criteria have been met, but further requirements are then necessary. Some of those include: " Two oral requests by the patient, at least 15 days apart " A written request by the patient signed by two witnesses " Confirmation of diagnosis and prognosis by the attending doctor and a consulting physician " The attending and consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable of making health care decisions for him/herself " Patient must be informed of feasible alternatives " Attending physician must request the patient to notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request " Physicians must report all prescriptions for lethal medications to the Health Authority, Vital Records The physician may prescribe the medicine " cocktail" to the patient but, it is the patients choice if they want to end their life or not. The physician only gives them the chance to choose what they feel is best for themselves because it is their life, so let them decide what to do with it.

The response from con sounds very personal. If you are struggling the concept of euthanasia intellectual, then read on. If however you are struggling with this because of a family member, or close friend suffering with a terminal illness, I suggest you simply stop now. If the case is the latter, I offer my condolences.Rebuttal “Its extremely hard for anyone to accept the loss of a loved one, whether they"re a child they raised or a sister they grew up with.”While this statement is unquestionably true, it changes very little about the debate. The death of a terminally ill patient is coming regardless of allowing them a choice on how and when they die."Yet they call physician assisted suicide a "just, and dignified death."But as the battle of what"s right and what"s wrong continues, more citizens of the U.S would prefer having the ones they love for a few more days, a few more minutes, or even a few more seconds than losing them forever without a chance to even say goodbye."Well, often it is a perfect chance to “say goodbye”. To say goodbye while still in control of their own body’s. In control of their minds. Still in control."I think I should have been clearer in my reason of arguing, I can find no logical evidence of suicide of any sort being even remotely moral or justifiable."I am providing logical and moral reasoning for an individual to choose to end their life’s on their own terms. Individuals have a moral right to body autonomy. A moral right to make choices about their own body. Externaly interested parties can encourage, attempt to persuade the individual, but they have no moral right to override the terminally ill patient’s decision."The united states is creating a drug used for the sole purpose of suicide in patients with terminal illnessI know of no such drug, and you have provided no information about it. If, however, someone is attempting to craft a specific drug, that sounds like a good idea.Every Day more than 2,500 kids(12 to 17) abuse prescription drugs, Depressants, opioids and antidepressants are the leading cause of suicide by 45%."The leading cause of suicide is depression"Of the 1.4 million drug-related emergency room admissions in 2005, 598,542 were associated with abuse of pharmaceuticals alone or with other drugs."I see no connection between this and the question."In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration found that abuse of the painkiller Fentanyl killed more than 1,000 people that year in the US. It is thirty to fifty times more powerful than heroin. Fentanyl is an opioid medication. An opioid is sometimes called a narcotic. Fentanyl is used as part of anesthesia to help prevent pain after surgery or other medical procedure.But teens and adults are using them to satisfy a desperate need to leave the life they live, I don"t care about religion, I don"t care about body autonomy. What I care about is the fact the U.S is even considering making suicide legal to a "certain degree, at no degree is it ok to tell someone they have a right to kill their selves."Telling someone they have a right to do what is already a right is a little counterintuitive. I am suggesting that body autonomy is a right."What I care about is the message that this law is sending to teens all over the state, I"m not the smartest girl but I know a stupid idea when I see one ,and this is the dumbest idea congress could have ever created."You are conflating two issues. Teen suicide and euthanasia. If there were a relation then it would be worth talking about, but I can find no causal relationship, and you have provided none.Body autonomy is not the ultimate point in this argument. The point in this argument and is that this one decision is going to end up stirring a nationOK. Stir the nation. However, as I referenced above, 7 in 10 Americans support euthanasia [5]. 70% is a clear mandate. Section 443.2 of SB 128 states"this bill would make it a felony to knowingly alter or forge a request for medication to an individuals life without his or her authorizations or to conceal or destroy a rescission of a request for medication, if it is done with the intent or effect of causing the individuals death. The bill would make it a felony to knowingly coerce or exert undue influence on an individual to request medication for the purpose of ending his or her life or to destroy a rescission of a request."I have no issue with this wording."There are multiple way around this bill and flaws that could end up with citizens going to jail and being charged with homicide if they make one fatal mistake."I see no evidence for this assertion."Everything else I have to say is completely in my own opinion.Debate cant only be supported by facts because no one wins that way you have to appeal to the peoples emotion."To be frank, the only appeal to emotion I have seen is from you."I debate because I feel strongly about something, and I don"t care if people say I"m wrong, The whole purpose of debating is to open your side of the story. Its not about who has better facts or who"s a better speaker, because at the end of the day how much of that is really going to matter? None of it, because you still have to make a choice."I am arguing for choice. The patient’s choice over what happens to his own body."Put yourself in their families" shoes, their loved ones are dying of terminal illness, and kids are killing themselves. Wouldn't you want your little girl, or your big sister your brother or even your father to hold out for just a few more minutes so you can tell them how much you love them, and tell everyone that they were survivors not quitters? I want to fight to my last breath. It doesn't matter if I win this debate or not, and I probably won"t, but I want everyone to know exactly how I feel about Physician assisted suicide."How you feel is clear. What you may like may not be what the terminal patient wants, and as I have discussed. It is their choice, not your choice.ConclusionThe to control their bodys is the issue in this debate. While emotions run high for intrested family and firends, their wishes simply cannot overide the will and wish of the patient. The choices they make are for their own reasons, and not to be dismissed because of anothers selfish desires.Vote pro.Poll - Euthanasia[5] http://www.gallup.com...