CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
14
Without a doubt No it should not
Debate Score:39
Arguments:36
Total Votes:39
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Without a doubt (21)
 
 No it should not (14)

Debate Creator

Quocalimar(6469) pic



The right to die should be ours.

We have 'rights'. I talked in another debate about how these rights are mostly privledges. Some arguments said, that our rights can't be taken away, they are god given, or for the atheistic we are born with the human sense to be allowed these 'rights'.

Freedom of speech, right to bare arms, right to assembly to name a few. But if we can talk as we please, which were born to do, shouldn't we be able to die as we please as we too were born to do?

Not like we should legally be aloud to jump off of a bridge, obviously that'd be bad for the people living, that still want to, but we should be allowed to go to some designated area and be killed at the very least.

An old man dying in bed while death waits over him.

Without a doubt

Side Score: 25
VS.

No it should not

Side Score: 14

The right to die is (already) ours. Who can keep us from death? What's the penalty for attempted suicide? The death sentence? ;)

Side: Without a doubt

Maybe I'm biased in this regard as to have contemplated suicide before due to a brain deformity, but I still think it's a logical thing to believe that we have the right to choose death.

Maybe a glorious death isn't necessary since we would be making the decision our self, but at the very least the right to choose when. I do honestly believe a person should be allowed to wake up any given day and say I want to die, and be allowed to go through the paper work to get that rightful wish fulfilled.

With strict regulations on it though to ensure people aren't being made to kill themselves against their will. And maybe some system of debt settling before hand to ensure people won't just go bankrupt then decide to have themselves killed rather than paying off their debts.

It'd be like gun control except with the right to die basically.

Side: Without a doubt
1 point

I like the idea of euthanasia it gives people a choice whether they still want to live or whether they want a peaceful death, but I think that this option should only be given to people with a lethal disease that only gets worse otherwise you'll get suicidal people who are just fed up with their lives and are too lazy to do anything about it except kill themselves. But yeah we should have a right to die but only if we have a very lethal disease it's the best way to put them out of suffering.

Side: Without a doubt
1 point

I say yes. Life and Death is ones own choice to make. Especially if their life has become nothing but suffering, as depicted in the picture above. Though, I don't support suicide, I don't condemn the people who have allowed themselves to die because their lives are literally a hell.

Side: Without a doubt

I don't see why we can't. We have the option to do good or bad. We have the option to kill or not. We have the option to love or hate. I don't see why we can control our own life or death.

Side: Without a doubt

If a person is suffering great pain and no cure is in sight, a person should opt for the right to die with dignity.

Side: Without a doubt
1 point

Life is a misery. Life is a cruel punishment forced upon us by his greatness the almighty God.

Satan will offer us physical pleasures along the way but God is more powerful than my Lord Satan in the end.

This over-powered cunt is the reason that the right to die will never be ours to decide, for the right to be born wasn't our choice either.

Until we overcome the wrath of God as a species, our wrath of death and the decision of its time will lie in the hands of this almighty asshole for eternity.

Side: No it should not

There is no "right" to decide for others. How much do you have in common with yourself 20 years ago? 5 years ago? If that person decided to end their lives they would have ended yours as well. The problem here is the same as in the case of abortion. Of course, there should be exceptions but you can't consider such an act to be a "right".

Side: No it should not
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
2 points

Speaking is an act and we have that right.

You 20 years from now may be slightly altered, but ultimately you are the same person.

The situation you presented was a clever one, it actually made me think, but I later surmised that it would go into too many possibilities. The job you picked fro yourself years ago, the tattoos, or piercings.

Only I see, that with choosing death 5 years ago, you would not be around in the coming 5 years to decide against it.

Side: Without a doubt
zephyr20x6(2387) Clarified
1 point

Only I see, that with choosing death 5 years ago, you would not be around in the coming 5 years to decide against it.

Couldn't have said it better myself... Simplicity was the key here.

Side: Without a doubt
zephyr20x6(2387) Disputed
2 points

There is no "right" to decide for others. How much do you have in common with yourself 20 years ago? 5 years ago? If that person decided to end their lives they would have ended yours as well.

Your logic could be used to justify the illegalization of everything unhealthy by drinking soda, eating chips, watching television you are punishing your future self thus those should be illegal right? Anyways your uture self if considered another being as you imply due to being from a different time, I may say that those people don't exist yet and thus you can't wrong them. You can't wrong a non-existent. A billion and one different being could come to existence from any specific multitude of atoms in the universe from any other time, but a majority of these people will never exist, and where is the problem if these people never existed in the first place? By this logic NOT creating as many different kinds of people through genetic technology is immoral since all these people can potentially exist. This logic is as ridiculous as shouting "It is a shame that bob the Irish, jamaicon sevant with A, B, C... z traits doesn't exist... Ohh the humanity!!! The fact that this person never existed is murder by nature itself!!!" I mean come on?

Side: Without a doubt
1 point

I don't mean to be normative. I believe people choose to remain healthy and educate themselves because of this sort of perceived duty. They don't think of "themselves" in the narrow sense. I think most would agree with me however that you need a decent reason to kill yourself however and I believe the reason is what I stated.

This is a case of conflicting values, there's no need to generalize everything into a theory that can be applied 100% of the time.

Side: No it should not
1 point

If there is a person dying of cancer, and they are in the terminal stages, euthanasia may be acceptable. However, where do we stop killing people? When the looks an arm? A hand? Health care is to heal, not to kill.

Euthanasia is in the wrong direction.

Side: No it should not
zephyr20x6(2387) Disputed
1 point

If a person wishes to die regardless of the reason they should have that reason. I HIGHLY doubt people would kill themselves over a hurt arm or hand but if they wish, who are we to not allow them?

Side: Without a doubt
kozlov(1755) Disputed
1 point

History has proven that people need guidance. Crossing the euthanasia line cannot be undone.

Side: No it should not