Which side makes a better case?
avatar
16 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    Here's our new debate, the previous one can be found on this link: https://www.qallout.com/debate/4768-assisted-suicide-is-ethical-pod-2

    • a year ago

      @chasuk thanks! Whatever the outcome im glad we finally debated. Good luck!

      • a year ago

        Again, I am not defending assisted suicide carte blanche — which is something that you seem to forget. You asked how it could be regulated, and I answered twice, whether or not you found my answer satisfactory. The simple fact is that it is regulated in those jurisdictions where it is currently a legal option, and apparently to the satisfaction of the legal authorities.

        Thank you for the debate.

        • a year ago

          Good debate gentlemen. Not the sharpest technically, but good and substantive. This is something of a personal debate in the sense that we have two competing systems of ethics, and not a lot of argument about why one is better than the other.

          I think both make their case that according to the ethical standard they offer, Suicide is either ethical or not ethical.

          @chasuk looks at a personal choice for someone wanting to end their life due to their suffering and that assisted suicide is a reasonable way to do that.

          @Julian points out that most doctors follow specific codes of ethical conduct, and they are contrary to assisted suicide. (I looked these up, while the Hippocratic oath does not specifically forbid it, the ethics codes of the AMA do) Julian also has a good line of argument about concerns for abuse.

          My personal feeling lies with Pro here. I feel like it is entirely possible to make a rational and ethical choice to end your life and that assisting someone with that is itself, ethical. At least by my sense of ethics.

          Objectively Julian does show that any doctor in the AMA is bound by ethical guidelines that say it is not ethical at all.

          While the concern for abuse is a good one, I didn't find it compelling as presented. I'd need to see where it is actually abused in some greater detail.

          Judging on quality of argument, I'd give Con the nod. He's got a more structured argument put together here and a clear objective criteria.

          Judging on how I'm persuaded on the resolution, I'd vote pro, but it is largely due to my agreeing with the ethical standards Pro is opperating under.

          Because audience votes aren't determining the outcome, I'll vote Pro here. I think if I were judging it officially, I'd have to give it to con as he as a clear objective standard to measure on and did more work in constructing a formal case for his possition.

          • a year ago

            PS: Julian, the beard looks good on you sir.

          • a year ago

            @sigfried thanks man. It was a great debate and Chas was great. It will be interesting how the judge scores it.

          • a year ago

            @sigfried I cite the hypocritic oath as “do no harm”, although it actually used to say something about not giving poison in this context.

          • a year ago

            @julian Yep, I liked that this debate prompted me to go read about it. Its something I'd hear of, but never looked into in any detail.

          • a year ago

            @julian I changed my vote here to be consistent with the reasons I voted in your other debate. You clearly won this on the merits of your debating even if I have a pretty strong bias for your opponents argument and criteria.

          • a year ago

            @sigfried thanks. It’s actually my bias too. I think you can really see the crux of the issue here.

        • a year ago

          @sharkb8 Hop to it man! :)

          • a year ago
          • a year ago
            • a year ago

              @chasuk I don't think you got destroyed, I just think there were some things you could have done differently and you would have won this one.

              Just saying "I don't like that definition." "I don't think about the hippocratic oath" isn't a persuasive argument. You have to show what the definition should actually be, and what the standard should actually be.

              How do we determine what is ethical? What is the process for that, and at what point can we go "yes that is ethical, pro should win"? If you figure that out in advance, and tell the judge, then you have a case to work off of and the judge has something to go off of for voting for you. Julian did that. He said that we determine what is ethical by measuring it up to the Hippocratic oath, a principle that has existed for centuries. You might disagree, but you can't just say "I don't look at it that way"

              The problem I had was, I write down every argument while watching a round, but on your side, I really didn't have much to write down. You just stated your opinion over and over, rather than boiling your opinion down into a few clear arguments.

              I think there was a clear path for you to win this, but you needed to be more structured and cohesive in how you say it.

              1. The resolution does not require me to show that 100% of assisted suicide is ethical. I just need to show that the concept itself, is ethical.
              2. We determine what is ethical by what provides for the best human well being. This is the standard I will put forward. Whichever side provides for better human well being is the side who should win.
              3. We know human well being is what determines ethics because the purpose of ethics is to benefit humanity. Ethics are a human construct we create for ourselves, so we know they have been properly attained when human well being is secure.
              4. Assisted Suicide promotes human well being, because when choosing between suicide and assisted suicide, regular suicide is significantly worse for human well being
              5. Thus, assisted suicide promotes human well being, and is therefore ethical. The Pro should win.

              I think that was your train of thought, but you never clearly laid it out or set it up point by point.

              But also, even after you lay out your points, you can't just restate your points. You have to also tell me why your opponent's perspective is wrong. When he lays out his points and says that the hippocratic oath is so important, you can't just say "I'm looking at it differently." You need to say why his way of looking at it is inaccurate, and why we should prefer your way of looking at it.

              The thing is, I agreed with you, so it's not like you were far off from winning this. It's just that you needed to put in more work on the actual debating, and not just saying what you think.