Week 1 - Storntrooper 85 vs. Supercrazy

[FromTheSouth]

This thread is to be judged by IC.

The debate will rage on until 6 PM Sunday.

Stormtrooper will affirm the topic that:

Resolved: Sanctity of life outweights quality of life.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Stormtrooper will affirm the topic that:

Resolved: Sanctity of life outweights quality of life.

So I need to argue that Sanctity of life is more important then Quality of life. Thank God for Google. I was hoping my first debate would be an easier topic for me, but nothing I can do about it.
------------------

As a Christian man, I cannot grasp the concept of having such a poor quality of life, that you just want to end it yourself, even in extreme cases such as terminal illness. Life is the one thing that is guaranteed to everyone, and is the greatest asset a human has.

Religious people like myself believe that God put us on this Earth, and that, upon death, we will get into Heaven after our life on Earth is done and we are good people. How can someone be a good person if they are willing to cause death upon themselves, or a willing victim, even if the victim thinks that no life is better then what they currently have?

Of course, not everyone on Earth is a religious person, and they won't believe a word of the previous paragraph. However, even non-religious people must agree that most every country on Earth has laws that prohibit causing death upon someone. Ending ones life is deemed unlawful, and thus should be looked upon as unacceptable. And everyone has a conscience. How can someone think that ending a life is OK, especially if nothing is gained from ending it?

Of course since life should be the most valued asset, there have to be cases where one can agree that a life can be terminated. This is true. In some instances, more lives can be saved by ending another. For example, some crazy lunatic goes into a public place, and starts shooting at people. Ending this life can be considered acceptable, since ending one life is saving much more then one life. The same could be said for self-defense.

So how can someone believe that life is so inconsequential, that it can be ended just because you want it to be?

 

[Super Crazy]

Topic : Sanctity of life outweighs quality of life.

Negating Opening :

This argument is based off of ethics. Now, where I do not believe in God, I do not believe that sanctity of life outweighs quality of life, due in fact that the quality of life often effects how important one's life is to each other.

Argument :

You say how can someone be a good person for wanting to take their own lives or for taking someone else's life, even in the case of terminal illness? Where I don't believe in God, I feel that one can be a good man even in the case of death.

Let's say someone is suffering through a terminal illness, would you rather watch them suffer in pain, day in and day out, or end it quickly for them and know they are better off in Heaven since you are a believer of God? Personally for me, I'd prefer to not see someone suffer to the end of a terminal illness.

Certainly there are laws in place to prohibit causing death upon someone, but is it unacceptable? In the case of murder I say yes, it is unacceptable, however, this topic does not specify murder nor any form of death. Since it does not, I can say while there are laws in place to prohibit taking a life, there are also laws and cases in hospitals where people can sign off on allowing their own death.

The only person suitable of judging their own quality of life is that one person. I firmly believe that, and if I were to feel my quality of life was not worth enduring, I certainly would want it ended. I realize that it would make my family members unhappy, but in the end, they would realize it was for the better.

 

[Stormtrooper]

You say how can someone be a good person for wanting to take their own lives or for taking someone else's life, even in the case of terminal illness? Where I don't believe in God, I feel that one can be a good man even in the case of death.

To me, Life is the most important thing someone has. Without life, they are nothing. How can someone have the right to take it away, especially if there is nothing good to come out of it?

Let's say someone is suffering through a terminal illness, would you rather watch them suffer in pain, day in and day out, or end it quickly for them and know they are better off in Heaven since you are a believer of God? Personally for me, I'd prefer to not see someone suffer to the end of a terminal illness.

First of all, as a Christian, suicide is something that will keep a person OUT of Heaven, so If they committed suicide (even for a so called "good" reason), they would spend eternity is Hell.

And secondly, I would rather see whatever terminal illness take its course then watch someone hang themselves, stick a needle with a lethal poison in their arm, or blow their brains out. I am, however, not saying you have to fight a terminal illness til death. There is a big difference between killing oneself and no longer fighting an illness. When someone makes a conscious decision to stop fighting a disease, they know they will die at some point, and pain can be eased as much as humanly possible. Choosing to kill yourself in my opinion is just an easy way to avoid life, which should be paramount to all else.

Certainly there are laws in place to prohibit causing death upon someone, but is it unacceptable? In the case of murder I say yes, it is unacceptable, however, this topic does not specify murder nor any form of death. Since it does not, I can say while there are laws in place to prohibit taking a life, there are also laws and cases in hospitals where people can sign off on allowing their own death.

I do not believe a hospital is allowed to kill patients. That would probably be contradictory to the Hippocratic Oath. What you are most likely referring to is a Do Not Resuscitate order, which basically tells a doctor to not go out of their way to revive someone. While their are similarities to what we are talking about, the main difference is that we are talking about premature end, and DNRs refer to reviving someone who just died.

Their death was natural, and they don't want to be artificially revived. I'm not saying I agree with that, but at least it is natural.

The only person suitable of judging their own quality of life is that one person. I firmly believe that, and if I were to feel my quality of life was not worth enduring, I certainly would want it ended. I realize that it would make my family members unhappy, but in the end, they would realize it was for the better.

So what you are saying is that you would be willing to make your family miserable because of your death, but your selfish desire to no longer be ill makes them happy again? The way I see it, they should want to have as much time with you as they can have, to cherish and have for the rest of their lives.

At the end of the day, even people who believe in quality of life must realize that a "low" quality of life is still higher then NO life, and thus no quality of life.

 

[Super Crazy]

To me, Life is the most important thing someone has. Without life, they are nothing. How can someone have the right to take it away, especially if there is nothing good to come out of it?

I believe you said yourself, taking the life of a sadistic murderer is okay in your eyes? Something good would come from this at it would potentially prevent numerous other deaths. What you said is a contradiction to your belief if you feel no one should have the right to take away someone's life. If I was going around killing people, would you want me to rot in prison forever, where I could somehow get out due to the laws on life sentencing being different in numerous places, or would you rather me die by lethal injection or some other form of death penalty knowing one less killer was in the world?

First of all, as a Christian, suicide is something that will keep a person OUT of Heaven, so If they committed suicide (even for a so called "good" reason), they would spend eternity is Hell.

I don't believe I said anything about suicide, but if your are taking what I'm saying and implying I meant suicide, I will dive into this side of things as well. To a person who is suffering from depression or whatever may drive them to commit suicide, there is no other way to " save " them so to speak. They feel the only way to be happy is to take their own life. Again, this may be a sad thing, and you may believe someone would go to Hell for committing suicide, but to me, a non-religious person, I highly doubt that God would deem a person unworthy of Heaven due to that one thing. If you are a true believer or God you know that he forgives all, so everyone is welcome to him.

And secondly, I would rather see whatever terminal illness take its course then watch someone hang themselves, stick a needle with a lethal poison in their arm, or blow their brains out. I am, however, not saying you have to fight a terminal illness til death. There is a big difference between killing oneself and no longer fighting an illness. When someone makes a conscious decision to stop fighting a disease, they know they will die at some point, and pain can be eased as much as humanly possible. Choosing to kill yourself in my opinion is just an easy way to avoid life, which should be paramount to all else.

I was not saying for a person with terminal illness to kill themselves. I was referring to giving up on fighting the illness and allowing themselves to pass on rather then drag out their life. I know there are people out there, who take pills that help fight illness and I know if they were to stop, they would die, and this is what I meant. If someone is suffering through a terminal illness, I would much rather let them go, knowing they are going somewhere peaceful, rather then watch them suffer.

I do not believe a hospital is allowed to kill patients. That would probably be contradictory to the Hippocratic Oath. What you are most likely referring to is a Do Not Resuscitate order, which basically tells a doctor to not go out of their way to revive someone. While their are similarities to what we are talking about, the main difference is that we are talking about premature end, and DNRs refer to reviving someone who just died.

Their death was natural, and they don't want to be artificially revived. I'm not saying I agree with that, but at least it is natural.

I'm not talking about them killing patients. But I believe you what are you talking about good possibly be what I'm referring to. However, there is also the case of someone being in a coma and on life support. I do believe that there is an option to have the plug pulled and let them pass. Again, this DNR thing may be what am I talking about here.

So what you are saying is that you would be willing to make your family miserable because of your death, but your selfish desire to no longer be ill makes them happy again? The way I see it, they should want to have as much time with you as they can have, to cherish and have for the rest of their lives.

At the end of the day, even people who believe in quality of life must realize that a "low" quality of life is still higher then NO life, and thus no quality of life.

You keep referring to suicide, and I can understand why, as this topic spreads into that, however that is not what I meant. Again I was referring to terminal illness or being in a coma on life support. If I was already on life support , with a low low chance of coming out of it, yes I would want my life ended. I know my family would be miserable at first, but in the end they would come to realize I was in a better place and at peace. What's the point of just being a brain in a working body?

 

[Stormtrooper]

I believe you said yourself, taking the life of a sadistic murderer is okay in your eyes? Something good would come from this at it would potentially prevent numerous other deaths. What you said is a contradiction to your belief if you feel no one should have the right to take away someone's life. If I was going around killing people, would you want me to rot in prison forever, where I could somehow get out due to the laws on life sentencing being different in numerous places, or would you rather me die by lethal injection or some other form of death penalty knowing one less killer was in the world?

As I said in my first post, there are exceptions to the general rule, such as when ending one life will prevent the loss of more life, and also self-defense. I can't lie, I misspoke when I said that there are no exceptions in my second post.

I don't believe I said anything about suicide, but if your are taking what I'm saying and implying I meant suicide, I will dive into this side of things as well. To a person who is suffering from depression or whatever may drive them to commit suicide, there is no other way to " save " them so to speak. They feel the only way to be happy is to take their own life. Again, this may be a sad thing, and you may believe someone would go to Hell for committing suicide, but to me, a non-religious person, I highly doubt that God would deem a person unworthy of Heaven due to that one thing. If you are a true believer or God you know that he forgives all, so everyone is welcome to him.

1. I did imply that you spoke about suicide, mainly because we have been talking this entire time about people who want to end their own life. That is suicide, in a nutshell.
2. As someone who doesn't believe in God, I guess you would know that he accepts sinners who commit murder (and not being able to ask for forgiveness, since the victim is the killer). Truth be told, God doesn't like murderers, definitely not those who never seek forgiveness.
3. I can tell you for certain that it is possible to "save," as you said, someone suffering from depression from killing themselves. The way I understand what you said, you approve of someone with depression committing suicide. This is the biggest load of garbage in the history of loads of garbage. Depression is an illness that can be treated with medication, as well as therapy. I can personally attest to the complete wrongness of that statement, and so could anyone else who has dealt with it, or any medical professional. Depression is a non-terminal illness, and treatable.

I was not saying for a person with terminal illness to kill themselves. I was referring to giving up on fighting the illness and allowing themselves to pass on rather then drag out their life. I know there are people out there, who take pills that help fight illness and I know if they were to stop, they would die, and this is what I meant. If someone is suffering through a terminal illness, I would much rather let them go, knowing they are going somewhere peaceful, rather then watch them suffer.

So we both are arguing the same point then. The only thing I can disagree on is that I would rather see them at least try to fight the illness, instead of saying oh well, I was just diagnosed with a terminal illness, no need even starting to fight it.

I'm not talking about them killing patients. But I believe you what are you talking about good possibly be what I'm referring to. However, there is also the case of someone being in a coma and on life support. I do believe that there is an option to have the plug pulled and let them pass. Again, this DNR thing may be what am I talking about here.

Pulling the plug on life support is different from a DNR. A DNR is referring to not reviving after Cardiac Arrest. Pulling the plug is more based on patients whom are on life support already. DNRs generally are people who refuse life support. Having the plug pulled is a very touchy subject, only because there is no way the patient is able to confirm this decision, so in a way it is more like a publicly acceptable murder.

You keep referring to suicide, and I can understand why, as this topic spreads into that, however that is not what I meant. Again I was referring to terminal illness or being in a coma on life support. If I was already on life support , with a low low chance of coming out of it, yes I would want my life ended. I know my family would be miserable at first, but in the end they would come to realize I was in a better place and at peace. What's the point of just being a brain in a working body?

I'm going to assume you meant "Brain in a NON working body," because a brain in a working body would be you and I, which isn't what we are talking about here.

I kept going back to suicide because the points we are discussing are all forms of suicide. Suicide is basically the act of causing death upon yourself, and even if the methods you have described may be "humane" (IN YOUR OPINION), they are still suicide, and should be considered as such. And since suicide is pretty much the easy way out of life, I don't believe that it should be an acceptable practice, EVER.

As I said last time, how can even NO quality of life be better then a low quality of life? Last time I check, no pretty much meant zero, and low meant something greater then zero, but not high.

 

[Super Crazy]

3. I can tell you for certain that it is possible to "save," as you said, someone suffering from depression from killing themselves. The way I understand what you said, you approve of someone with depression committing suicide. This is the biggest load of garbage in the history of loads of garbage. Depression is an illness that can be treated with medication, as well as therapy. I can personally attest to the complete wrongness of that statement, and so could anyone else who has dealt with it, or any medical professional. Depression is a non-terminal illness, and treatable.

I do not approve of suicide at all. Don't put words in my mouth. Depression is an illness that can be treated with medication, but that does not mean people are willing to take the medication. Depression medication causes a fake happiness, it does not fight the depression or make things better. I know several people who have taken the medication and can attest to this. They've all told me how much better off they are without the medication. And where it may be treatable, as I've said, some people are better off without treatment, and if someone wishes to take their own life, I cannot stop them, and will not force them not to. I may not approve of suicide, but forcing someone to not kill themselves because you want them to live comes off as selfish to them and only makes them want to do it more.

How can you say suicide is the easy way out of life? Last I checked, it takes a lot for someone to drive to kill themselves and it is a really hard decision for people. I understand if people have problems , they should be resolved through professional help, but sometimes people are so sick that they believe even professional help will not be helpful to them. To some people, taking their life is the ONLY way of getting rid of the pain or grief or whatever they are suffering through.

How can no quality of life be better then a low quality of life? Well let's see. You believe in God? I think we've established this right? Well if you believe in God, you know that Heaven is a peaceful place and perfection and what not. Your beliefs usually involve an afterlife, Heaven being the happy place and Hell being the opposite. So if someone is so terminally ill it is a fight to just wake up in the morning, would you rather watch them suffer on Earth or be peaceful in Heaven? I would rather see them pass on to the other side and know they are in Heaven, happy and at peace.

And I don't know what God you believe in, but the one I raised with up until a few years back forgave everyone, even murderers and rapists and other people that have done wrong in their life. It's called sinning and God forgives sinners, even the ultimate sinners.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Not a bad debate. I score this one Supercrazy 35 - Stormtrooper 25.

I felt Stormtrooper allowed himself to be too shackled by his own religious beliefs to be able to branch out, whereas Supercrazy did a fair job seeing all sides and actually working to explain his point to both religious and non-religious people. I also felt Stormtrooper kept coming around to the suicide debate, which as Supercrazy pointed out, only scratched the surface here.

Stormtrooper also lost some points with me on this statement:

Having the plug pulled is a very touchy subject, only because there is no way the patient is able to confirm this decision, so in a way it is more like a publicly acceptable murder.

Calling it a "touchy subject" and then more or less avoiding it wasn't the best move. This entire debate is a "touchy subject," for starters, and using the words "so in a way" made Storm's post seem non-committal.

Supercrazy didn't do himself any favors by going in mixing up "do-not resuscitate" orders with "killing" (and did anyone in tis entire thread even bother with terms like "Euthanasia?"), and even worse, his opponent seemed to have to educate him on it. Ouch.

Over all, a decent warm-up this early, but with two debates left in pool play, both men are capable of better. I don't mean to be offensive, I just think you both can take it to another level, which you'll have to do to beat TDigle.

Overall, both debates could have been better organized and both men should go into their next rounds planning to map out their statements before jumping in. If I had to sum up this debate in one word, it would be "hasty." And yet the final word was had last Thursday.