The debate question will be posed in a "For" or "Against" fashion, or "Affirmative" and "Negative." That is, debaters will either agree or disagree with its statement.

The format will be as follows (I will introduce and elaborate on each section when we come to it):

Format of the Great Debate:

1) Affirmative: Give opening statement
2) Negative: Cross examines/addresses flaws, or issues in For's argument and asks For questions.
3) Affirmative: May respond to cross/answer questions (MUST answer all questions).
4) Negative: Give opening statements (Repeat steps 1-3 in opposite order)
5) Affirmative: Give closing statement (will elaborate on this later).
6) Negative: Give closing statement (may not respond to For's closing statement).

The moderator will make sure no one steps out of line, and will "give the floor" to the debaters.

The judges will NOT participate in the debate, and will come into the debate with little opinion and/or previous knowledge of the subject. The judges will determine who should win the debate based on their persuasive skills and argument alone, not based on topic matter.

The Affirmative begins with an opening statement, which is a few paragraphs including proofs and supports for why the debate prompt is accurate. Proofs can include relevant examples, statistics, expert quotations, historical trends, etc. You may use pathos, ethos, and logos, that is to say you can appeal to our morals, emotions, and sense of logic in any way you see fit.

Your opening statement should be around five hundred words, but we won't be counting. If you feel you can say it all in three hundred words, or if you feel you need seven hundred words, then that's fine. The only reason I'm giving you a word count is in case you want a guideline. Take as many words as you need, and as much time as you would like to organize your response (though preferably respond by the end of the week so we can keep the debate going).

:o) Remember! This is all in good fun. If you find you aren't enjoying yourself, then you can drop out at any time, but if you're a debater, you will be ceding your title over to your opponent.

WINNERS: Yes, I have decided there will be a prize for the winner: A banner/image/certificate that will be uploaded to the image section of this spot celebrating the fact that they one Fanpop's first ever structured debate. Hopefully, if this goes well, we'll have more debates and more people can win.

If anyone wants to design this banner/image/certificate please contact me. If no one contacts me, I'll design it myself.

Count me in for Euthanasia, Human Cloning, Homophobia or Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The Ballets are in and Euthanasia won out!

Judges
kateliness2
greekthegeek
blisslikethis

Debaters
nuimdave
dazl

ALRIGHT! Debaters!

nuimdave, dazl, please pick a number between one and ten.

Right, I'm fortified with Raspberry Mickey Finn and have chosen the number threeve(a combi of three and five)

Seriously, I choose 7.

6

The number was nine.

Question: Should human euthanasia be legalized in Ireland?

Context: I am aware that both debaters are Irish (yay!) and that euthanasia is illegal in Ireland. So rather than making this a US centered debate, let's take it across the ocean, as it will be more interesting and probably more familiar ground for our debaters to work with Irish laws and regions.

In your debate, you may use examples, statistics, expert quotations, historical trends, etc. Use link arguments in order to persuade the judges.

Dazl, choose your side.

Dazl chooses the Affirmative. Which means Daz, you're up first.

Good evening judges, my fellow debater (who I have just discovered is also Irish), fans of the Debate Spot, fellow Fanpoppers. I speak to you on behalf of legalisation of euthanasia in Ireland. I intend for you to see the truth about euthanasia, and its current status.

For those of you not from Ireland, allow me to set the scene: You have been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

You alone have the choice, to live out your remaining days in an overcrowded hospital, living with the threat of the MRSA bug on top of the pain you already feel, or to choose the manner of your death. Would you prefer your loved ones to watch you suffer and wither away, causing both you and them emotional trauma- or have them see you at peace?

Allow to me explain my case a little more. My own grandmother was diagnosed two years ago with terminal cancer of the liver. She went from an active social member of the parish, to a worn out shell, hopped up on morphine to the point of non-recognisance of her own grandchildren, who she adored most in the world. I clearly remember the heartache caused to my family at her suffering- who could honestly forget?

Yet I remember at the funeral, my aunt, who had lived with Nan, knew her best, state bluntly, that my grandmother would have been horrified at the thought of those she loved best watching her suffering. She would have hated the half life that illness reduced her to. She would have prefered all of us to see her go in peace, spared from pain.

Many of you may say that this is an isolated example. I refer you to Exhibit A : link.

Is this not indicative of the support for the legalisation of euthansia in Ireland? It has already been legalised in the Netherlands, a fact which has led to Irish people actively seeking the Netherlands to exercise their right to die. link

Yes, their right to die. Ladies and Gentlemen, everyone has the right to live. It is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. link

Does this not mean that it is your right to your own life, and to maintain your liberty, that you should be allowed the right to die?

People, I want to recall that this debate is about Ireland, however, and therein lies the main problem. The model of the normal Irish person is WHISC -White, Heterosexual, Irish Born, Settled,
*Catholic*.

Yes Catholic. A vast majority still claim Catholicism as their religion in Ireland. Suicide, and therefore euthanasia, are considered mortal sins by the Catholic Church, a force which has exerted a strong influence over Irish affairs for hundreds of years.

Yet the Catholic Church itself accorded with Pope John Paul II's decision to not go to hospital, and allowing him to die at home link

This essentially accorded the Pope with the right to die.

Yet, I return. I ask now a simple question. Why shouldn't euthanasia be legalised?

Is there any valid reason for it not to be? If a person chooses to die, how can it been seen as murder to help them retain their dignity?

Torture is defined as :
Definitions of torture on the Web:

1)anguish: extreme mental distress
2)unbearable physical pain
3)agony: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
4)torment: torment emotionally or mentally
5)distortion: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean
6)subject to torture; "The sinners will be tormented in Hell, according to the Bible"
link

Is it torture then, to make a person live when they choose death? And is not torture itself not a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Does keeping someone alive against their own wish not degrade the person?
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

link

Ladies and Gentlemen, who are we to deny people their right to die?

Thank you, dazl.

nuimdave, you may now begin the cross. You may take all the time you need (preferably before the week is up) to prepare your questions. Focus on the Affirmative's argument, and address flaws or issues you may find. Do not argue your point yet, simply address hers

EDIT: Technically, this was supposed to start in January, so we have plenty of time!

Whoops. Sorry Cinders!

By the way, I'll have you know this is the most research I have done all year. And thats including my college essays!

LOL! That's great! I hope the debaters learn a few things here, but of course this is an informal environment. Maybe this is why I want to be a teacher... lol!

It's OK, I said go ahead when you were ready, didn't I? I think it's because I was nervous because of what happened with the LAST great debate! LOL!

Oooh, Aristolian (did I just make that word up? Yes, yes, I did.) ways of Debate. I'm currently studying his Emotional, Ethical, and Logical Appeals. I'm looking forward to this debate even more now :)

the adjective is Aristotelian, and i'm sorry to say you're not the first to use it, kateliness :P. actually, the method we're using in this forum is probably closer to the Socratic method than the dialectic one used by Aristotle. still, kudos for the Greek philosophy reference ;)

LOL! I guess I've just never heard it before.

Okay, then Socratic it is. :)

I'm just going to smile and nod.

OK, now I'm getting nervous again...

(am I allowed to wolf whistle and stand on my chair clapping wildly?)

Good Evening (and Merry Christmas!) judges, fanpoppers, and of course my fellow debater dazl. Welcome to the great debate of 2008 (so great it started in 2007). Before beginning to debate, I would just like to briefly thank Cinders for setting up this debate, it is much appreciated by all. Now down to business. We are here to debate an increasingly prevalent topic of discussion in recent years, euthanasia. More specifically, the legalisation of euthanasia in Ireland. I intend to convey to you in the clearest of terms that to legalize euthanasia in Ireland would be nothing short of a travesty.

Sticking to the format of this debate, I shall address the opening arguments of my opponent.

The first point that dazl made was in reference to Human Rights, citing that everyone has a right to life. This is true, and is a crucial point to this debate. However, from this 'right to life' point, dazl draws the conclusion of a right to death, which may on the surface seem adequate, but is a contradiction, especially when it comes down to euthanasia. I say 'especially', as euthanasia is not suicide. Even the term 'assisted suicide' is merely a euphemism. After giving a rigorous definition of torture, I challenge dazl to at least admit that in the coldest of terms, euthanasia is by definition murder.

Another point raised was that the church did not follow its own doctrine when it came to the Pope. It is very important to address the fact that rejecting certain medical help does not equate to euthanasia. The church has made its feelings on the matter known many times, especially with regards to the case of Terry Schiavo, which we will no doubt come to later

link

dazl finished by asking "Why shouldn't euthanasia be legalised? Is there any valid reason for it not to be? If a person chooses to die, how can it been seen as murder to help them retain their dignity?"

Murder should not be treated lightly merely due to circumstance. Murder is the intentional killing of a human being by another. And to justify killing someone on the basis of them retaining their dignity is pretty weak. I would certainly never say to society that a terminal illness or considerable amount of pain would take away so much as one iota of dignity that a person has.

Thank you, nuimdave! Dazl, feel free to respond when you're ready!

I've decided that, using last time as a model, if any debater flakes on their role before we've finished the debate, the last debater to post wins by default.

Not to pressure you, dazl. Like I said, the ultimate deadline for the end of this debate is February 1st.

Sorry, Cinders, I was sick and then Christmas. And you try composing a coherent argument after eating your body weight in mince pies.

I should have it up in the next few days, though. Just as soon as sales shopping has finished.

haha well said dazl, i feel the same about shortbread and tofurkey :P

When you're ready, Dara.

YOU SAY WHEN I'M READY! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE READY.

Couldn't resist. God I'm childish!

Dara no pressure-- deadline to respond is February 1st. If this doesn't sound reasonable, you're free to contend it.

You know my other reason, Carly. A snafu for this week. I have a major essay due on Friday, which is 20% of my final exam. I actually have half the debate done and as soon as the essay in submitted the debate shall be completed.

That sounds reasonable to me. I shall return!

I know why you've been busy, I was just setting a date. That's why I let you contest it, in case you wouldn't be able to make it. :o)

Ladies and gentlemen, my apologies for my tardy posting.

Especially to Cinders and nuimdave, who have been waiting on tenterhooks, I'm sure.

On to the debate!

Good evening judges, fellow Fanpoppers, and my esteemed opponent, nuimdave. I intend to address the questions put to me by the opposition.

Nuimdave, you stated “After giving a rigorous definition of torture, I challenge dazl to at least admit that in the coldest of terms, euthanasia is by definition murder.”

This is not the case. I challenge you to check your definitions.

Euthanasia is by definition, “the ending of life, by medical means, when there is no hope of recovery.” www.elissetche.org/dico/E.htm or “the self-inflicted or assisted act of helping someone to die painlessly, often occurring among people with terminal diseases.” www.elissetche.org/dico/E.htm

Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being by another. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Therein lies the difference. Euthanasia is a choice made by the patient or the patients family, in an attempt to end suffering or allow people to die with dignity. Murder is NOT a choice made by the victim.

I mentioned the decision of the Pope not to go to hospital and his choice to die at home. Procedures were withheld by doctors where there was no help of recovery, which is passive euthanasia. In short, he made the decision to end his life early. He was in control.

You equate euthanasia with murder. I answer you with this quote,

"Whose life is it, anyway?"

A plea by the late Sue Rodrigues, a high-profile, terminally-ill resident of British Columbia, Canada, who suffered from ALS.

In this case, she made the choice. How is that murder?

I am not treating murder lightly. I merely see a difference between choosing the circumstances in which a person chooses to leave this life, and having that life forcibly taken from them.

You may see physician assisted suicide as murder. Again I refer you to the above quote. In fact, many of those campaigning for the right to die consider the person chosen to be receiving an honour, since it establishes the trust that exists between these people. www.euthanasia.com/quotes

It is obvious why people are against euthanasia in Ireland. They feel that it demeans life and abnegates its meaning. A religious people for the most part, deeply immersed in the Catholic tradition ,would, fifty years ago, consider it to be a mortal sin. Yet as Church and State separate and Irish society moves towards a secular position, is it morally right to block the wishes of those who do not follow these religious beliefs their right to die? Religious belief has become a personal choice, which should not decide government policy.

Now, this may seem extremist. People with no neural activity, and no hope of recovery currently take up space in hospitals already short of beds. Were these people to be euthanized, lifting strain from their families, who had already lost their loved one years before, beds would be freed up, maybe saving the life of a person, who, with the availability of a bed, may recover and go on to lead a ful life.

So I ask you again: Who are we to deny a persons right to die?

W00T!

Alright, nuimdave, you now have the floor to have your opening statement. You may respond to dazl's remarks, but do not focus on them (wait for the cross to do that).

DEADLINE TO REPLY: February 1st.

What's happening with this?

It died.

You win.

I gave up pestering people.

Yay dazl I'm wuth you DrD

*stands on chair and claps wildly while wolf whistleing*

No! I refuse to let this die! I debate against myself!

Dazl: I refute these remarks, on the grounds that you cheated and made those web pages that you cited as sources. How do you respond?

Dazl: I see your remarks and respond by saying you are a ginormous doorknob!

Dazl: You suck, Dazl!

Dazl: No, you do!

*big fist fight*