So, apparently, We have this group debate on Saturday.
I need all the arguments I need to win this one. I'm the Deputy/Assistant Leader of Opposition. My role is to rebut(contradict) the Deputy Prime Minister.
Our topic is...ugh. Euthanasia a.k.a Mercy Killing.
I'm on the negative side (I was appointed to. But I'm really a pro on this issue)
This is my argument: (Please help me! I really want to beat those groupmates of mine who didn't listen to me when I asked them to put in a side where I can truly defend)
"Everyone has the right to life. Even though the chance of surviving a chronic/terminal illness are very slim. We cannot always resort to killing just to free one from misery and pain. Killing remains killing. The definition remains the same.
Euthanasia is considered morally and ethical wrong.. Because a person's death cannot be decided by any man. And the assurance of euthanasia succeeding with the patient's consent is not even absolutely true. Some of these acts are done by the doctor's influence. Instead of instantly killing someone which can still give an impact to the people around the sick person. We should just the double the care to make the remaining days of "living" of someone worth "living".
Is that okay? Please validate my argument. I really need all the help I can get before Saturday! :3 I'll appreciate everyone's effort. Feel to criticize my work my argument so that I can construct another one that is better.
I'll also appreciate some ideas that can make my argument so great that the PRO people will find difficulty to rebut it.
Please Pretty Please! )