Euthanasia

Discuss and vote on debates.
Forum rules
Debate participants, please wait until your debate is over before engaging in discussion about your debate.

Re: Euthanasia

Postby Tab » Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:11 pm

Thanks for the time you put into that Pav, you're a gentleman and a scholar.
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Euthanasia

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:36 am

You're welcome, Tab, and thank you for the compliment.

I didn't outwardly intend for the scores to be so close. I often question a scoring system that results in such close scores to the extent that I consider it to be somewhat results-driven. I don't mean results-driven in the sense that the person has pre-planned a particular winner, but results-driven in the sense that a winner having been (legitimately) determined, the losing party's score is artificially propped up to make the Debate appear to be closer than it was.

I assure both of you that was not the case in this Debate. In fact, after doing my re-read I then had the Debate minimized in another window and was referring to the posts (and arguments) in the order in which they happened. I'll admit that the amounts of my deductions were wholly arbitrary and not based on any kind of a formalized system, but at the same time, I was not keeping a running tally (or even keeping total amounts deducted) as I went through my judgment. In fact, I didn't total the deductions until the end, and prior to said totalling, I thought that I actually had Cheegster as the winner.

That does not mean his argument was more compelling, however. I determined prior to making the totals that I found neither argument more compelling than the other; I suppose there were just too many missed opportunities that, if taken, would have resulted in a clear winner. Of course, had each of you seized upon every available opportunity, I guess the Debate would have still been a split.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Euthanasia

Postby Calrid » Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:44 am

Hmmm I'm kinda torn here, being as I believe that we should kill all humans, but can see a very valid need to exercise caution on the issue and implementation of what gives someone a right they already have, but cannot or are not allowed to exercise.

Nope I'm going to go with the kill all humans philosophy, much simpler. :)
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Euthanasia

Postby cheegster » Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:30 am

Aaah an excellent lenghty analysis Pav, much obliged.

I'll just pick up on a couple of things which I thought weren't caught though. Firstly -

PavlovianModel146 wrote: In relation to greed taking over and someone offing a relative for financial gain, the thrust of Cheegster's initial argument is, "But just because somebody may have this urge in order to cash in on said relative’s savings, it doesn’t mean it will always happen." That's basically the same thing as me stating that it's fine to jump off a building, because a person jumping off of a building isn't going to die every time.


cheegster wrote:But just because somebody may have this urge in order to cash in on said relative’s savings, it doesn’t mean it will always happen. The small majority that would actually act on this urge thankfully can’t euthanize people willy-nilly. Simple procedures like standing before a judge (or at least some expert) could ratify this potentially unpleasant behaviour. Your acts would have to be justified in some way.


I did indeed say that 'it doesn't mean it will always happen'. But then I said 'small majority of people...' - to mean that it wouldn't happen all the time (as Tab was arguing), but that only a small amount of people would consider it, and EVEN THOSE would not be able to get through the filter, that filter being this.

Also your side note about the doctors note as well as an attorney is what I had in mind from the start, but I just searched the debate and aparrently I didn't mention the word 'doctor' once! No idea how I missed it, genuinely thought I put it in there somewhere. Oh well.
Image
I have a Philosophy Youtube channel, 'Philosophy On Ice' --> https://t.co/ia1RjkzuHc
User avatar
cheegster
Thinker
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Kent, England

Re: Euthanasia

Postby cheegster » Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:31 am

Calrid wrote:Hmmm I'm kinda torn here, being as I believe that we should kill all humans, but can see a very valid need to exercise caution on the issue and implementation of what gives someone a right they already have, but cannot or are not allowed to exercise.

Nope I'm going to go with the kill all humans philosophy, much simpler. :)


I'll happily take that as a vote for myself, as long as you read the debate...

*EDIT- That's 'read' in the past tense. You can read that as read as opposed to read. Just read.
Image
I have a Philosophy Youtube channel, 'Philosophy On Ice' --> https://t.co/ia1RjkzuHc
User avatar
cheegster
Thinker
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Kent, England

Re: Euthanasia

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:11 am

cheegster wrote:Aaah an excellent lenghty analysis Pav, much obliged.


No need to be obliged, it was fun.

I did indeed say that 'it doesn't mean it will always happen'. But then I said 'small majority of people...' - to mean that it wouldn't happen all the time (as Tab was arguing), but that only a small amount of people would consider it, and EVEN THOSE would not be able to get through the filter, that filter being this.


I suppose I should address this by first pointing out that, "Small majority," is a contradiction. If not a direct contradiction, then it indicates (at the very least) that it will happen more often than it doesn't happen. I apologize, but it was just poor word choice, in my opinion. You could have said, "Small percentage of people," "Small amount of people," or anything like that. I knew what you meant, of course, but in terms of judging a Debate, I have to read what's there.

Also your side note about the doctors note as well as an attorney is what I had in mind from the start, but I just searched the debate and aparrently I didn't mention the word 'doctor' once! No idea how I missed it, genuinely thought I put it in there somewhere. Oh well.


All other things being equal, you'd have won the Debate if the mention of either explicit power of attorney, or a note on the medical records had been made.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Euthanasia

Postby cheegster » Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:39 am

PavlovianModel146 wrote:I suppose I should address this by first pointing out that, "Small majority," is a contradiction. If not a direct contradiction, then it indicates (at the very least) that it will happen more often than it doesn't happen. I apologize, but it was just poor word choice, in my opinion. You could have said, "Small percentage of people," "Small amount of people," or anything like that. I knew what you meant, of course, but in terms of judging a Debate, I have to read what's there.


Whoooops! Yup, definite contradiction. A silly and small yet glaring mistake.
Image
I have a Philosophy Youtube channel, 'Philosophy On Ice' --> https://t.co/ia1RjkzuHc
User avatar
cheegster
Thinker
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Kent, England

Re: Euthanasia

Postby Calrid » Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:55 am

cheegster wrote:
Calrid wrote:Hmmm I'm kinda torn here, being as I believe that we should kill all humans, but can see a very valid need to exercise caution on the issue and implementation of what gives someone a right they already have, but cannot or are not allowed to exercise.

Nope I'm going to go with the kill all humans philosophy, much simpler. :)


I'll happily take that as a vote for myself, as long as you read the debate...

*EDIT- That's 'read' in the past tense. You can read that as read as opposed to read. Just read.


I did already, well most of it. Not got the time atm, will read the rest later.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Euthanasia

Postby cheegster » Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:00 am

I think we should set a final deadline for all formal votes...say 24 hours?

Again, with Tab's agreement.
Image
I have a Philosophy Youtube channel, 'Philosophy On Ice' --> https://t.co/ia1RjkzuHc
User avatar
cheegster
Thinker
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Kent, England

Re: Euthanasia

Postby Tab » Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:45 pm

Image
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Previous

Return to Discussion



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users