** VOTING TIME ** Debate Tournament- Tiebreakers ** VOTING TIME **

[USF Sam]

The tiebreaker debates for this round are completed. The winner of these debates moves on to join Zirc and Retro in the semi-finals.

The topics these 4 fearless disputants will be arguing is currently being decided here: http://offtopicz.net/showthread.php?t=71704


Here are links to the debate threads:

Red vs HK: http://offtopicz.net/showthread.php?t=71696
Butterfly vs Ed: http://offtopicz.net/showthread.php?t=71697

I will also be posting a threaded version of each debate in this thread, but since quotes were used and you can't quote a quote it would be advisable to read it directly from the thread.

All four of these posters have worked hard on this and it would be good if their efforts were rewarded by a large turnout in the voting.

Voting is done via PM to me. Include who you think won and YOUR REASONS. You can vote for both contests in one PM if you like.

VOTING ENDS NOON EST, MONDAY JANUARY 31.
​

 

[USF Sam]

RED vs HK
​

TOPIC: Birth Control in Schools

The root question to this debate is: "Should public schools be allowed to distribute condoms to high school students without parental consent?"

I do not believe that public schools should be allowed to distribute condoms to high school students without parental consent. As a parent, I find it impinging on my rights as a parent to teach my own children about premarital sex and its consequences.

I realize that even in this day and age, many parents never even discuss sex with their children. The reasons are many. Most are excuses to say the least.

The concerns are warranted for public schools to try to take this step. However, time and time again you'll find that even those parents who discussed sex and contraception with their children had children who had unprotected sex and either became pregnant or got an STD (sexually transmitted disease).

If public schools wanted to produce brochures in a class setting where condom use is discussed, I would have no problem with that. But distributing condoms is going a bit too far for this parent.

I can see why you might think this issue impinges on your rights as a parent to provide appropriate sex education for your child, I think that this view can be harmful if adopted for all children. You said it yourself, not all parents take the time to discuss sex with their kids, and even those who do often limit it to one conversation once their child hits puberty. Even if we can assume that some parents will make sure their kids are prepared for sexual activity, it would be a failure of the education system to act like this can be used to justify not providing support for all pupils regardless.

The main issue here is whether your child is allowed to gain access to contraceptives without you knowing about it. How many kids are happy to openly talk to their parents about sex? Most teenagers feel embarrassed at the idea of discussing sex with their parents. Not to mention that some parents would openly disapprove, which further limits the chances of their teen turning to them for advice - this is even more likely if the teen is below the age of consent.

The best place to make contraceptives available to them then is within school. If free condoms weren't provided on request, would kids start getting parental consent? Unlikely. More likely, they'd either have to try and find them elsewhere, most likely for a charge, and a percentage of those kids wouldn't bother, which then becomes a percentage that are more at risk for STD's and pregnancy. I'd far rather know that my teen could get hold of condoms easily if he/she needed them, than think they might have unprotected sex just because they were too embarrassed to ask me to sign a form for them.

I'm not asking that a school adopt my views on parenting skills when it comes to the education of my children relating to sex and condom use. I'm all for the school to provide an education relating to sex and condom use. I am saying I do not want condoms to be handed out to every student who asks without parental permission. Who knows the student best? The parents. The school offers some students a haven from their homes.... that I can understand. Unless the school actually sits down and discusses with the parents their values and thoughts on passing out condoms to their children.... and most importantly find out if the student is even capable of understanding the whole 'having sex' thing to begin with..... then I stand by my belief... that NO. No condoms handed out to students without parental permission. Period!

Too many variables as stated above.

I don't have the statistics handy on how many children actually discuss sex with their parents..... or don't. I noticed that you offered none, but said what you said anyway.

I'm all for providing sex education to children in school. You don't have to provide condoms to get points across. (Example: You can discuss someone who has died from a drug overdose and what they most likely went through without having actually experienced it.)

As for a child below the age of consent..... schools wouldn't dare hand out condoms to that group to begin with. The legalities would destroy them.

If the schools provided a well-rounded sex education program including contraceptive use and its benefits (preventing STDs, pregnancy), and the students intended on having sex.... I believe they will find a way to get the condoms. You don't give the students much credit here.

I have to disagree with this. Perhaps if we were talking about preteens, this would be true. But teenagers are developing their own independence away from their parents and their home life, and I would argue that especially in regards to sexual relationships, their parents are not the people who are likely to know every detail of their teens lives anymore.



I made that comment because I was a teenager once, as most people were, and I remember what it was like. I read a lot, and I've spent a lot of time on online forums talking to teenagers and young adults. But if you want some links to articles that support my assertion that teenagers are less than likely to discuss sex with their parents:

http://www.pamf.org/teen/parents/sex/sex.html

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1945759,00.html



It's not about not giving them credit, it's about recognising that they will have sex, regardless of whether their parents approve, and there's absolutely no reason to make it any harder for them to do it safely by banning schools from giving out condoms without a parental consent form.

The parents of all the teenagers involved can have whatever views they feel like. But if their teens are old enough to be having sex, then they're old enough to make their own decisions and have their own values about sex. If your parents don't believe in premarital sex but you don't share that attitude, why should you be denied free contraception because of your parent's values?

If you have the option, why not make it easier for teens to have safe sex? If it has the potential to decrease the rising numbers of STD's and teenage pregnancy in recent times, then I'm all for it.

When I asked the question 'Who knows the student best' and answered 'The parents'..... you took it out of context with your reply. I was referring to the school or the parents. Others should disregard your reply in that paragraph. You're arguing with yourself for sake of argument.

I was a teenager too and not all teenagers will feel as either of us might have about sex and condoms then. I'm not debating that parents aren't forthcoming in their discussions with their children about sex, etc. I've already stated that I'm all for schools educating the children.

We're debating giving out condoms at high schools.

.... and this part....where you said ...



.... did you even read what I wrote here....



We're practically on the same page and yet you debate what I've already basically agreed to. You've got to read all the words. Not pick and choose.

As for your argument.... that the teens are old enough to be having sex.... Age should never be the deciding factor. Maturity.... Knowledge. Those should always come first and foremost.

Are you aware that even though children know about STDs, AIDS, teenage pregnancy, and contraceptives.... many forgo using contraceptives anyway. So even if schools handed them out like candy.... the issues of STDs, pregnancy, etc., will continue. Read this link:

CLICK HERE

I responded to it because the issue is whether schools should be required to have parental consent to hand out condoms, and you're saying they should, which implies that the views of the parent and what they feel is best for the teen outweigh whether the teen themselves feels ready or not sex. So I do think it is relevant to say parents don't know their teens well enough to be making that decision for them, and if the school is willing to hand out condoms then I see no reason for parental involvement.

Yes, we both know teens will have sex whether their parents like it or not. The difference is, if we know that that's true, then why impede one option for contraception for them? Every little helps. Why stop at just giving them hypothetical advice on where to get contraception? School is the one place almost all teens will have to be for large portions of their lives, every day of every week, so it's the best place to make contraception available to them.

When I say they are old enough, I mean that they are of legal age depending on their country of origin, which is why I said they are old enough to be making their own decisions about their sex life without their parents.

I don't see any pro to banning schools from giving out condoms - your main argument seems to be that kids will get STD's and fall pregnant even when contraception is available, therefore there's no point even trying to begin with. Whereas I prefer to think that although it might not make a difference to every single teen out there, if it means even a minority using protection when they otherwise wouldn't have bothered, I'm for it.

 

[USF Sam]

BUTTERFLY vs ED
​

TOPIC: Euthanasia… Mercy or Murder?

The root question to this debate is: "Should euthanasia be legally permitted?"

I believe euthanasia should be legalised. Every person should have the right to end their life should they choose to do so.

Currently a mother have the right to terminate the life of her unborn child, but that same woman would not have the right to terminate her OWN life if she were to be terminally ill. The argument for abortion is that the mother has the right to decide what happens within her own body, where is that right when it comes to voluntary euthanasia?

Millions of people across the world make the decision to euthanize a suffering pet every year. Is the message that animals, who can not speak for themselves have the right not to suffer indefinitely, but a consenting human should suck it up and live with it for as long as the medical fraternity can possibly drag their miserable existence out for? Quality of life for animals, not for humans?

At what point do we draw the line of medical intervention and allow a person the right to go peacefully into the ever after by their own choosing? Is it fair to those suffering, and their loved ones to extend their lives merely so that they may suffer even more?

I’m afraid your reasoning is way off the mark. Firstly, the comparison with abortion is false: the mother is deciding not to end her own life, but the potential of life that she created that is not fully developed. Their right is to determine whether or not that life, not theirs, is permitted to come to fruition.

Your pet analogy too doesn’t apply here either. The pet isn’t deciding the end of it’s life, the human owner is. That’s not euthanasia. Euthanasia is a person deciding that they should die. And, in the same way that no one person decides on their own right to be born, no one has the right to decide when they die.

If euthanasia were legalised, the decision to end one’s life is being made in the hardest and most difficult of circumstances, when they’re not necessarily thinking rationally, and even worse, might well be susceptible to negative influences.

A patient being declared “terminally ill” might very well have several years of life left in them, pain or no pain. But in their fragile state, they could easily be convinced euthanasia is the best solution by people of influence over them: this could be in the form of a selfish family wanting their inheritance, a lazy doctor, or a hospital board wanting to save money and empty a bed. Their vulnerability leaves them open to abuse. And the end result of that isn’t pretty - it’s someone being killed.

A doctor’s remit is to save lives. This is a simple and incontestable goal which leaves little room for grey areas. Placing on them the responsibility to kill someone will be open up a veritable can of worms - a system that’s open to abuse, nigh on impossible to regulate and that has the most brutal of consequences.

Both my abortion and pet analogies point to one fact... that we are happy to allow people to make that choice for other lives, but they are not legally allowed to make a choice like that for THEMSELVES.

Yes, legalising euthanasia may open some people up to abuse by those who are greedy and unscrupulous. But is that reason enough to allow masses of people to suffer illnesses for which there are no current cures without the option of permanent relief? That is akin to saying that since some people drink and drive, we should just ban driving completely... problem solved.

Furthermore, while a patient may have "years left" and have less pain than someone else might do, no one but that single person will know what their quality of life is like. Yes, they may opt out sooner than someone else might, but that doesn't mean they have made the wrong choice for themselves. At the end of the day it should be a choice that is available to anyone who might want/need it.

Again, the abortion analogy is flawed: abortion is ending a potential life, a life not yet realised, not life itself. And that’s for another debate entirely. And the pet analogy too, very flawed: a pet is simply not capable of making that decision.

Your new analogy of drink driving is no better: firstly you’re working backwards there, assuming that euthanasia (driving) is already legal, which it isn’t. Secondly, you’re assuming euthanasia (driving) has a valid social function, which is under debate right now. And thirdly, because your idea, irrelevant of how bad it may be would actually solve the problem of drink driving completely.

Current medicine allows doctors to keep patients in relative comfort in all but a few medical conditions, the suffering you’re talking about is much more limited than you believe, and does not outweigh the potential abuse of a euthanasia system.

There are many more problems. It is widely understood that euthanasia will slow down medical progress in certain areas - there will be less incentive to produce methods of keeping those sick in comfort, or even curing their problems, when their lives can simply be ended. Why should an entire industry be threatened and cause the suffering of so many because a few people wish to die? By allowing euthanasia based on the supposed “rights” of a terminally ill person, the effect on society as a whole could be massive. I want medicine to advance in the care of the elderly, not be stunted because it’s better to terminate life than prolong it.

The current level of palliative care available around the world keeps this “suffering” to such a small number of people, as to be essentially unnecessary for the majority of the society.

Yet again you seem to be missing the point of the abortion and pet analogies. We can make the decision to end ANOTHER life, but we cannot make that same decision for OUR OWN life.

If, as you have said, only "a few people" opt for euthanasia, how would it slow down medical research if the majority choose not to? Yes, many elderly people may opt for euthanasia. Yes, it may slow down medical research in conditions affecting the elderly. But that said, are the elderly nothing more than medical guinea pigs then?

Furthermore, yes, there may be many opting available for pain control. However, pain or the absence thereof is not the only factor influencing one's quality of life. And the implication that if one isn't in pain, they aren't suffering is simply short sighted on your part. Suffering comes in many forms, and I believe many terminally ill patients would challenge you on the assertion that having pain controlled means they are no longer suffering.

My body, my choice.

Abortion is not ending a life. How can I make this anymore clear?? It’s ending a POTENTIAL life, NOT life itself. No one has the right to end a human life. A foetus in development is not a fully realised life, hence why abortion is legal. Your point with that analogy is completely false because you’re claiming it’s ending a life, when it isn’t. You cannot kill a baby once it is fully realised, born and in the world. If you could, your point would make sense.

The pet analogy too, a pet isn’t a human life, it’s incapable of making any decision regarding it’s own death, so it has no valid comparison with euthanasia whatsoever.

Both of your main arguing points are built on very faulty logic.



As I already explained, because it will become the cheaper option and by allowing the procedure there is a high chance it will become the default option, pushing many that either don’t need or don’t want to be euthanised into it. The “right” of the few will affect the lives of the many, and with the worst of possible consequences: unnecessary death.

You’re putting immense pressure on the vulnerable to make the most serious of decisions that no human should have to make for themselves.



You have just permitted all forms of suicide. Your reasoning is dangerous and highly short-sighted. By basing your argument on both of those statements, you’re allowing anyone that is “suffering” (something highly subjective and impossible to quantify) to end their own life. People that most likely are not capable of making that decision rationally. This is why suicide is illegal: how can someone not thinking rationally be allowed to make such a serious decision?

No one can decide their own birth, and no one has the right to decide their own death.

 

[USF Sam]

BUMP

So far, I've only received 3 votes in Butterfly vs Ed and 5 votes in Red vs HK.

Very disappointing turn-out....


Voting ends in 20 hours.

 

[USF Sam]

BUMP

Voting ends in 90 minutes

 

[USF Sam]

I have received 6 votes. Closing in 15 minutes.

 

[USF Sam]

The voting is closed... RESULTS will be up shortly.