Tab and I have agreed broadly a debate subject; here goes. This proposal is all subject to Tabs concurrence, of course.

I would be arguing for all acts of euthanasia, Tab would be arguing against all acts of euthanasia. Very simply differentiated.

I would imagine that the radical sides of each point of view wouldn’t pick up too many points for either debator, but the middle ground is mainly where points are up for grabs. Unless Tab you object to this and would rather leave the radical sides alone completely.

Any other comments/fundamental things I have missed out - I am all ears.

all acts of euthanasia that have occurred, or that are possible to occur?

That could occur. It would be a close interlink between ethical theory and ethical practice.

Euthanasia refers to the practice of ending a life in a manner which relieves pain and suffering. – Wikipedia

So if you’re talking about all instances that COULD occur, you are essentially justifying the killing of every single person on the planet, no?
Obviously everyone has pain and suffering, and if euthanasia relieves that, and euthanasia is justified…well…

I knew there was one thing I forgot - the actual working definition of euthanasia. Here’s what I considered when I looked it up; definition -

/ˌyuθəˈneɪʒə, -ʒiə, -ziə/ Show Spelled[yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh] Show IPA
Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme Medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition.
painless death.

I did toy with the idea of eradicating involuntary euthanasia entirely from the debate, but then thought it might take the fun away from the debate. It would have to be substantial suffering. Possibly defined as to be better off dead than alive in that condition.

I know that that too is subjective but it may be worth settling on for the sake of the debate.

I’ll see what Tab wants to do too.

Hokaaay. I’m happy with:

Though it goes against my bloodthirsty nature, I susupect it will do me some moral good to play the angel for once.

My only condition is that Cheegster go first, to give me something to react against rather than just my baldly beginning “Yea, well, it’s like wrong to off old people innit…?”

Game on. I presume we’re doing the usual three-post apiece fandango…?

Certainly. I’m good with three posts a piece too. I’ll mail one of the Mods when I want to crack on with it. Can we start it perhaps on wednesday though? I have a couple of really important things I need to do in my non cyber life before I get involved in the debate. Plus it’ll give you a couple days to think of anything you might want to say.

And you’ll need those couple of days. ‘Cause I’mma kick yo’ ayuss.

Sure, wednesday/thursday, whenever you’ve got time.