Suicide is sometimes justified
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 23 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 4,096
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,500
Suicide: The deliberate self-inflicted ending of one's own life. Can include indirect means, as long as it is primarily intended to end one's own life above all else except fundamental ethical/axiological goals.
Justified: Objectively ethically and/or axiologically warranted. Objectively preferable (or at least equal to alternative(s)) given what is objectively ethical/unethical and/or valuable/"unvaluable".
-----
Note: Con automatically loses the debate if they purposefully copy the arguments I use in my other suicide debate.
Given that Con implied (in the comments) that they will take a Christian angle to this debate, I will provide an argument against it.
And if [demonstrating that ought can be derived from is] is the only way I can win this debate, then I must either concede right now, or demonstrate how I can showcase "oughts" in a different way. And because no one has done the former yet, I am forced to do the latter.
But if these "oughts" don't really exist, how come we have adhered to them / always known we should adhere to them since the dawn of mankind?
Murder is wrong, theft is wrong, adultery is wrong. If these morals didn't exist, wouldn't we be like animals, hunting each other and working our way up the food chain? If there were no "oughts," we would just live by survival of the fittest. Where did these things come from if they are nothing more than human fabrications?
It is not the mental processes that determine your decisions, but rather, your decisions that determine the mental processes.
- Argue that the mechanism is made up of random and deterministic components.
- Argue that the mechanism is entirely deterministic.
- Argue against premise 3.
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture [...] - Voting Policy
A final round blitzkrieg… This is when someone (usually a contender) intentionally and repeatedly withholds their argument until the end to deny the other side any chance to counter them. As this is contextually not a natural part of the debate, it can be dismissed as such. … Not to be confused with the mere act of having a final round. - Voting Policy
Con left the debate
Con quit the debate.
Full forfeiture
Con missed the debate.
Almost a full forfeit
I can relate, no worries.
Crap I procrastinated too long.
I'm fine with that, I am an agnostic atheist (as in below 50% but above 0% confident in the existence of God, probably specifically somewhere around 1-5% confident).
If I entered this debate, it would end up being a debate about the existence of God, unless you're also a Christian.