Opening event
Loading the latest details…
Oregon has allowed assisted dying since 1997; ten US states and Canada now permit it. Belgium extends eligibility to non-terminal conditions. Does a safeguarded system protect the suffering — or put the vulnerable at risk? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Tuesday, September 29, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
What's at stake
Either physicians can participate in death at a patient's explicit request, or they are required to refuse it. The answer restructures the most intimate moment in medicine.
The Matchup
Debater: To be announced
Debater: To be announced
Join the debate
Record a 60-second video on either side, or make it in writing. The strongest cases get featured before the live debate.
“Oregon has had physician-assisted death since 1997. Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands have broader euthanasia laws. In every jurisdiction, the predicted abuses haven't materialized on the scale critics predicted, and many who obtain the legal option never use it but report significant relief from having it. The empirical record does not support the slippery slope argument.”
“Autonomy is the bedrock of medical ethics. We allow patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment, including ventilators and feeding tubes, even when death is the certain result. The right to choose death with dignity is a logical extension of the same principle already operative in standard medical practice.”
“The Dutch experience shows what mission creep looks like in practice. Euthanasia that began for terminal physical illness has expanded to psychiatric conditions including depression and to elderly people who describe themselves as simply 'tired of life'. The slope is documented, not hypothetical, and the expansion occurred through incremental legal and clinical reinterpretation.”
“Healthcare rationing creates implicit pressure on vulnerable patients. In systems with finite resources, a cheap death can become more available than expensive care, and vulnerable people may feel pressured to choose it to avoid being a burden on their families or the system. The choice is not made in a vacuum; it is made under financial and social pressures.”
The Format
Standard SuperDebate: two people, cross-examination, moderated from start to finish.
4 min · PRO · opening case
4 min · CON questions PRO
4 min · CON · opening case
4 min · PRO questions CON
3 min · PRO
3 min · CON
3 min · PRO · final case
3 min · CON · final case
— · You pick the winner
Don't miss it
The debate happens live with real-time audience voting. Get one email right before we go live, with the watch link.
Premieres
Tuesday, September 29, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.
Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.
Humanity uses 1.7 Earths yearly. Degrowth economists say rich nations must shrink; others say technology can decouple growth from harm. Can the planet survive endless growth — or is degrowth a recipe for poverty? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Aging kills 100,000 people every day — more than cancer and war combined. Google's Calico has invested billions in life-extension research. Should we treat aging as a disease — or accept it as part of a meaningful life? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
The US has spent over $1 trillion on the drug war since 1971 — overdoses still hit 107,000 in 2023. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and saw deaths plummet. Does legalization fix it — or abandon the most vulnerable? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
South Korea's birth rate hit 0.72 in 2023 — a record low. Japan and Hungary pay tens of thousands per child; birthrates keep falling. Is population collapse a civilizational crisis — or a feature of modernity and freedom? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.