Claim: No one likes being told what to do, therefore, no person should be denied the fundamental right to die if they are terminally ill. Walk a mile in someone elses shoes. Would you want to live or die? Do you measure life by the time you spend on earth? Or the quality of a life in general?
Data: Human beings live life because its instinct, what else is there? When life gets to the point at which there is a limited amount of time left and there is no hope, then life, which is already limited, should not have to be prolonged.
Qualifier/Rebuttal: This should be limited to people with terminal illnesses, there can be no hope of living past the illness. I do not believe in suicide and there should be a big line drawn if a law were passed to give people this right. Some argue that life is a terminal illness, that we are all constantly getting closer to death. This is just someone wanting to object to death because of their own death complex, it makes no sense. Even if it did make sense, that should give the people that believe it more reason say yes to the right to die. I do not believe in suicide, which is what I consider this to be. So I will live life until God removes my soul from this vessel, however, I do not believe in trying to make this decision for someone else.
Life is a fundamental right, we protect it to the best of our ability. If some person is dying and in enough pain to want to die then they have the fundamental right to.
You’ve built a reasonable argument. But, here are a few questions about the individual pieces we were trying to identify in this exercise:
1) Data: The data must be a piece of evidence: a fact, an example, a statistic, expert or personal testimony. Your data is actually commentary–your opinions.
2) Warrant & Backing/b>: What part of your argument make up these pieces?