should bullies be convicted of manslaughter if bullying another kid and makeing him kill himself

I will first like to first highlight that my opponent has made a baseless and insulting claim that I should be convicted of manslaughter. He has not provided any evidence for this and I find it extremely offensive. Moving on to the rebuttal.Pro wishes to use emotive anecdotal evidence in order to convince voters that all bullies that have caused someone to kill themselves should be charged with manslaughter. Voters must not be persuaded by this isolated incidence. Yes, it's a bad thing that happened to Pro and I am sorry for your loss but that does not mean the person in question should be charged with manslaughter. I am not saying they aren't guilty, I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished, but Pro is stating that they should be punished to the extent of manslaughter. As bad as it may make me seem, I also question the legitimacy of Pro's anecdote - not that he is necessarily lying, but his judgement of facts may be clouded by his sadness. In summary, my opponent has used a metaphor and an anecdote to try and convince voters that bullies that cause deaths should be charged with manslaughter. I will now move to my argument, as my opponent's is relatively short. I will construct several arguments that will stand on their own, if even one of them isn't struck down convincingly by my opponent, the resolution must be negated.Definition (This is an argument)Suicide: The action of killing oneself intentionallyThe victim chose to commit the action themselves, unless they were mentally unstable, which would not be the fault of the bully. Sure, bullies may be a factor in the suicide victim's decision, but that's what it ultimately comes down to, a decision. It can be paralleled to the argument that rape victims are 'asking for it' because they dressed like a slut. No, the key is who made the decision. In the first instance, the suicide victim, in the second, the rapist. Age of criminal responsibilityChildren under 10There is no use arguing whether children under the law should or should not be found guilty, they simply can't. There are numerous reasons to this - the main one being mens rea. They cannot fully evaluate their decisions and differentiate between right and wrong. Punishing children less than 10 may also be considered cruel treatment; a much better approach would be rehabilitation, and any criminal penalty imposed may impede their whole future. Furthermore, Pro is suggesting the penalty of manslaughter which is punishable by up to 25 years in prison. That means they will spend the whole of their teenage and early adult life in prison, what kind of person do you think they will become? The main objective of the legal system is rehabilitation, putting someone in jail is the last resort. Bullies are victims tooYes Pro, I would like you to read that line again. And again. Let it sink into you. People don't grow up aspiring to be bullies. They are the victims of their circumstances. They are just little children (in your case) or teens dealing with the pressures of puberty. In a study by The Institute of Education at London shows that "The majority (74%) of bullies were found to be boys, who suffered the highest levels of depression, anger, paranoia, emotional disaffection and suicidal behaviour, and disliked school the most." [1] Can victims really get better and integrate back into society successfully after spending a quarter or more of their lives in jail? These are three three arguments I pose to my opponent, and do not feel the need to present any more until all three points are rebuffed. [1] http://www.theguardian.com...;