Bullies Should Not Be Charged In Connection To The Death of a Peer

CONCLUSION (1304 characters remaining).Con used the following dishonest tactics:1- Shifting the goalposts in the 3rd round to add special-pleading specifications.2- Completely ignoring the legal case of Dillon Gargett in an attempt to conceal the fact that his descriptions of "Assisted Suicide" were all falsified..3- Misrepresenting his only source in this debate by treating the header at the top as the definition, while ignoring the full definitions below.1- Assisted-suicide Charge of Dillon GargettIt is true that suicide is solitary in the sense that it is performed by one's own decision, but I explained how it is NOT "solitary" when an outside party can decide or partake in the planning or preparation of the act itself, and that's why Dillon Gargett was convicted of "Assisted Suicide."In other words, when someone knows Person X is going to commit suicide, provides him with the needed equipment and allows him to commit suicide without reporting it to the authorities or trying to stop him, then he is charged of Assisted suicide for his direct collaboration.1- Dillon provided Ben with equipment knowing Ben wanted to kill himself: 'The 17-year-old[Dillon] said yesterday he could "absolutely not understand" what was going through his mind when he provided equipment for Ben Dowdell[16 year-old] to kill himself at a park in the Christchurch suburb of Sydenham last September.'2- Dillon allowed Ben to kill himself: "As [Ben] killed himself, [Dillon] Gargett saw what was happening but made no attempt to help."And as a result, Dillon was convicted of Assisted Suicide by the High Court[Round 3 - Citation 2].Ben also had been bullied at school: 'Ben was a "great kid" but was also vulnerable and troubled. He had learning difficulties, was badly bullied at school and could not read social situations.'Now if Ben walked up to one of his bullies instead and got the same assistance. What difference would it make? The judges wouldn't say to the bully "You're not his friend, great you helped him kill himself." Anyone who intentionally, directly and considerably assists someone else in taking his own life would be criminally charged.Therefore, I've explained through an actual legal case how "Assisted Suicide" charges can also apply to bullies in exceptional cases, while Con failed to provide even one single case or shred of evidence that substantiates his objections.Hence, I satisfied my little share of the burden of proof.2- Semantics OR Standard DefinitionsIn order to understand the vague definition of "Bullying" first presented, I followed the standard definition followed by Supreme Courts, Journals(e.g The Examiner [Round 2 - Citation 4]) and presidential statements which classify some cases involving criminal behavior as cases of "bullying." I never played on semantics. I followed standard definitions because Con didn't originally include any exceptions or specifications for key-terms that could be understood in different ways.FinallyA- Suicide is a decision unilaterally made, but not necessarily unliterary executed, prepared or planned for, which is why people like Dillon Gargett were convicted of Assisted Suicide.B- Bullying which involves crime is defined as criminal on a legal standpoint. Con failed to provide the 'crime-free' specification in the opening statement for his usage of "bullying," when it is considerably non-obvious and important to the debate.Con failed in satisfying his burden of proof and disproving my negative case, while using all sorts of falsehoods and misrepresentations which show that he didn't research his topic well enough or set up the debate properly.I thank Con for starting this debateIt was at least interesting.