Resolved: Self-harm (including suicide) is morally permissible.

I'll ask my opponent to please hold off on arguing until late Saturday as I will be gone for most of the weekend due to a drill competition and will be away from a computer. Please and thank you. Contention 1: Suicide is contary to natural self love, whose aim is to preserve us. Here we can apply the theory of Social Darwinism and see that it's the survial of the fittest. The strongest will survie why the weak were meant to die. I know this sounds bad, but we can see if a human being is unfit to deal with the real world and surive on their own they deserve to die. (http://www.allaboutscience.org...) It's like Panda Bears. They kill their own kids by suffocating them by rolling ontop of them. It's apparent that those pandas are going to die, because they are not fit to survive in the World and hence should be around due to Social Darwinism. We can cross apply this here and we can see that those who comit suicide are weak minded in this case and are killing themselves under whatever situation and like the panda they shouldn't be here. Yes I know that sounds harsh, but it's simply true in this case. When apply evolution. Against Kant I counter offer my materialists theory of that the mind is the center and the rest of our body is only merely accessories to it. Hence you have people without limbs and such. The mind will still be intact even after the person's death as they would just ascend to a higher plane. When it comes to self harm we can see that it would not cause any harm here as they are only vandalizing themselves. Contention 2: Suicide Injures the community of which an individual is a part of. Here I cross apply arguments from my contention two. They showed that even though what my opponent had said is parially true these people can harm the society and other times there are people who end up killing themselves to save other people. By doing this they have saved a great ordeal of people and because of that they have fulfilled the utlitarian argument that my opponent brings up. We can also see that the social contract can go both ways too. As d'Holbach shows, if society fails to meet it's duty to the person then they have the right to terminate that contract. (d'Holbach, Baron, The System of Nature, or Laws of the Moral and Physical World, Volume 1, Robinson (trans.), New York: Burt Franklin, 1970) "mutual advantages between the contracting parties" Here we can see that if society doesn't provide the neciessary goods for a person to live thier life then the person does not have to be required to live to help society anymore. Though this will cause psycholocial issues as I showed in my first contention that no one should interfear in this as it is what makes that person the most happy that matters rather than what makes the person across the street happy. It shows that these are key freedoms that we have and can use. There shouldn't be a single soul that interfears as that would be morally wrong as you are interrupting a person's happiness. (Szasz, T., 2002, Fatal Freedom: The Ethics and Politics of Suicide, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.) Contention 3: Suicide violates our duty to God. My opponent doesn't go into depth here as he only merely states that if God doesn't like suicide then it's imorral. My opponent has nothing here to show that God disaproves of suicide and would like to hear my opponent go more in depth on it next round. With that I'll pass it back off to my opponent. I remind him again to please not post until Saturday. Thank you.