Is self harm ok

Let's d-d-d-d-d-duel! Since my opponent made a very brief opening, I shall do the same for the sake of fairness. =========My Case======== Firstly, self-harming can be a net positive force in someone's life. It can act as a coping mechanism, that, in turn, helps the person psychologically. Many people, who have self-harmed, can vouch that self-harming makes them feel good. It distracts them from the psychological pain that they already suffer. It makes them feel good, and who are we to take that away from them? Let them channel their pain into something that is overall beneficial to their psyche. Additionally, it should be one's choice to have the right to do what they want with their own body. If, hypothetically, someone took away a knife that I CHOSE to SELF-harm MYSELF, that would anger me. That is clearly a violation of human rights. Self-harming has the word 'self' in it for a reason. "The definition of self is the following: a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action." [1]. This would mean that self-harm would not harm others. Since there is no infringement on the rights of others, it should be their choice to harm themselves. To tell someone that such a thing is wrong is violating their freedom. Furthermore, self-harming can achieve happiness that one would otherwise not be able to obtain without self-harming [2]. It is both immoral as well as against what the Declaration of Independence. As the DoI so eloquently states, we have the right to: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [3]. <---- If self-harming is not okay, then we are not allowing the self-harming people to pursue their happiness, which is not only contradicting the declaration of one of the most prominent countries in the world, but is also wrong on many moral levels. ========To summarize my contentions: ======== I. It is overall beneficial to psychologically disturbed individuals. By my opponents introduction, they are, for some reason, against psychologically disturbed people committing an act that helps them live without feeling bitter. It is a helpful way to feel better. Taking that away from them is very wrong. II. It is a *HUGE* violation human rights to not allow them to engage in victimless self-harming where it bears no effect on others. My opponent is against people being able to make their own decisions. III. We, as people, have the right to pursue happiness, and self-harming, in some cases, leads to happiness. My opponent is unfortunately against that. ========Rebutting my Opponent's Case======== My opponent's sole argument revolves around the fact that the individual could hurt or kill themselves. However, this argument is largely refuted above. It is their choice, so why prevent a victimless crime? Also, they will likely die happy. Con, why are you so against happiness? It is clearly better to die happy than live miserably. Second, even in the case that my opponent is right (I'm talking hypothetically) then them harming themselves and getting very hurt, then getting to the hospital would likely lead them to a psychologist after healing. This is a very positive thing, as they would then learn other coping strategies with their psychologist. I thank Con for the debate. If he wishes for me to go more into depth in the next round, I will be happy to do so. However, this is the summary of my thoughts on the issue. I would like to note I am playing Devil's advocate for fun, but that doesn't make my arguments any less viable. =======Sources======= [1]: https://www.google.com... [2]: http://psychcentral.com... [3]:http://www.ushistory.org... (near the beginning of the second paragraph).