Suicide should be legal.

Ok,this will be my final speech as I will clarify several importances in today's round that shows why I am winning. In my opponent's last speech I found this really important piece of evidence she presents that shows it really clear who is winning. Basically,my opponent's most important piece of argument against my case is that my analogies do not apply due to the fact suicide does not infringe rights upon others as my analogies point out. This is where I win the round as my opponent completely contradicts herself in this statement, "how can you prove that a person who has committed suicide did not commit a heinous crime including murder? Maybe they did and people just didn't know about it." Her argument against my case is suicide is justified because it does not infringe rights upon others or violate them in simpler terms. Obviously, this is not true since we must buy our opponent's logic that we never know that the person who commits suicide was not involve with a heinous crime including murder? From all these reasons, you must already vote for me since I have just disapproved my opponent's main piece of argument that helps her to win. I have showed you that suicide must infringe or violate others rights. Therefore, all my analogies regarding about people who suicide won't be justify since what if they accept the consequences of killing 100 Jews, would that be justified? You can extend those arguments. Even if you didn't buy my previous arguments, lets move on to my second argument into today's round which my opponent completely drops. It was such an obvious drop that my opponent probably didn't know how to respond to it since it was true. You might not buy all my arguments, but I told you in my previous speech if you allow suicide to be legal then people lose all their moral obligation and human worth for humans. This was left unanswered on her third speech. This is an important argument as I'm about to show you how it links back to the value I place in this round. The moment suicide is legal; any human being won't have an obligation to save anyone that is about to suicide since it won't be considered a crime if we watch them to die. The impact for this argument is that if we allow such actions to happen then we degrade ourselves to not respect human worth since it would be justified to watch humans die. Next,let's move back to the value of free will. I would first like to address several issues with her case. Her case is basically reworded over and over again that suicide should be legal since it does not violate other's rights. So if I am able to prove that it does cause trouble and violates right, then I should win today's round. First, Suicide causes economic impact for the society. According to The Cost of Suicide Mortality in New Brunswick, 1996 (1996). Retrieved on 2007-04-13., Deaths and injuries from suicidal behavior represent $25 BILLION EACH YEAR in direct costs, including health care services, funeral services, autopsies and investigations, and indirect costs like lost productivity. From this analysis, you can already vote for me in today's round as I have disapproved my opponent's whole case. I have given you solid evidence which is reliable, where as you are listening to my opponent's speech that is written fancy yet flawed. Lastly,I have just provided you the most important analysis in to disapprove my opponent's whole case which also disapproves her value in freewill. Sure, you can buy my opponent's value of freewill should be considered in the resolution of suicide should be legal. The most important factor you missed out after the analysis I pointed out is that suicide is really not freewill since it violates other rights and causes such a huge economic impact. Judges, is this freewill really justified if it's going to cause all these problems which the Affirmative fails to prove out? Therefore, before you can't buy her value freewill which is not justified at all. You must look toward my value of respecting human worth in order to make a justified case such as mine. As a result, I have countered his impact on the relevance of her value where as my 3 justifications are still left unanswered. You can extend those to show why my value is important and still stands in today's round. At this point, it's really clear I have won today's round, but since I have extra character limit I shall point out other minor flaws in my opponent's case. "Next, Con implied that I do not believe society should implement laws to protect its citizens. He writes, "This is completely flawed, just because we know the chances of an action will happen even if we enforced a law to stop it. Doesn't mean we should stop trying. For example, we know murders will kill people eventually or somehow even if a law prohibits it. This doesn't make it justify for us to just let the murder to kill people and accept it under your own logic." ---- As usual, Con has completely misinterpreted my logic and presented it in a way that is favorable to his position. However I'm sure the Judge can see right through this." The ending arguments she makes against my case. This would have been true before you read my last speech, but I have showed you that her logic is flawed since suicide is not justify due to the fact it violates rights and it is not a form to freewill. Therefore, my analogy still stands and she also fails to address why my argument is flaw. She just says several words that the judge should see through this and expects you to vote for her. This is completely ridiculous; don't let her get pass with such a weak supported argument. There is no evidence, warrant or impact why you should believe her at all. Thus, my case stills stands as I Will quote my opponent "I'm sure the Judge can see right through this." Finally, her last argument is that laws are supposed to deter crimes, but suicide being legal does not deter crimes. "Like I said, there is no way to implement punishment on a person who is already dead. Defacing their body, taking their property, or tarnishing their reputation only hurts those who are already living (their friends and family). Thus laws against killing people do work and deter the action because people will know that as a consequence they will suffer severe penalties such as long jail time or possibly even death." There are 3 flaws in this sentence, first, she talks about how if we deface or hurt the reputation of a dead person is useless. Obviously, this is false since the purpose of a justice system is to render each their due no matter they are dead or not. Second, she talks about how it doesn't deter crime since the person is dead. Once again, she misses out an important factor. What about the people who are alive looking at the punishment and value they will deserve after you suicide? What if they don't want to die in shame? Wouldn't this serve as a deterrent effect? Lastly, from all these reasons my arguments outweigh the argument my opponent brings up since my arguments purpose is to serve justice where as hers is based on sympathy and emotions affected to a family. Note: "Suicide will exist regardless of laws, and THAT'S why focus on prevention rather than criminalization is important." Murder or stealing will exist regardless of laws, better yet any freaking action happens or exist regardless of law. We still focus on making laws and we do prevent them with laws since we deter people as I have showed you. So auto vote for negative right here since she agrees we need crime prevention and adding a law does do that. As a result, from all these reasons you must vote for the Negative or Con since I have disapproved my opponent's value of freewill which shows to be irrelevant. I also completely refuted my opponent's whole case and arguments against mine. Lastly, I provided you sufficient reasons why I am winning due to several drop arguments that my opponent left unanswered in today's round. Thus, I urge a negative ballot.