Suicide with the Sole Purpose of Improving Personal Experience of Life Is, in Itself, Never Immoral

I will address my opponent's arguments as they appear, also keeping in mind the fact that my opponent had character limit difficulties. I also had problems with the character limit and could not touch on the actual subject of suicide, for my characters were spent responding to my opponent's arguments."Now, the origin of all matter is said to be a result of the Big Bang in which the abrupt appearance of condensed matter in the universe resulted in heat and energy."-This theory, according to the law of conservation of energy, is implausible. There must have been something there previously. Nothing in this world of matter appears abruptly. I say if my opponent cannot provide an explanation to as what happened before the big bang and the singularity, I demand that it be acknowledged that there is a hole in my opponent's logic/beliefs."...because of the nature of space and gravity, drifted outwards and formed cosmological bodies in various directions."-This is a somewhat contradictory statement. If the nature of gravity is involved how can the universe be ever-expanding? Why does it not contract?"...that my stating that life has never had purpose violates evolution, I respond simply by saying it does not. I believe evolution occurs because DNA changes."-I again assert my previous point. Nothing naturally happens without one thing or another being benefited. There must be a purpose to human, beings whether you see it as an earthly purpose or a spiritual purpose is a different question. I again challenge my opponent to provide a series of things and I should be able to explain it's purpose. "Why" does not and, in my opinion, should not override "how".-Sure why does not override how but it is and should be just as important a question."No purpose is involved whatsoever, just a series of natural processes. That is a possibility. I ask that that be acknowledged"-I will acknowledge this as an argument and nothing more. My convictions warn me against acknowledgements of such points. Not only that this assertion is based an assumption."This would not mean that life is a â€œwasteâ€ï¿½; it just means that life has no universal purpose that would define moral value."-Universal purpose does not necessarily define moral value. Also if this is your belief then you come to the question of sentience. If we have no universal purpose why is it that humans are sentient, or that we are significantly more intelligent than the next animal?"Now about the definition of a person: a human and a person are not necessarily synonymous. The definition of a person is provided in the first post"-The definition of a person provided by my opponent is frankly not correct. If one looks at my opponent's definition: "A person is any individual being that is subject to experience and that may be happy and sad" and then looks at the definition in multiple, prestigious and credible dictionaries, they will see that my opponent has changed the meaning to a degree. The basic definition of a person is: a human being regarded as an individual. I once again reassert the point that a person is a human being and only that. Animals, especially those not in captivity, aren't subject to meaningful experiences."We all die and when we do, no matter when or how, we will be dead in the same way."-I agree with this point to a certain extent. I do not believe though, that we will all be dead in the same way. I will not go into the specifics of it though. "Imagine a person who, for whatever reason, does not want to live."-The only situation in which I would agree with "suicide" is in the case of euthanasia. It is also not the case that he was not "asked", he even requested to live consciously but once again I will not go into specifics."The opposition also asked that I attend to the matter of how death could improve experience. A simple situation would be being guaranteed that living hereafter would result in being tortured for the rest of one's life"-This situation is quite implausible. Nowadays people commit suicide for the smallest of things. I find it quite ridiculous that just because someone calls you a mean name over and over again or you failed a test, that one has the right to consider suicide. My convictions say that this person was meant to experience this torture and should expect to experience the same, if not worse treatment after death. One also, according to the opposition's apparent beliefs, would cease to exist completely after death. The question asked has not been completely answered. One's experience cannot be improved if it is ceased. This is similar to saying, in my opinion, I'm going to improve an amusement park by shutting it down."I would say there is none. We have innate drives and urges, such as to eat and reproduce, and we follow these impulses, thus driving life forward. Why do we do this? Because we want to, that's why. It's by design."-My opponent says that it is by design. If it's by design, then who's design is it? And why are we designed to do anything in the first place if you say we have no universal purpose."I want to sigh in relief as the fingers of a god, angel, or my own mind carry me off to that infinite place from which I once came so long ago"-I again need this to be clarified. What is this "infinite place" you speak of? And I also do not understand the the first portion of the sentence."The Con party's arguments are not supposed to be limited to totally proven and existing scenarios, but hypothetical ones as well. Since the opponent has so far avoided scenarios overall and seems to prefer a more absolute stance, this is largely irrelevant and does not apply."-Scenarios are completely useless. I'm not here to play a game of "What if?" My opponent also said in the first few rounds that this was supposed to consider suicide and suicide only. If this is so then why would there be a need for scenarios in the first place? I also find that arguments based on scenarios and assumptions are weak at best and one could easily disgruntle an opponent that has based there argument on assumptions. I also request that my opponent explain how relying on facts or a more absolute stance is irrelevant. I also ask my opponent, aren't one's beliefs/convictions supposed to be based on facts? For some they may not be based on facts, if this is the case these people are fooling themselves.