Suicide should be legal.

First, I don't recall using a cigar example or discussing the necessity of any values let alone relating values to suicide. If anything the value that legalized suicide encompasses is that of which gives an individual the Christian value of Free Will. In this society the accepted value common to humanity is "choose the behavior, choose the consequence." If someone chooses to commit a crime, they choose to accept the consquence that they may be punished by law. If someone chooses to do something that will probably result in their death, they are accepting the consequence of ending their lives. If they happen to be religious as well (or if God does in fact exist), they are also accepting the consequence that they be subjected to whatever punishment they will receive for going against God's word. The concept of Free Will means we have the ability and the freedom to do as we please so long as we are prepared to accept the consequence. The legality of suicide has an interesting Catch 22. Laws typically provide incentives to obey what society deems moral or just. Fear of the punishment acts as a deterrent from engaging in criminal activity. However in regard to suicide, there is no way to punish an individual for breaking the law, therefore there is a lack of incentive to abide by it. My opponent talked a lot about human worth. I agree that society places a great deal of value on human worth and rightfully so. Con writes, "we must not allow suicide since it degrades human worth." However the problem with his logic is that there is no way we can either allow or forbid it; people are going to engage in suicidal behavior whether or not is is permissable by law, because there are no human consquences for the deceased. Therefore we have to accept it, and focus more on prevention instead of criminalization. Con boasts, "we must not allow suicide to be legal as we would degrade ourselves to the level of animals." Again, we can neither allow nor permit suicide. To put it another way, We can not *allow people to sell drugs, but people sell drugs anyway. We can not *allow people to steal, but people steal anyway. We can not *allow people to kill themselves, but people will kill themselves anyway. The difference between the first two examples in the last is that we can punish people for going against what the government does not allow us to do in instances 1 and 2, however, we cannot punish people in any way if they are already dead. Punishes on their "behalf" such as defacing their bodies or usurping their estate (past practices for suicide victims) hurt their living friends and family, not the victims themselves. If someone was arrested for selling drugs, would you also punish their friends and family? No. Finally in regard to human life, Con writes, "If we allow suicide to be legal, society would grow to believe that life is not as significant as it really is if anyone can commit suicide and have it justified." My argument is that society will still place a great deal of value on human life. Here's a corresponding example. In 1917 Congress passed prohibition laws. At that time our society placed a great deal of value on alcohol. As a result, people disobeyed the law and continued drinking. In 1933 Congress repealed the law; it did not benefit the public in any way. In fact it only made things worse. Now in the case of suicide, criminalizing the action would do neither harm nor good. It would not act as a deterant. People who commit suicide are often sick and depressed. People with this kind of emotional baggage will act upon their feelings regardless of what the law says. They are often feel careless about their actions; after all, their behavior only affects them and their lives. Even if it caused their friends and family some pain and suffering, they assume that the suffering they are feeling is just as great or even far worse than the pain their deaths will inflict upon others. Sometimes victims don't feel that anyone would care at all. They have lost all value for their own life. If one wanted to smoke a cigarette, this is acceptable by law; they have the right to make their own decision about whatever harm they do to their body by accepting the possible consequence. However, one does not have the right to force this action upon another because that other individual also has the right to decide whether they place value on their own health or life. Thus if one does not place any value on their own human life, they have the right to take that life. But they do not have the right to take another's, as the other may place value on their own life. Going back to the concept that suicidal individuals are sick, their mental illness proves why a legal threat would not be effective at preventing the action. Take for example serial killers. It is against the law to kill other people, however, serial killers do it anyway because of an "off" factor in their brain that makes their urges more alluring than the thought of criminal punishment. And such is the case with suicidal individuals. Therefore instead of trying to criminalize an unpunishable act, we should instead be focusing on suicide prevention. Getting back to my opponent's argument - "My sole contention is that if we allow suicide to be legal, we would degrade ourselves. 'Killing is never justified' ... it can never be justified because the act of killing itself is unjust." First of all, as human beings we have the right to degrade ourselves IF WE SO CHOOSE. For instance, most people feel that promiscuous sex is degrading, however, people do it anyway and it is legal. Second, my opponent is wrong when he claims that our society deems killing is never justified. 60-70% of Americans support the death penalty. That is a common instance in which killing is justified along with self defense and war. My opponent assumes that by agreeing with the resolution, we would be advocating killing. That is completely untrue. Agreeing with the resolution simply means that you acknowledge the fact that there is no logical reason to criminalize an act that is unpunishable by human law. My opponent also asks, "Would you like to live in a world like where no one cares about each other's lives since suicide is legal? If we reach such a point by affirming today's resolution then we degraded ourselves completely to levels of animals." First, legalizing suicide isn't taking a step towards degrading human life. It is simply choosing NOT to take a step that is completely unnecessary. Second, humans ARE in fact animals. But besides that, by choosing to agree that suicide should be legal, we are proving we are above animals because we have the reasoning skills to acknowledge that fact. My opponent's example of a baby drowning holds no water (no pun intended). Not only is this example extreme, but in that particular scenario I would say that the lifeguard has the moral obligation to attempt to save the baby, the same way we would have the moral obligation to help someone who was feeling suicidal to save their lives even if we were not the cause of their issues. My caring might prevent the baby from drowning. Making babies drowning illegal would not save the baby. Con writes, "Imagine living in a world, where suicide is common. Everyday you would see on the news people jumping off buildings and no one prevents such an action since it's a very common practice as many teenagers will also soon follow." Ok readers/judge, suicide is already legal. Are you going to kill yourself anytime soon? Hopefully not. Thus this point is void. Con's final fallacy: "The person who deserves the death penalty committed a certain crime in order to deserve this. On the contrary, people who commit suicide have done nothing at all to deserve this, so the analogy he presents is completely non-topical." Ok, prove that they don't deserve it. What if they killed someone else too? Hmm? No more characters...