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

"Suicide with the Sole Purpose of Improving Personal Experience of Life Is, in Itself, Never Immoral" Definitions of terminology as they apply to this debate: -"Suicide" - Deliberate termination of one's own capacity to experience life and maintain bodily functions to an extent such that ability to resume Earth-based, physical sentience is impossible by any known or presumed means recognized by the person. -"Sole Purpose" - A single intention attributed to one or more events. In the context of this debate, only personal purposes are recognized, that is, purposes that are attributed to events by the person committing suicide. -"Improving" - Effecting change upon something in a manner that is viewed by the subject as having a general, definite net benefit. Again, the improvement referred to in this debate is considered as such as it applies to the person, and not to society or anything else that value may be placed in (e.g. deities, nature, the universe). -"Personal Experience of Life" - One's conscious perception of Earth-based self-existence that may be enjoyable, savored, painful, and/or depressing, among other traits. Experience of life encompasses all sources of emotion and thought; ergo, an absence of experience in this context necessitates an absence of emotion and thought. Furthermore, the term "life" does not include hypothetical existence via afterlife. -"in Itself" - Without consideration of resulting external implications (e.g. An invalid argument would be 'A scenario in which suicide would only be achievable by suicide attack could be immoral because it is immoral to kill innocent people and the person's family would be shamed...'). -"Immoral" - Being 'bad' in that violation of one or more 'good' ethical principles is necessitated. Abovementioned ethical principles will be further outlined below and may undergo revisions at request if both parties agree. Rephrased Topic: Excluding effects on anything that is not the subject, it is never morally wrong to deliberately conclude one's own experience of life should doing so be purely intended to be a means of producing a positive personal experience. Model of Morality: -All life is equal even if the vessels in which it is experienced are not. A tree is just as alive as a human, despite being arguably inferior. -The value of one's person and life is greater than any other, but less than any two. A person should prioritize his or her life over any other single person. That said, the person is less significant than any two others, so two apples for any two other people is morally better than one apple for the subject. -Happiness is morally good and sadness is morally bad. Any other state that is not related to either happiness or sadness is morally neutral. -In most cases, the moral implications of sadness outweigh that of happiness. Largely, this is because sadness manifests itself as stress that has a lingering detrimental effect. -Potential happiness and sadness that may be achieved in life must hold moral value. -A person is any individual being that is subject to experience and that may be happy and sad. This includes, humans and most (if not all) non-human animals. -Action is not morally associated with the performer - however, intention is. A person who burns down a house while cooking dinner for a spouse and children is, based on this information alone, moral, but the actions performed have a detrimental effect on net moral value in the world. -Anything that may produce happiness or sadness may have an impact on net morality. A person is capable of producing much happiness as well as sadness; thus said person's existence may affect net morality. As a side note, I would like to mention that this is my first online debate and that I genuinely apologize if my formatting or writing is insufficient in any capacity. I would be grateful if anyone were to accept a position against the proposal signified by the topic, as well as if people could provide tips if I have or will make any errors in my debating, particularly in debating conventions. I don't expect to 'win' to any extent or by any means; rather, I want merely to debate, to learn something, and to bring ideas to the attention of others. Instructions to the Opposing Party: If you wish to make revisions to the above moral code, you may propose them in this round, then make your argument. If you do feel that such changes are necessary, you should formulate your argument according to that modified code, provided that the changes are not unreasonably radical (in which case you may wish to provide two cases to accomodate multiple views). Thank you.