Humans Have an Inalienable Right to Death

Its been awesome. Now, to address the definition of human right, he gives a few more examples of things that can cause potential harm, however he ignores my refutation to the exact same argument in the previous round. While there are certain things that have potential harms to an individual, there are also things that are guaranteed to cause harm, in this case, suicide. When I commit suicide, my intentions aren't the same as if i were driving to work or talking a walk outside. I am harming myself and removing myself from my responsibilities in the society and to my family. My opponent then addresses his dropped argument that we cant use motivations as a universal tool in this round, because motivations vary from individual to individual. He then says that i never define what humanity is. However, look to my first posted argument, where i speak about Kant. I clearly outline what the Categorical Imperative is and what humanity is, human life. He then, quite arrogantly i might add, chooses to attack my use of outside merits in the debate. While my opponent has taken the stance, as he states later, that he is god and no one else is more intelligent than him, i choose to acknowledge that there are many people out there that are more intelligent than me. The fact that i use my own opinion as well as the opinions of the more educated, i add backing to my arguments that my opponent does not have. He then moves on to my example and how i say that he ignores a portion of it. He then states, "That suicide brings harm to those around the individual is news to no one. " We can vote off of this one sentence in the round alone. He says that the right to commit suicide is inalienable. He then states that you cannot interfere with an individuals motivations and rights. Then he says the before quoted statement, admitting that there are harms outside of the individual when one commits suicide. He paints the picture that individuals are islands in the world, not acting upon each other and having no responsibilities, then switches and admits that all of his notions of society not harming another are completely false. He then states in the same argument, that the husband is not acting towards his wife's motivations, but that they are collateral damage! Just because he didnt mean for his actions to harm another, does not make it right. If i go get completely wasted at the club tonight and attempt to drive home and kill someone in the process, is that ok? I didn't act against an individual, they were simply Collateral Damage! My opponent choses to deteriorate everyone else in this world to right-less beasts in order to justify the suicide of one man. Call the infraction upon another person's rights whatever you choose, but in the end, that is exactly what it is. He then addresses the point where i say life is the most important thing because it is required. He says that of course it is, but that human life is more complex. I acknowledge this, however don't let that comment stray you from the argument made. He states in an earlier round that i am stripping a mans ability to choose, which is most important to humanity. I say false, that life is most important. And what is my opponent taking away? Life. This is another huge point to vote on. He concedes that life is most important in his last argument, but he also seeks to take it away. Huge contradiction on my opponents part. He then states that i am seeking to kill the "faculty of motivation" and that it needs to be the standard for humanity. However, once again look to the fact that motivations are different in every individual. How can we use motivations as a universal standard if no individual has the exact same motivations? Because of this, his arguments will only apply to a single individual, not the rest of the society. Look to Kants Categorical Imperative that i use in my case. It applies to ALL individuals, not restricting it to the single person who may have motivations to fit my opponents arguments. Finally, he states that he "doesn't see any merit" in bringing up the founding fathers, once again ignoring an important point. I bring up the founding fathers because they are the ones who established our first inalienable rights, and i look to them in a debate about another inalienable right. It seems to me that using those who first came up with our rights may be pretty useful when determining this debate, however my opponent, once again using his "all knowing, godlike opinion" doesn't think that the intelligent minds of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin have any merit in the debate. Id like to thank all that have read the debate, and urge a con decision. Vote off of my use of more intelligent opinions than my own when determining this round. While i do use my own reasoning, i bring outside intelligence into the debate, which my opponent never attempts to do. Also look to the many dropped arguments and contradictions that my opponent makes. And a message to my opponent, you didn't need to get so arrogant with your attacks. yes we have different styles of debating, but that does not merit personal attacks. Thank you.