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

This argument will address and question my opponent's arguments in chronological order. "Life does not have a universal purpose." My opponent has stated that accepted science has concluded that life is a conglomerate of atoms aligning the wrong way one eventful day. I request that my opponent please explain to me how this is true. And if my opponent can prove it, please also explain to me how those atoms can about, for nothing can materialize without having some previous thing to materialize from. (Thus making the Big Bang theory as a questionable argument.) "Life is still life, and if it had no purpose before it would not have a purpose now." If this point is true, than why has life improved from the first single-cell organisms? Also by stating this point, you say that you yourself came about randomly and are a complete waste of space unworthy of existing. If you feel this way, why is murder wrong? Why do we hold moral values? What is the point of even trying at life? How very little you must think of yourself. "I recognize that the opponent may have been referring to a non-universal purpose..." If I made you believe this I must apologize for my lack of clarity. I feel that there is a universal purpose in all life. The only reason this may be disputed is because of a very narrow mindset. If I am given the opportunity, my opponent may bring up event and I should be able to explain it's universal purpose. "The only exception is if the person somehow creates its own sentience/personhood, in which case no purpose could be assigned because one needs to be capable of thinking to assign a purpose" This is impossible, humans are not asexual. "A boy pushing a younger child off a swing to get a turn is immoral, I think." Let's be reasonable here, no offense intended, there is a very thick line between what is right and what is wrong. The only people, in my opinion, unable to sense this are those afflicted with mental and judgmental ailments. And my opponent goes on to say no one person dictates morality in the presence of others. The only reason that is is because morality, generally, has been defined since the time of Mesopotamia. "Life must conclude eventually, and when it does, everything achieved during it is lost regardless." Sure life must conclude eventually, but if one has done his best and made the most out of life, those achievements that he/she has made will not just vanish. What of the hundreds of people we still talk about that are deceased. Edison, Caesar, Einstein, Doolittle, FDR, Copernicus, the list just goes on and on. This also shows my opponent's reassertion that he and humanity has absolutely no purpose. Once again if this is true than why does science even bother to do anything. The purpose of life may no be obvious but there is definitely a purpose to life. I also must say that I find that point quite insulting. "The endpoint remains the same, and of the infinite points in between, there were a few more spent in death..." I would like my opponent to clarify this point before I address it. I want to be 100% sure of what is being said so that I may not twist my opponents words. "I was forced into this existence with neither my permission nor my prior knowledge, and yet I have an obligation to live this life until something beyond my intentions kills me? How is that moral?" In all of nature, there is not one thing that is immoral. If this is true than why of all natural things is the process of human conception the thing that is immoral? And by asserting this point my opponent insinuate that my opponent would prefer to live a non-sentient life. Suicide with the Sole Purpose of Improving Personal Experience of Life Is, in Itself, Never Immoral I request that my opponent not include external influences as was requested of me. Suicide is in a situations immoral. Using my opponents logic and apparent ideology, one may never like death, they may like the way it sounds, but they may never like death. For one may never enjoy something in which they have never partaken in. (It is similar to me saying that I enjoy going to space even though I may not have even step foot outside the country) I now demand that my opponent address this issue. How can ceasing one's life improve personal experience? This is contradictory and if it remains unaddressed I will continue to press the issue. "The opponent does not agree with or otherwise has rejected the provided model of morality to some extent and has argued without consideration of it, the model will be dismissed." (My issues with the code will be addressed here. All points that remain unaddressed are points I agree with) All life will never be equal. Sure plants and animals all have life but there are people, plants, and animals (less so with the plants and animals) that are quite indolent and it would not make a difference whether or not they live. Happiness and sadness are not particularly good or bad, like you said, maybe I enjoy being sad. Maybe being sad brings me happiness. There is no net morality, morality is set on a person by person bases. But it could be said that people tend to be morally bad or that people tend to be morally good. A person is not an animal... does that even make sense to you. (Once again no offence I am debating for personal experience not for debating sake) My definition of a person is a human being and that only. But other than that I agree with your code of morality.