Suicide should be legal.

Let's first start in the value respecting Human Worth with the 3 justifications I provided on the top of my case. She first answers to this by saying she doesn't recall the necessity of any values relating to suicide. Ok, even if you buy that where in the world did it say I can't add in a value in this round which I provided with 3 justifications why this value exists. The purpose of me bringing up a value is to be able to help judges weigh out arguments. Since, human lives are involved in this resolution I gave you 3 justifications why my value stands. This was completely dropped in my opponent's 2 speech so you can see that my opponent must meet this value I provided. Now, my opponent provides an alternative value that we should use instead of respecting human worth. This value might sound pretty catchy, but don't let that fool your judgments as her value has no evidence or link back to the resolution at all. First, she gives you no reason why we must prefer the value of Free will by Christians. Why does Christian values matter? Why not Buddhist nor Muslim or any other religion's value? Second, where in the Bible have they talked about free will? Third, this isn't a debate about free will at all as she shows you no link why it's relevant to today's debate. Fourth, My opponent and I both provided in our speeches that we should not provide any evidence or arguments that are supported by God or Religious opinions since these are too subjective and unchallengeable. This was dropped in her 2nd speech so she does agree that we can't bring up arguments supported by religion. From this point, her religious Christian free will value drops since she is contradicting herself. Lastly, she ends her argument saying that an action is justified as long they accept the consequences. This is completely flaw. For instance, If I accept the consequences of killing 100 Jews just because I hate them, doesn't make my action justified just because I accepted the consequence. Therefore, her whole free will value can be disregarded as it's a flaw non supported argument. As a result, my value still stands with the 3 justifications she dropped and she has to show that If Suicide is legal; it won't degrade us by letting such an action happen. Next, my opponent attacks my value saying that she does agree to it, but that we need to focus on prevention of crime. She talks about how we can't stop people from doing something even if a law is place upon. This is completely flawed, just because we know the chances of an action will happen even if we enforced a law to stop it. Doesn't mean we should stop trying. For example, we know murders will kill people eventually or somehow even if a law prohibits it. This doesn't make it justify for us to just let the murder to kill people and accept it under your own logic. Lastly, she says you have to focus on the prevention of crime. First, where in the resolution does it say we have to debate about this? Second, she gives you no reason to believe this. Third, if you buy this then you must vote for me since if I make suicide illegal, we have a higher chance of preventing people dying or commit a crime whereas if there is no law, there are no obligations for anyone to commit any action. Who would agree that placing a law prevents the same amount of crimes happening if there was no law? Third, my opponent brings up 2 analogies how we can't enforce a law to people who suicide since we can't punish the dead. This is completely flawed, just because they are dead doesn't mean we can't enforce a law to serve as a deterrent purpose. For instance, if a mass murder like Virginia-Tech happens and the killer ends up suicide. Does it mean we should take away the law of killing spree or mass murder since the killer will end up killing themselves and we won't be able to punish him in the end? Obviously not, my opponent argument is completely ridiculous as she is advocating tons of stuff that is irrelevant to today's debate. Fourth, my opponent once again brings up an example of alcohol control where our society placed upon a huge value on it. She says later on this value was dropped and people continue to abuse the usage of alcohol. This is exactly the same thing she said earlier, but reworded differently. Therefore, I am going to response in the same way. As a government we have an obligation to protect our citizens. Just because a law we enforce fails in the end, doesn't mean we should give up and stop trying. This would be ridiculous to buy my opponent's argument because if you do then we can basically repeal the law of punishing murders. Since, if someone decides to commit murder, we can't stop them. Fifth, she talks about how people who suicide won't obey the law as their emotions will control their actions. Once again, this is the same argument she is trying to present, but worded differently. You can use the same argument I make in her first 3 arguments as I will not waste character space to respond to the same thing. Sixth, she brings up the cigar analogy. She completely disregards the argument I make about this analogy in my first speech where this is completely different from the resolution as the magnitude or importance of smoking is gradual where as suicide takes place right away. Even if you don't buy that, people who suicide cost the government over millions of dollars as we have to use resources for investigation, funerals and etc. Seventh, she goes back to the Death penalty statistics where people support death penalty. Once again, this shows that my opponent is dropping a lot of my arguments meaning she has no respond for them. I said in my first speech that the reason people support the death penalty is because the suspect committed a crime to deserve this where as people who suicide didn't Eight, she goes on attacking my drowning baby example saying the lifeguard will save the baby as it have an obligation. She is completely misinterpreting my whole argument. The reason the lifeguard will save the baby is because it has an obligation since it's a lifeguard. If we make suicide legal, this obligation completely goes away and we don't have to safe someone if we see them trying to commit suicide which degrades ourselves to watch human die. Ninth, she makes an argument saying suicide is legal, will you start jumping off buildings. She misunderstands this argument completely as what I'm saying is if we make suicide legal, more people will do it such as (mental disorder, emo people, etc) since they won't be punished. This would also degrade us as no one would prevent it either. Not only that, she says suicide is legal. There is no reason or evidence to believe this as the resolution never states what country suicide should be legal in. We are only debating whether or not suicide is legal. If she can prove resolution is talking about a certain country where suicide should be legal then you accept that. Rather than that, no. Lastly, she makes a final closing statement on my analogy of death penalty compared to this resolution. Her argument against this made no sense as what I am presenting is the reason people support the death penalty is due to the fact that people are sentenced to death rows committed a crime. This is completely irrelevant to today's topic. As a result, I have given you more than enough reasons to vote for me. She dropped many of my arguments in my first speech so you can extend those. Don't let her reworded and non supported argument fool you. Lastly, I answered to every single of her argument where as she didn't. Thus, you must vote for negative!