People who are suicidal should not be put into impatient facilities, or an insane asylum.

Now, back to the debate. There are many ways to help someone suicidalMy opponent remarks that the facility exaggerates by taking away electronics, cell phones etc. I agree that it can be considered isolation in a way, as I already stated in round 2, but that isolation is a necessary precaution. Another thing I've stated in round 2 is that most suicidal people have psychiatric disorders and/or suffer from emotional distress, and such precautions are necessary to prevent anything from giving patients, for example, a flashback. One can argue that those regulations are incredibly strict, but none can deny they are justified, as I have shown in round 2 and once again now. As for how it makes patients depressed, preventing depression is one of the main goal of those facilities and they place great importance on that goal, so I doubt that trained staff would practice methods that just encourage depression in patients. As for the given example, of course you can talk to your friend and that's what visiting hours are for. By the way, not only is counselling available in those facilities, but it is obligatory. It's not like they lock you up and leave you there. And I feel compelled to ask my opponent if he truly believes that not having one's number remembered prevents contact? That is simply illogical. One can, for example, simply give the staff the name of said friend and they can reach him. My opponent concludes by indirectly stating these facilities are punishment and asks why can there not be a better method - firstly, one must differentiate between precautions and punishment. Punishment is enacted for one's wrongdoings, while precautions are enacted solely for the preservation of one's security. As for the question why can there not be a better method, the answer is simple. Hospalization is the best method. Suicidal people should not be isolatedMy patients quotes my source and says that emotional stress is also a cause of suicide. That is true and I have stated it repeatedly in round 2. My opponent seems to see a problem here because facilities cannot "bring back a loved one". No, they can't. No method can. But those facilities are designed to help patients cope with such stress - that is the purpose of these facilities and they consider that goal to be of the highest importance. My opponent continues by stating the fact that some "still kill themselves or don't show progress" as an argument against hospitalization in medical facilities. So, my opponent seems to believe this method is unappropriate because it doesn't work for all patients. I must point out that no method can be universally successful, but this is currently the best method available, and that is why it is in use. He again repeats his point about patients having no electronics, which I have already addressed. He then quotes the following: "Patients with a plan, access to lethal means, recent social stressors and symptoms suggestive of a psychiatric disorder should be hospitalized immediately. "My opponent then states that this refers to people already in facilities. I regret to say my opponent misunderstood the quoted statement. This statement means thart people with a suicide plan (suicidal people) and symptoms of psychiaric disorders / influences of social stressors should be hospitalized. This is very clearly stated - "should be hospitalized". If they "should be hospitalized" it means they are not already. I know what I've just stated is a matter of semantics, but it needed to be made clear. Since they are not already hospitalized, it is safe to say that a facility did not cause their emotional distress. He then addresses my rebuttal concerning suicide watch, saying that patients with mere thoughts of suicide are sent to facilities, and asks how does one determine the extent of their problem. I shall answer by stating that once a problem reaches/exceeds a certain point (serious suicide plan etc. , which we are talking about in this debate), hospitalization is the main option and the first phase of treatment. Then, depending on the progress of treatment, they can either remain in the facility or be prescribed other methods, but hospitalization is the first and main option, and I've repeatedly shown why that is so. Now that I've offered my rebuttal, I shall defend my arguments. My opponent attacks my argument about insanity and severe disorders. He offers a link saying most people who commit suicide aren't crazy. I must point out a few things here. Firstly, I've shown how suicidal people fall into the definition of "insane", which my opponent hasn't tried to deny nor can it be denied. No, not all people who commit suicide are psychotic, but they DO fall under the definition of insane and suicidality also does, by extension. My opponent also states that suicidal people can reason. That is not correct. They believe they can reason, but due to their disorders, distress etc. , their reasoning is distorted, which in the end leads to them being suicidal. And since my opponent stated that another reason why they do not fall under the classification of "insane" is that insane people cannot reason while those who are suicidal supposedly can, this only serves to further prove how those people indeed fall into that classification. As for the link, it states that those people are mostly not "crazy". However, if "crazy" refers to the medical definition of insane, then this statement is wrong (this also reveals a problem because the author didn't specaify what he/she meant by "crazy") The link also states how those people are often depressed, but it doesn't mean they have severe mental illness. This is contradictory - depression that leads to people being suicidal is a severe mental disorders and is treated like any other illness. My opponent concludes by saying how insane people are not placed in same institutions as suicidal people. That once again depends on what one means by "insane". No, schizophrenic people are not placed in the same insitutions as suicidal people. But they both fall into the medical definition of "insane". Thus, what facilities they are placed in is not relevant. Both types of facilities serve to correct behavioral patterns that are "violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others", as the definition clearly states. His final sentence is that suicidal people should be helped differently, but he again fails to name one single method better than hospitalization. He only mentions suicide watch which I've addressed, explaining how hospitalization is the first stage of treatment. I must also point out that my opponent failed to address my argument about how medical institutions offer the best care for patients, and it was left untouched. After this long rebuttal and defence of con's arguments, back to my opponent.