Suicide should be legal.

First off on my opponent's first attack as I stated before that there are examples (indecent espouser) of how in our society we have laws to protect against emotional damage so because of the emotional damage of suicide it is the job of the government to protect people from this damage. The problem with the example my opponent give is that there is a huge difference between leaving a friend and committing suicide one because in the example if you were to insult your friend he would hold an amount of anger towards you meaning it wouldn't be as hard of emotional damage and 2 people value life over friendship because if you just leave there chance to see you again but in the cause of suicide there is no chance of meeting again meaning it has a harder emotional effect then that of leaving a friend meaning the government has the responsibility to protect people from this damage. Thus the analogy that my opponent gives is not a valid example so it should be thrown out of the round. Next my opponent claims that suicide bombers don't care if it was illegal of not to commit suicide, but as I stated before because of how religion effects our laws we can not over look it use in how punishment could deter acts of suicide. So if in a country where religion has a strong influence on laws if it was illegal to commit suicide that would mean that the religion looked down upon this act meaning that people would be less likely to use this tactic to do damage. Thus this law of suicide being illegal would protect people from the damages of suicide bombing and would justify suicide being illegal. Then my opponent claims that suicides don't cause chaos, but look to in my last round when I talk about chain suicides because one suicide leads to more this means that it is causing chaos in this society and it would be the job of the government to protect the people from this danger. Thus under the Social Contract Theory it is the government's job to protect these people On my opponent's next attack, I'm giving an example of a society where this would be a form of punishment, but even if this is not a global prospective this punishment would still be a way to punish the people in that society thus justifying the act of having suicide being illegal. On my opponent's next argument cross apply what I stated above that this is only an example and that even if this only applies to a few place the idea of this punishment would still justify suicide being illegal. Also extend my argument that even if the punishment don't effects the people as long as the people believe that it will effect them because of religious views we can see that it will still deter people from committing the act of suicide thus because of these laws ability to deter people from doing illegal things it's punishments are still valid. And because my opponent has no opposition to this argument you can end the debate over weather the punishments affect the dead because of it ability to deter people from breaking the law. Now in my opponent's next argument he proves his own down fall when he states "I have shown that there is no justifiable way to make it illegal". When he says there is no reason to make it illegal he has failed to meet his burden of proof because suicide is already illegal. it is not the pro's job to show why suicide should not be made illegal because it already is, it is the pro's job to show justification of making suicide legal and because none of my opponent's arguments do so you vote con because the failure of the pro to meet it burdens. Secondly even if you buy that you couldn't punish a person who committed suicide this doesn't justify it not being illegal because there would be no difference between suicide being legal or illegal so there would no down side of the status quo meaning you still vote con on this topic. On my opponent's last argument one you shouldn't flow this argument because it was brought up in his last speech and it is abusive to bring in new arguments up in the final round because there is no time to debate it, and two he provides no proof that suicide is genetic and it is completely immoral to think that because these people could die that the government should do nothing to stop them from doing so. So to wrap the debate up as the judge you should vote con for the fallowing reasons 1. Emotional damage is ground for making some thing illegal 2. Under the Social Contract Theory it is the government's job to protect people from the real damage of suicides 3. There are ways to have punishment that effect the dead and that as long as the people believe that the will be effected the punishment is still valid 4. My opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof and has not justified making suicide legal 5.