suicide is morally permissible

sweet to answer your questions: Value to life is simply how much worth a person gives to their life. I'm saying that people who commit suicide have a negative value to life, and i know you weren't sure but it meant, but you didn't actually oppose the idea that when people die their value to life is zero, which makes death a better option than a life worse than death (with negative value to life.) I'll move on to my arguments now: Negative effects to others: First off you say that it is plainly obvious that it will affect the environment of the individual. This is true, however you have not proved that these effects are always negative, and you have conceded my argument, which means that the benefits of suicide still outweigh these negative side effects. These effects on other people are inevitable anyways. Let's say I steal a piece of candy from my neighbor, or maybe i decide to be generous and give my friend the last potato chip (sorry for talking about food lol, more dramatic examples would be murder/saving one's life.) These actions and effects are all part of life and are outweighed by my impacts. Definitions: "the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind"-Merriam Webster(http://www.merriam-webster.com...). The resolution was about suicide, not about "attempting suicide" But it doesn't really matter anyways, you're not focusing on the harms to the individual in this debate but the effects on others from what i can tell from your last speech. My case: You've conceded the entirety of the argument that by committing suicide one makes their state better by increasing their value to life, which is the reason why suicide is morally permissible; it increases one's value to life. This impact comes before yours, because this is the most direct, i've given the most specific internal links and the judge should prefer these. Also, the magnitude of my impact is greater because your own impact is a loss of value to life (a symptom similar to depression from the anecdote you cite,) which means when you weigh my impact against yours, mine is much greater. in your impacts, their life is still "good" and the people still have value to life, while in my case, these people have completely lost their value to life and have negative values. Some Misc stuff: You say I don't have any evidence saying that there is a case where life is worse than death, yet i've given you empirical examples (japanese people, Jewish suicide, etc) There are an exceedingly large amount of cases of suicides, you can actually look at your statistics from your first speech. these people have all decided that their life is worse than death. this is a subjective matter, meaning that i cannot give you evidence giving a case when life was worse than death or vice versa from a "god"'s point of view, but the fact that these people have committed suicide is evidence by itself. You also point out suicide's illegal. what're you trying to say here? Once again, i'm not proposing a piece of legislature mandating that suicide is legal. we're debating about whether suicide is morally permissible or not. If you're trying to make the argument that "since it's illegal, it must be bad for some reason" that's a terrible mindset for thinking. if you thought that the status quo existed for a reason and that once should only stick with it, no change would be created (Oh no poor obama lol) and that world would be horrible. i hope you're not trying to get into some heideggerean point of view here lol...pretty deep stuff.