self-harmers should not receive medical attention

I will refute my opponents argument paragraph by paragraph and then give voters. 1. I don't understand my opponents statement here; further more she as for grammatical errors my opponent has made plenty in terms of ensuring her capitals are correct; just look at this paragraph and you will see my point. 2. So my opponent says we should "appreciate" other people's pain. I'm sorry so we should stand bye and do nothing while they are suffering? How is this in any way morally justifiable is beyond me. By the way I am making the argument that self-harmers do not need treatment I accept that. As for my argument it is not irrelevant as I am making the statement that the people suffering without care deserve access to resources even if it's at the expense of these individual self-harmers. Smokers and obese people made their own choices so why should people who never had a choice suffer at their pleasure? Further more don't forget one possible reason for self-harm as my opponent's definition says is "perfectionism"; thus proving that some self-harmers are perfectionists meaning they are only doing it for their own selfish desires. Thus why should we not help the people who are in able to take care of themselves? My opponent has only strengthened my statement, because she is suggesting us to turn our back on the millions who are suffering world-wide; to prioritize the smoker, the obese, and the selfish. I see no justification for this. 3. My opponents own definition says a "history" of trauma. That means that they may not even currently have trauma; further more her definition says that mental problems in self-harmers are "borderline" meaning they have not even been proved to be 100% in existence in the person. Thus this refutes her food disorder argument; further more aren't food disorders a mental state to give somebody their own desire of achieving a "perfect" look? Again just apply my perfectionism argument here that my opponent didn't address in her last refute. Further more many parents deal with stress without self-harming themselves in such a severe manner that would warrant medical care. We are arguing about self-harmers who are in actual need of medical care thus it must be a severe case. Further more my opponent has not proved how an obese, smoker, or anorexic person's lack of treatment would lead to a worst outcome on the grand stage. If anything I contend that the people suffering every day about to die deserve the fundamental right to have the resources that we devote to people who are not even in dire care of these resources; an obese person can live much longer than a person who's entire family is starving to death. 4. At the instant that they are not in such dire care that they can withdraw their emotions how is it that they are in dire need? Their are other mothers who would sell themselves to servitude in order to help their family. They are begging for help. They are clearly in a much more dire need of resources to be allocated too. 5. My opponent admits it's selfish she thus proves the arguments before that are in regards to selfishness. Further more upon closer review of my opponents definitional quote their is never any actual reference to the use as a coping mechanism. It merely states that self-harm is a symptom. Their fore this entire argument is in-valid, because their is never any proof that self-harm is a coping mechanism. Are all fat people going through a struggle that warrants self-harm; not at all. In terms of how society treats them; first of all it must be a case that would warrant medical attention. Further more I can look at a person and be in doubt that they are suffering; I can't look at a starving family and be un-sure if they are suffering. Further more perfectionism is defined as a reason for this symptom and thus my opponent's argument here is in-valid on her own definition. When it comes to the stress argument, I repeat: DOES A MOTHER SEEING HER KIDS SUFFERING IN FRONT OF HER NOT EXPERIENCE MENTAL STRESS FAR SUPERIOR TO THAT OF ANY LONE MENTAL STRUGGLE. Yet millions of people suffering in the world do not resort to self-harm because obviously their is not a large enough quantity to warrant a sufficient statistical analysis as my opponents own definition explains. Thus we head back to the kid scenario; my opponent claims we should forsake this kid because more respect should be given to the guy who for one reason or another decided to cut himself. I contend this is morally corrupt, because we are then prioritizing somebody who may just be cutting them self in their pursuit of selfishness which my opponent has agreed too; while a kid got run over just trying to get home from some "x" location. 6. Take the same theme of my paragraph and re-word it so it suits my opponents criteria; my argument stands strong still that the millions who are suffering deserve all the respect and resources that would be located to a self-harmer who as my opponent admitted are selfish. The person who deserves to be selfish is not a smoker who will still most likely live a while; but a family who is on the verge of death by disease and famine. 7. I don't really fully understand my opponent here as it seems she is trying to avoid refuting my point. She explicitly stated that smokers and obese do not deserve care when they themselves are self-harmers as her definition states that a self-harmer can be a "drug abuser, or a person with a food disorder" so my opponent is clearly supporting my side here. Further more people are in a lack of these basic necessities of life such as water even when their country isn't in a war; their are many countries that are quite peaceful that lack basic supplies. Further more; whether you believe the U. S. currently is/isn't in a war does that mean we should ignore the family that can't even afford to buy affordable heating for their children? The money that is wasted on self-harmers can easily be devoted to better causes as proved time and time again. My opponent has not re-enforced her argument here in any way. 8. I am sorry if my opponent feels I have done her an injustice. However, I would like to point out that the idea that we should just "accept and appreciate suffering and starving people" I would contend is a devaluation of mass life; and my opponent can't refute that these people don't even have the right to proper health care. At the instant that a simple "statistical analysis" can't be proved for self-harm then why is their any justification that their is a seriousness of self-harm? Also, don't forget that we are talking only about severe cases of self-harm that would actually warrant medical attention; thus we have already nullified millions who don't even have the desperate need for medical care. If my opponent wants a simple reason; self-harmers are selfish which she has admitted. A person who can't even beg for the rights to live and goes diving in garbage to get food and/or money I believe deserves the attention and respect that would normally be allocated to a less-worthy self-harmer. 9. This is really just a personal-attack as my opponent never even proves how I am ignorant when she has not even set up a justifiable reason that their is a mass problem with self-harmers. However, nobody would deny that millions are suffering from the lack of food, clothing, and water. The reasons for voting this debate are simply put that my opponent has not satisfied the reason as to why self-harmers deserve medical care instead of a person who is suffering in critical condition. Self-harmers should be denied their medical care, as remember my opponent has admitted they are selfish, and the attention they would have gotten should be re-allocated to the suffering of millions of other people world-wide which my opponent has not denied exists.