Suicide should be legal.

I maintain that I have responded to each of my opponent's "arguments" throughout this debate. For him to accuse me of avoiding details and to claim my argument is trying to "fool" anyone is absurd and juvenile. My opponent is using criticism tactics in order to make himself look better. Meanwhile, he is the one misinterpreting my examples and repeating his moot and already disproved points. Also, I would like to remind Con that my position in this debate is NOT to respond to everything he says but to prove why suicide should in fact be legal. However because he seems to have nothing else to base his argument on other than critisizing me, I will spare the judge his commentary on my debating style by citing his claims and breaking them down one by one. First, my opponent rambles about his speech from Round 1 regarding the value of human worth and his 3 points establishing why it is an important value. I agree with Con to a degree. However as he has mentioned, I countered this argument with my reasoning that Free Will is another important human value that should not be forgotten in terms of suicide, which is indeed the topic of this very debate. Con writes, "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." Actually, this value has everything to do with the resolution of this debate. My position is that one's free will is of utmost importance in terms of suicide, whereas it is NOT of utmost importance when it comes to killing others as I have already pointed out. Therefore my opponent's attempt at trying to negate the importance of free will by comparing it to killing 100 Jews is flawed. As I have already explained, we cannot impose our individual values onto others. If I deem my own life of no worth, so be it, I may take it for it is my own to do as I please. If I deem your life to be of no worth, that's just too bad. I cannot take it because laws (which act as a deterant through PUNISHMENT) set a value on human worth to a degree that we cannot just take it from others; to do so would be very wrong. Similarly, laws also uphold values that pertain to free will... (To ensure that I respond to each of my opponent's points, I will break it down and argue his "logic" one by one. Arguments next to a number will be from my opponent; my rebuttal will be in the paragraph after.) 1. Why does Christian values [of Free Will] matter? Why not Buddhist nor Muslim or any other religion's value? Free Will is not only a Christian value but a HUMAN VALUE that is shared by people of every religion. The Buddhist philosophy and Islamic religion both celebrate free will, as do many other religions. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Second, where in the Bible have they talked about free will? Free Will is quoted all over the Bible, but why does that matter? I have already pointed out that the concept applies to people of all demoninations, not just Christianity. For a list of the dozens upon dozens of instances where the Bible talks about free will, click here: http://www.biblelife.org... 3. 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. I have explained the relevance of free will as it pertains to this debate in terms of suicide and only suicide. Free will is applicable in other arguments but today's debate is based on one thing only. My position is that one has the right via free will to engage in any behavior that may take their own life (and not the lives of others). They can do this because it is their body - it belongs to the individual, not the parents (once the child is 18) and not to God (as my opponent does not want religion to be a factor in this debate). If my opponent wants to bring up the 18+ rule in regard to suicide then go ahead. I never said that I am against suicide being "prohibited" for children; I simply said that suicide should be legal, and obviously that comes with certain restrictions such as cigarettes are legal but only for the 18+ crowd. 4. 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. From this point, her religious Christian free will value drops since she is contradicting herself. In terms of religion, my only mention of the subject was back when I noted the hypocrisy of citing religion to oppose suicide because religion (in the Bible, Torah and Koran as used in my example) promotes eternal life. I never said that the use of religion was too subjective or unchallengable; those were my oppnent's words, not my own. But anyway, my opponent is again wrong for saying my "Christian" value of free will is invalid because of this -- I already explained how free will is an attribute common to all of humanity and not just Christians, even though I cited Christians specifically in my first example. 5. Lastly, she ends her argument saying that an action is justified as long they accept the consequences. Yes, if it pertains to the SELF and *ONLY* to the self then yes. I stand by this. Thus my opponent's example of killing 100 Jews is again wrong. Because it uses free will in a way that infringes upon the right of others to treat their bodies/health/life as they please. My argument is this case (regarding suicide) is that people have free will to do what they wish with their own lives if it only affects the taking of their own lives and not others. This means my opponent's example regarding Virginia Tech is completely void, because the perpetrator did not only take his own life but the lives of many others as well. Nice try though. I ask that the judge please exclude any of my oppnent's arguments that deal with taking the lives of others. Next, Con implied that I do not believe society should implement laws to protect its citizens. He writes, "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." ---- As usual, Con has completely misinterpreted my logic and presented it in a way that is favorable to his position. However I'm sure the Judge can see right through this. Because AS I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED, the reason laws exist (to uphold society's values) is to deter via PUNISHMENT to prevent people from engaging in the act. Like I said, there is no way to implement punishment on a person who is already dead. Defacing their body, taking their property, or tarnishing their reputation only hurts those who are already living (their friends and family). Thus laws against killing people do work and deter the action because people will know that as a consquence they will suffer severe penalties such as long jail time or possibly even death. In regard to suicide, there is no punishment. The deceased cannot serve time in jail, and the ultimate "scare tactic" of iminent death is already taken away. Unfortunately I have run out of characters, however, in conclusion I think my argument can be summed up by the complete hypocrisy and delusion of Con's closing argument, "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." -- HOW WERE YOU PLANNING ON PUNISHING THEM EVEN IF IT WERE ILLEGAL? Suicide will exist regardless of laws, and THAT'S why focus on prevention rather than criminalization is important.