Suicide should be legal.

I negate the resolution: Suicide should be legal. My opponent uses a cigar analogy in the intro which brings up an interesting point: she states that it is necessary for a value to weigh whether suicide should be legalized. For that reason, the value for today's round is the respect for human worth. Along with this, I provide you with three justifications as to why we need to respect human worth. First, if we look at the context of the resolution, it obviously involves a person's life. Without the respect of it, we can basically go around killing each other since our lives our without value.Well for that reason, the value for today's round is respecting human worth. Therefore, we must not allow suicide since it degrades human worth. Secondly, all individuals have human worth because it not only gives human value, it is also what differentiates us from inanimate objects such as rocks. Unique characteristics that separate us from other entities such as the ability to talk, make decisions, and rationalize are in every one of us. These are only a few of the many abilities that no other beings possess, such as chairs, or dogs. Therefore, we must not allow suicide to be legal as we would degrade ourselves to the level of animals. Lastly, people also have human worth because without it, societies could abuse our rights and become corrupt. This would most likely happen because societies are naturally selfish and behave in ways that only seek to benefit itself. If people had no value or worth, then societies would be able to abuse our rights and possibly destroy us. If we allow suicide to be legal, society would grow to believe that life is not as significant as it really is if anyone can commit suicide and have it justified. For all those reasons, we must value respecting human worth and negate today's resolution that suicide should be legal. My sole contention is that if we allow suicide to be legal, we would degrade ourselves. It is a known fact that society deems, "killing is never justified". It can be permissible, but it can never be justified because the act of killing itself is unjust. If we buy the affirmative's case, we are essentially advocating killing for several reasons. Imagine if we pass the affirmative's case: what would our world be like? When people jump off buildings to commit suicide, it would be completely justified in the court of law. Would you like to live in a world like where no one cares about each other's lives since suicide is legal? If we reach such a point by affirming today's resolution then we degraded ourselves completely to levels of animals. Eventually, our standards of human life would lower as these uncommon things turn to common. Eventually, we would not value human life as much as since it's became a trend that is accepted in the court of law. When you first drive a Ferrari in your entire life, obviously it's going to be very exciting since it's your first time driving such an amazing vehicle, but imagine driving it continuously. Eventually this practice of driving a Ferrari would be very common to you since it has become a part of your life. If we allow suicide to be legal then we would degrade ourselves to think killing or letting death occur is simply justified. This then brings me to my second point in today's round stating that inaction is the same as action. My opponent will definitely bring up an argument saying that killing is different from suicide. Obviously, he's missing out an important factor of inaction vs. action. For instance, if I am walking by a pond and a baby are drowning. I, as a lifeguard for thirty years, possess the ability to save this baby in danger. Obviously, I do not have the obligation to safe the baby since I did not cause it to drown. However, would it be justified for me to stand idly by and allow it to die? Obviously not and that is as bad as being the person putting the baby in the pond in the first place. In the same way, if we allow suicide to be legal, if someone does commit suicide, I have no obligation to save him or her. However, it would be as bad as being the killer since I am essentially advocating for them to die by not preventing such an action when I had the ability to do so. Therefore, you must never buy the affirmative's case as it degrades us completely to beings without any human worth. In conclusion, you must negate today's resolution that suicide should be legal. Now, let us move on to respond against my opponent's case. My opponent tries to bring up sympathy in this round with fluffy writing. Do not allow your emotions to cloud your judgment, as I will give you several reasons as to why he is losing today's round. First, if you buy the affirmative's case, as I have stated before, you are advocating a world where human life is not important. Secondly, we live in a world where killing is never justified. If we set a trend by affirming the resolution then suicide would be a very common practice as many will commit such action since it is legal. Imagine living in a world, where suicide is common. Everyday you would see on the news people jumping off buildings and no one prevents such an action since it's a very common practice as many teenagers will also soon follow. Lastly, it degrades our own morality. My opponent then brings up cigarettes examples to affirm today's resolution. There are justifications why his argument falls. First, the magnitude of his analogy is completely different and irrelevant to today's resolution. We can never compare the importance of smoking cigarettes to suicide. Smoking cigarettes is a gradual action that might kill you or not as research shows. In comparison, suicide happens immediately and it's not a reversible process. Even if you don't buy that let's move on to my second justification. He's basically saying that deaths caused by cigarettes are also justified since there is a label saying it can causes cancer and etc. Obviously, this is not true as it's just a simple coerced consent. For example, if a little girl asks for poison and I warn her that it would kill her, it doesn't make it justified for me to give poison to the little girl so she can die. In the same way, just because someone consents to kill themselves, doesn't make it justified for us to watch them die as we need to respect human worth or else we degrade our standards and morality as many more cases happen in the future. He also brings up an analogy that when we ride a car, we accept the possibility of the riders dying. This is also invalid since just because I accept the possibility of me dying doesn't mean it would be justified for someone to crash into me if they want to since I accept a chance of this happening. Therefore, I have provided you sufficient reasons why his arguments fall. Next, he brings up an argument regarding contentions warranted or supported by God. You can this disregard this whole argument. First, I'm not presenting any arguments supported by this. Second, you can disregard any religious arguments made by opponent as this is way too vague and subjective. It would be abusive for him to run such an argument as it's unchallengeable. From these reasons, you can disregard that argument. Lastly, he brings up statistics and opinions of how a society should think. He brings up the death penalty percentage of agreement. Although it may sound nice to have all this evidence, there are many reasons as to why you should not buy this argument. If you actually look at the websites he presents, you can see that they are all biased and not credible. Second, the death penalty is completely irrelevant since the people who support it are doing it for a cause. The person who deserves the death penalty committed a certain crime in order to deserve this. On the contrary, people who commit suicide have done nothing at all to deserve this, so the analogy he presents is completely non-topical. Don't let this point confuse your judgment, thus you must negate.