args

Personal suicide should be legal.

"My opponent appears to be dumbfounded over my use of the words 'personal suicide', so I should clarify." I am not "dumbfounded". I am simply cynical of your choice to only pursue this level of suicide since all are equally wrong for the same reasons. But enough of this. On to the debate. By the way I thank my opponent for posting this debate. It is a usefull way to clarify the issue and the truth about it as I am about to reveal to you all. "First, if you think that's the Government's business, then that's fine. We can rehabilitate without ridiculous laws." The government requires a law in order to enforce rehab. "Second, suicide is not always an act that needs rehabilitation. If I am tired of living, why should the Government have a say in whether or not I should live or die? It has nothing to do with them." Suicide is always an act that requires rehab. 90% of suicide cases happen while the victim is either impared through alchohol and/or sleep deprivation. Going seventeen hours without sleep is equivilent to the legal alchohol blood limit. The user named Seeker esplains it best."When someone considers suicide, he usually is in a state of severe stress or depression, possibly due to chemical changes or unnatural reasons. In other words he does not have clear judgement to make such a permanent and devastating decision. If everyone who had once contemplated suicide had decided to go through with it then there would be a much smaller population on Earth. The idea that suicide involves only one individual is completely false; someone may touch thousands of others from the extremely personal relationship from father to son to to the impersonal but widespread effect of a popular idol to his fans. In this respect suicide can effect millions of people and negatively impact their lives. The decision to give up shouldn't be their decision because not only will so many others disagree with the thought of killing yourself, but yourself in another state of mind would also disagree with that decision. If suicide wasn't illegal then the state would be encouraging people to end their lives. Misguided individuals would kill themselves to get the insurance money for their families instead of taking the responsible action of providing for them." http://www.debate.org... "This is basically saying that suicide is inherently wrong, so we make a law against it to show everyone how 'wrong' it is. Aside from the obvious circularity of this argument, the problem here is that suicide is not inherently wrong, for the reasons I gave in my first round and for many other reasons. My opponent must show why suicide is inherently wrong before we start concluding that a law should be instilled to prevent it." First of all, you didn't actually say anything to the inherent rightness of suicide in your first round. You just talked about legality problems. Get it right. I did show why it is inherently wrong in my second point when I brought up social contract. I'll come back to social contract. "Well, I certainly don't know where my opponent got his definition for 'inalienable right to life', but I assure you it has nothing to do with God, Nature or Chance. The phrase 'Right to Life' is from the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights." I got it from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's book "Du Contrat Social" which outlines the definition of inalienable rights. My opponent's definition from the UN is invalid because the law in question is an American law. Thus we must look to American Government foundations. Our government was founded on social contract not the UN charter. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." http://en.wikisource.org... "My opponent has clearly confused the 'right' to do something with the 'obligation' to do something. When a police officer tells you that you've got the 'right to remain silent', this doesn't mean 'shut up!'. It means IF YOU CHOOSE to remain silent, you may. What it also says is that NOBODY has the right to make you talk if you don't wish. We can draw a simple parallel between this case and the case of the 'right to live'. We have the right to live IF WE CHOOSE to continue doing so. NOBODY has the right to make us live if we don't wish to. This is basic human rights we are talking here." The right to remain silent is not inalienable and thus doesn't apply. In the event of inalienable rights we do have both a right and an obligation to preserve them. You seem to mistake the capability of killing one's self with the justification for doing so. You can't kill yourself just because you can. Nobody has the ABILITY to keep you from killing yourself, but they ALWAYS have the RESPONSIBILITY to at least try to prevent such a stupid desision. "Be that as it may indeed, this is not a reason to make it against the law. In this day and age, with all we know, I find it a massive manifestation of a person's ignorance to believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Would you condone making that train of thought illegal? I certainly wouldn't." Hey!! That's a matter of opinion. There is physical evidence that points to creation also, but since this is not that debate and I'm running out of room then I'll refrain. Just keep your opinions to yourself. "What the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks are you talking about man!?! Every 'non-suicidal' person can say whatever they want about their life." They can say what they want but a surprising amout of people have contemplated suicide. But why don't the majority follow through with it? Answer: They are more reasonable, logical, resoponsible, unselfish, and intelligent than those who do follow through with it. "You are saying that somebody should endure with a life they've tired of because you have a personal attachment to them. Again, this is the very definition of 'selfish'." You cannot expect them to not be attatched. It is a natural inclination for a person to become attatched and thus you cannot condem them for an unconsentual attatchment. As I've said before. If you commit suicide it's like forcibly cutting off the emotional limbs of the person who is emotionally attatched to you. "Because it has the potential to hurt people is not a good reason to forbid the action. Indeed, forbidding suicide is an attempt to inflict pain, to continue somebody's suffering. Once again, we have the RIGHT to live, but not the OBLIGATION. Nobody has the right to force death OR life upon us." Yes it is a good reason. We don't allow assault in America because it has the potential of hurting someone. Suicide is the same. You are depriving those people who are emotianally attatched to you of their INALIENABLE RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness. I again refer you to Social Contract and the Declaration of Independence. I will again correct your statement. Nobody has the ABILITY to force life on us. Just the responsibility. See for statistics and ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I have unrefutably proven the inherent wrongfulness of suicide and the only logical choice in this case is the negative. Thanks again to my opponent for posting this debate. This is a serious issue in our society that needs be resolved as quick as possible. I believe that I have given sufficient evidence and superior logic in the defence of the the negative and that I am thus the victor in this debate. As a final remider to the voters. My opponent is advocating the hurt of people as justified. This is wrong.