Should people have the right to end their own lives?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should people have the right to end their own lives?". Your opponent's style: Christopher Hitchens

Yes, as human beings, we have the right to end our own lives. We are born as human beings, and we are all human beings, so every life matters and weighs the exact same thing. Thus, it is in no right for other people to determine wheter or not to end or not end someone else's lives, because if they decide to life, then let them. If they decide to die, so let them, because for those who want to end their own lifes, we have indeed a responsibility to try and persuade them to stop their death, yet it is also their right to decide wheter or not they die. If we are not able to understand each other fully to the soul, thus we are in no stance to stop them from ending their own lifes.

You've dressed up a dangerous sentiment in democratic language, but it collapses under its own weight. If everyone's life "weighs the same," then a suicidal person in acute crisis weighs the same as the psychiatrist who could save them—so why defer to the one in neurochemical freefall? You claim we can't understand each other's souls, yet you're confident enough to say we should abandon people at their darkest moment. That's not respect for autonomy. That's abdication of responsibility. Why should temporary despair have veto power over permanent consequences?

You have confused democratic language. You talked about temperoary despair, and how it does not overweigh permanenet consequences, but you have forgot that we are all humans, so if someone wants to die, you are not able to stop them. In the status quo, many commit suicide, even with persuading, saying, help, or even a fufiilled life-. Yet, we claim to say that they should not commit suicide, because everthing is changeable. However, we can never understand what others feel. To them, happiness may be sadness- excitment may be pain. To them, depression may feel like the norm, and as human beings, we are in no stance to challenge their own rights. You talked about weighing human lifes, and gave the example of a dying person and someone who can save the dying person, yet this contradicts your whole argument about democratic language. We, as human beings, are all equal. Equal to the core, equal to every extent, because we are all humans. Even if they die, or live, they are all equal, so thus we are in no stance to state that another equal person have the right to do whatevery or not.

You're caught in a contradiction you won't admit. You demand we treat all humans as equal, yet you're perfectly fine letting the depressed person's distorted brain chemistry override the judgment of everyone who loves them. That's not equality—that's tyranny of the suffering. If we're truly equal, then the suicidal person's temporary neural state doesn't outrank the collective wisdom of those around them. You've weaponized "we can't understand each other" to justify abandonment. Understanding is hard; that's precisely why we have a duty to fight for people, not surrender them.