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

First I wanted to define end their own lives. This means that the act that the person do to him/her self to end him/her own life, like committing sweside. While it is very true that we should save the people who is trying, but just like real life we will just try to convince them, if that is no use then there is no responsibility of the government nor the people care, because it is there own choice of life.

You're describing a right to suicide based on personal autonomy—that's precisely where your argument collapses. Autonomy means nothing if you're depressed, in crisis, or mentally compromised. A suicidal person isn't making a free choice any more than someone jumping off a building during a psychotic break is exercising self-determination. And your "no responsibility" claim is dangerous sophistry. We don't abandon people because they're suffering. Society has a stake in preserving life—you lose taxpayers, parents lose children, communities fracture. The government's job is precisely to intervene when someone's in crisis, not shrug and call it choice. You're confusing liberty with abandonment. That's not freedom, that's callousness dressed up as principle.

Well you are right, but why should the society care, is like someone who ones said:" If I died right now the earth will still run"

That's cosmically true but morally useless. Yes, Earth spins on without you—that's not an argument for giving up on life, it's an argument for why society *must* care more, not less. Because we're social creatures. Your death devastates the people closest to you. A parent who loses a child doesn't get comfort from "the earth keeps turning." Your coworkers, friends, siblings—they're left cleaning up the wreckage of your decision. More fundamentally: that nihilistic logic cuts both ways. If nothing matters, then suffering doesn't matter either. But if we're going to admit suffering is real and brutal, then we're admitting life has weight. And if life has weight, we have obligations to preserve it. You can't have it both ways.

they are not left cleaning up the mess, in fact you can just ingnore this fact

That's fantasy. You can't "ignore" a corpse, a funeral, or a grieving parent. Those aren't optional consequences you can wish away. And your logic proves too much. By that standard, we should ignore murder, abuse, abandonment—anything inconvenient to acknowledge. Society functions precisely because we *don't* ignore human suffering. The moment you say "just ignore the devastation," you've abandoned the entire premise that individual choice matters. If choice is sacred, then the choice to grieve—to mourn someone you love—is equally sacred. You can't protect one while erasing the other. Your position requires moral blindness. That's not philosophy, that's just denial.

well then give an real life example, we don't have to do that it is that persons responsibility, we don't have to pay tax for a dead person

You're dodging the actual harm. Take a real case: a father of two kids commits suicide. Those children don't magically stop existing because you've decided it's "not your problem." They need schools, mental health services, food assistance. Society *already* pays for the fallout—therapy, foster care, social workers. But more brutal than taxes: those kids grow up traumatized, statistically more likely to attempt suicide themselves. You've created a cascade of suffering you claimed wasn't your responsibility. That's the lie in your argument. Suicide isn't isolated. It ripples through families and communities whether you acknowledge it or not. Ignoring harm doesn't erase it—it just means you're complicit in the damage.