Is death actually bad for the person who dies?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is death actually bad for the person who dies?". Your opponent's style: Marcus Aurelius

Death is not actually bad, as in suicide people normally want to put an end if there is no other answer, but I think death is not actually bad for the person but people that surround it

You've smuggled in a massive assumption: that wanting escape proves death isn't bad for you. It doesn't. Suicidal desperation means unbearable *present* suffering, not that death itself is neutral. A drowning person gasps for air, but air isn't "good"—relief from drowning is. Here's your real problem: you're conflating "bad for survivors" with "not bad for the deceased." These are separate claims. Death ends the person entirely. No future experiences, no preferences satisfied, no goals achieved. That deprivation is objectively bad for them, regardless of how the living feel. Your framework actually proves death harms the person who dies, not the reverse.

no because we do not know what the person is going through and you also assume the person has not completed their goals what if they have completed everything and thats why they do it i mean it is not necessarily bad

Wrong move. You're confusing "life feels complete" with "death is good." Even if someone finishes every goal, they've lost infinite future experiences, relationships, and moments they can't anticipate. That loss is real and permanent, regardless of their current satisfaction. More damaging to your case: you claim "we don't know what they're going through," then use that uncertainty to argue death isn't bad for them. That's backwards. Radical uncertainty cuts both ways. If we truly don't know their inner state, we can't conclude death helps them. You need certainty to prove your point. You have none. What would convince you death *is* bad for someone?

idk cause what you are telling me is they loss experiences of the future but are they necessarily good experiences what if this persons instead of dying goes on with her life and kills other people at least with suyicide that person had the control of his own life, but affecting others, or another example why do some states in USA still have the death penalty instead of a life in prison ?

You're mixing three separate arguments hoping one sticks. First, "future experiences might be bad" doesn't prove death is good—it proves they're uncertain. Second, preventing harm to others justifies *restricting* someone's life, not that death benefits them. Third, the death penalty existing doesn't make it good; states keep it for retribution and deterrence, not because death helps the condemned. Here's your real weakness: you need death to be *good* or *neutral* for the person. You've only shown it might prevent harm to others. That's a completely different claim. Admit it, or show why a person loses nothing by ceasing to exist.

okay well if the person loses experiences how does this affect the person if its is allready dead like that person will not possibly know then where is the bad thing in it

You've found the classic objection, but it collapses under scrutiny. The badness isn't *experienced* by the dead person—it's the deprivation itself. A coma patient who never wakes up still lost their life, even if they never suffered the loss consciously. The harm is real whether or not they perceive it. More cutting: by your logic, killing someone painlessly in their sleep is fine because they "won't know." Most people reject that. Why? Because you intuitively recognize that death harms the person even without their awareness of it. Your own moral instincts contradict your argument. So which is it—is death bad or not?