bought some salsa with trinidad moruga scorpion peppers in it

[Moonman]

not BTU, SHU hot peppers dont actually produce any heat they bind to receptors on neurons which detect heat,

[maks]

Despite not being logically supported, the inter-subjective consensus of humans is that life is objectively positive. I believe that when most people tell you not to kill yourself it's because they themselves are also fighting an ontological and psychological struggle and telling you otherwise would go against their own "intellectual dishonesty" where they need to create false hopes about the future to continue to function socially.
You probably should have put "why is a human life worth saving" because you're post seems to focus on the individual. As far as human life as a whole, only a speciest would argue that the most imposing and destructive mammal would be worth saving. I would argue deer would be more worth saving.
Me personally, I try and be a determinist to the core so when you talk ethics my language is a little different. For instance, the subjective opinion of you or the person trying to convince you to stay alive is irrelevant until you have a basis for what "actions" are objectively negative. As a mere example, my philosophy on ethics is all about imposing on sentience. Therefore I advocate veganism(for animal sentience), anti-natalism(for forced non-volunteered future sentience) and non-capitalism(for let's say, class elitism). So going by that, the intent of the individual isn't worth judging ethically until you determine the negative output of the suicidal human. So to me, if you're a lazy, indulgent, existential, glutenous narcissist who doesn't even spend a shred of your life attempting to understand ethics or activism and instead just pollutes the world with the same ignorant hateful offspring then I would say you're non-existence would obviously reduce negatives and would therefore be ethical. This is how I would refute 8732664792's first point. If Ted Bundy asked you if he should commit suicide your nepotistic or speciest and biased emotionally charged feelings have nothing to do with objective fact which seems to evade the overwhelmingly subjective Reddit philosophy comment sections. A nazi not wanting Hitler to commit suicide has nothing to do with ethics, but once again I view speciesm and jingoism objectively.
Subjective ethics aren't ethics.
On another odd note, the same people in my philosophical circles would also say that if you live you're life completely ethically and unimposing(if that's possible) and could possibly influence others to reduce negatives then ending it would prove inefficient to the ethical cause and would therefore be unethical. For me the answer to that lies in time and how influential you are, but many of them would disagree. Anyways, just a different perspective.

I'm sorry, can you elucidate specifically which of my points you were refuting?
First point I made was that trying to convince someone does not prevent them from acting on their convictions.
The second point I made, though still in the first paragraph, was that trying to talk someone out of their way is not unethical nor immoral if its impetus is a genuine sense of care for the other person's well being and/or the well being of people around them.
I feel like we might actually be on the same page, but maybe something got lost in communication.