The prosecution of Juveniles as an adult should be permitted

"I'm not the one who compared video games to real life." When one makes an analogy, it is not required that all aspects of the two items be the same. You, however, said that the same personal traits needed to do well at video games were the traits to be used to mark someone as mature. Therefore you were the one whose logic would mean that a Call of Duty player is, by definition, mature. "3. Male musculature and body shape By the end of puberty, adult men have heavier bones and nearly twice as much skeletal muscle. Some of the bone growth (e.g. shoulder width and jaw) is disproportionately greater, resulting in noticeably different male and female skeletal shapes. The average adult male has about 150% of the lean body mass of an average female, and about 50% of the body fat. This muscle develops mainly during the later stages of puberty, and muscle growth can continue even after boys are biologically adult. The peak of the so-called "strength spurt", the rate of muscle growth, is attained about one year after a male experiences his peak growth rate." Irrelevant, they have physical fitness tests which would weed out the people whose bodies had not matured. "4. That's not how that works. You made the assertion that children understand politics better than adults. So you have to prove that statement. Not me." Yes, I forgot to fill that bit out, oh well. It is not that important. The important part is coming shortly. I would try to add something here, but it would be unfair to add data when you can't reply to it. "5. Traffiking is never a red herring. If you think it is, I have genuine concerns for you." You must not know what a red herring is. Anything can be a red herring and you used trafficking as one by trying to distract from the issues using it. As to genuine concerns, that you thought that those children in the articles I posted should be prosecuted as adults raises concerns. "6. No. The ages of 18 and 21 are high enough to make sure that you're either not a gang member or have been in long enough to be able to fail a background check. " Where did you pull those numbers from? If you want to argue that a child should be held legally responsible for his actions, then you have no business arguing that the child is too young to choose not to join a gang. Your logic here is completely illogical. ""Yes, it is anecdotal." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...; Meh, the studies I posted in the reply you are quoting from demonstrate that children are significantly different from adults. The anecdote is a fallacy which I basically admitted, the science is not. My mistake was not posing them directly after this bit you are quoting, but this is also not that important to the debate. "Or the 2 parties can simply agree on a non-biased 3rd party." You should have taken this objection more seriously since it is completely devastating to your argument and by a wide margin the most important thing you needed to defend against. It demonstrates that your idea of labeling an offender as an adult AFTER committing a crime is not possible because of inherent biases and the fact that it favors the wealthy. Your flippant reply demonstrates that you did not understand the magnitude of this problem. Whoever pays the therapist is the one the therapist will be biased toward. The state will have to be the one paying for this because many defendants can't even afford an attorney, let alone a therapist to defend their age. This means that whoever is "agreed" on will still be biased. This would mean that you would still need to let the defendant hire his own therapist to counter the bias, but then you are creating a situation where wealth determines who gets prosecuted for crimes. Additionally, a great defense in that case would be to refuse to agree to a therapist thus blocking the prosecution. "As I close, I'd like to leave with these quotes." Your quotes are just a rewording of your stance, but they are not meaningful. I could just as easily cite chemists talking about who the best football players are. That person is an expert in law. She is not an expert in psychology, so I reject your appeal to authority fallacy. If you wanted something substantial, you would need the studies she claims to have read. To close, I am glad we had this debate because I am now significantly more convinced that my position is correct. I might not have noticed the fallacy/conflict of interest in trying to label kids as adults AFTER they commit crimes had we not had this debate. All I was going on before was how ridiculous it is to say that an act of immaturity suddenly means you are mature. Now I also have the ammunition that trying to label someone an adult after the fact is not possible due to biases inherent to the psychologists and inequity by creating a system where wealthy juveniles face one legal system and poor juveniles face another. Regardless of who "wins" I am very pleased with this outcome.