Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Extend my definition of negate out. All I have to do is refute affirmative arguments to win. Pro doesn't respond to it so prefer this burden set-up.On Kant:Extend my response to universizability that there's no universal response to any kind of medical condition. Each disease within each patient in each location is different, and there's no one-size-fits-all solution to it because treatment that might work for one person might not work for another person. His response to this is that it works as long as it's an "on balance" situation, but that's literally not advocating for universizability at that point. In order to advocate for universizability, he must will his action upon all other rational actors. It must apply in every situation. Because there's no such thing in the medical realm, he can never achieve this framework. Then, extend the turn I read to reversability that reversability opens the door for perpetual violations of worth and endless cycles of violence and death as each crime validates further crimes. His explanation of reversability makes no sense. Even if you buy that we would enjoy not being murdered, we would also enjoy being the one to murder. For each murderer and serial killer out there, every kill they make justifies further killing and further violence with no way to actually escape this cyclical violence. Reject reversability for this reason. He also says that the turn doesn't work because murder violates the Kingdom of Ends, but a) there's nowhere in his case that says that in order to be a reversable action it needs to uphold the Kingdom of Ends, and b) logically, this doesn't make sense since I can still reverse actions that use others as a means to an end. I use my teachers as a means to the end of education, and I can certainly say that others ought to take this course of action. Then, extend my first response to the Kingdom of Ends. It relies on his second contention being true to gain any kind of offense, meaning that if I'm winning that adolescents aren't rational and competent then they can't be a part of the Kingdom of Ends. He makes no response to this. And, extend my third response that it's impossible to determine if an end is actually an end or rather a means to a different end entirely. This means that it's impossible to actually fulfill the Kingdom of Ends because we'll never be sure if we're actually using something as an end or a means to some unknown end. His response to this is insufficient. He simply says that he's arguing for the end of individual freedom, but provides no warrant for why this is the end of all things. He gives us no reason to believe that this isn't just some means to an entirely different end. This means that under his framework we could still be using adolescents as a means to some other end. But, if you don't buy that, extend my second response that negating better meets the Kingdom of Ends than affirming does. We should be valuing the end of the health of the adolescent, and by preventing them from being able to screw up their own lives via making bad decisions, we best protect their health. Prefer this end as it's a prerequisite to his end. What does it matter if we have the freedom to do whatever we want if we all die as a result? The health of the adolescent comes first, and because I'm winning the competence debate, I'm best meeting this end. This means that if you buy his framework, you negate instead of affirming. On Decision Making Capability:Extend my turn to Piaget's theory of development that the formal operations stage only begins at 12 and continues developing well into adulthood. This means that adolescents lack the same development and are more prone to making mistakes. This means that putting this autonomy in their hands is making it more likely that they'll make mistakes and harm themselves. Pro makes no response to this argument. Hold it against him.My opponent's response to the plethora of evidence I raised against his second contention is two-fold. His first response is to compare it to adolescents being treated as adults for crimes and such and asks why this doesn't mean that adolescents can make the same decisions as adults medically. But a) this is the is/ought fallacy - just because they are able to be tried as adults under the status quo doesn't mean they ought to be tried as adults, and b) it's literally comparing apples with oranges. A decision to steal something or to kill someone isn't anywhere near the same thing as a decision to have a sex change or to get some other surgery. His second response is about a study showing that adolescents scored 10-15% lower than adults even though most of both groups failed to meet the "goals" of the test. First, This is literally just showing us that adolescents make on average worse decisions than adults do. There's no reason this evidence does anything but negate. Second, Even if this study does affirm, you're preferring my studies because a) of sheer amount. He has one study that shows that adolescents are only a little bit below adults cognatively while I have three studies showing that adolescents are massively below par and won't ever be above par until adulthood, b) on timeframe. All my evidence comes from around the same time as his study or were published after his study, making them more recent and more likely to be true, and c) on specificity. My cards give detailed reasons why cognitively adolescents are worse than adults are and go into the emotional maturity and stress factors that apply in adolescent decision making. His source only says that there's not a big difference and leaves it at that. And, the thing about these two responses he made is neither of them are actually responsive to the studies I posted. So, extend the first turn to adolescent decision making in Barina and Bishop that shows that adolescents make horrible decision and are more likely to act impulsively and violently than rationally. And, extend the second turn coming from Steinberg that shows lack the ability to control their emotions in decision making and act rashly rather than rationally. Then, extend the third turn in Casey et al. I make saying that MRI scans confirm that the adolescent's brain isn't as developed as adults are and this lack of development is key to the lack of rationality. So I'm showing you that adolescents lack the competence and rationality to be making these decisions for themselves. This has three impacts on the debate at hand.First, it independently negates because if adolescents aren't capable of making their own decisions rationally, there's no reason to give them the right to screw up their lives.Second, it functions as a turn to the Kantian Kingdom of Ends because if adolescents aren't rational and capable of making their own decisions medically, then they can't actually be a part of the Kingdom of Ends in the resolution. This means we can't look to his framework. Third, it means that, even if you still buy that adolescents are a part of the Kingdom of Ends, that negating is the best path of realizing the end of the adolescents' wellbeing. This means that if you buy his framework, you negate instead of affirm.And, extend out Casey et al. 2 which shows us that educating them of their choices and of information available to them isn't enough to make them capable. This means that there's no way to solve back for the problems of the affirmative. And this card was dropped in the last round as well. Hold this concession against him. Conclusion:I'm winning on the framework showing you why affirming can't fulfill Kant's deontological framework in any of the three parts and that negating offers us the best path of fulfilling them.I'm winning that adolescents aren't rational actors and aren't capable of making their own medical choices, meaning that they shouldn't have the right to and meaning they can't be a part of Kant's Kingdom of Ends.