teens should not be allowed to date in high school.

First, my opponent would have to tell me what it means to fail a relationship. Every relationship is built and different from others, so no one can really gauge the value of it. A relationship can't be graded like a worksheet or test. A divorce could be considered a new beginning by someone. A divorce can't be indicative of a failed relationship. Secondly, I didn't say teenagers were mature. I said they were maturing, meaning they were maturing from the choices they were making. If they weren't allowed to make choices like my opponent suggests, they wouldn't be able to mature as early as they should. Basically, the resolution suggests we send people in the relationship-making state of a baby into the world to fend for themselves romantically. It's like sending a grade school student right into college, skipping high school completely. They wouldn't know what to do about anything. Experience is key. Also, the difference between high school dating and divorce is that high schoolers can't get married, so the statistic only applies to adults, making it irrelevant. My opponents next contention is that relationships cause anorexia and self-inflicted harm tendencies. Those with anorexia refuse to eat because there is a malfunction in their brain, no offense to my opponent, and they have an eating disorder. Though outward occurences can affect this and spur it on a bit, ultimately it is the responsibility of the malfunction in the brain. The same goes for those who harm themselves. It is because there is something in their mind that doesn't click right. Now, my opponent states she agrees with me. 'Teens should not be allowed to date,' means that teens should not, for any reason, be allowed to date. It does not state that they should only be educated. Thus, my opponent vindicates and agrees with me. My opponent did state she wanted to ban teen dating, in the resolution and her case. By contradicting herself, my case in itself is proven right.School is not beneficial to everyone. Many people kill themselves because of school, something I again state is an avoidable distraction. Someone could not go to school, thus it is avoidable. Distraction: an interruption; an obstacle to concentration. If someone is concentrating on getting through their life happily and school is preventing that, then school itself is a distraction. However, one would not suggest that a student stop going to school. My opponent says that I stated none of this point risks her life. Again, I said everything risks your life, but one cannot avoid everything in the world. One could contract a disease from sipping Coke just as they could from having sex, though a different disease. Everything is risky, but we cannot stop doing everything. That would mean ceasing to exist.My opponent now references her personal life, also irrelevant. Just because Asia does it doesn't prove it is right. Finally, my opponent once again contradicts the resolution, negating it within her argument, vindicating me once again. The resolution states dating should be banned, yet my opponent states that we should not ban dating.Thus, my case is the most accurate, and I urge voters to negate.