Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

I will address the value clash, attack my opponents case, then return to mine. My opponent in his opening statement says that Social Contract supports his case, but then goes on to say its a fallacious value because juveniles can't engage in social contract. My opponent seems to be trying to have it both ways which doesn't work. On the contrary however, juveniles can and do engage in the Social Contract by living as US citizens. They enjoy equal constitutional rights such as the first amendment. Furthermore, my opponent's Value Criterion is ridiculously vague, because he fails to give any examples of the cores of democracy. There is no way you can vote to negate if there's no clear way to evaluate his arguments. Finally, Social Contract is not an extension of Democracy because you can have a social contract in any governing situation. If you take these points together, it's clear that I win the Value clash. Moving to his contention: My opponent states that treating juveniles as adults alienates their rights because of potential for abuse, and because its a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Point A: Potential for abuse is an argument that should be eliminated from this debate on several grounds: 1: Because we cannot presume innocence or guilt in American courts, the extent of this debates lasts from indictment to verdict. This means any abuse after that time that could happen is not relevant to this debate. 2: The resolution does not prevent special steps to be taken to prevent abuse 3: In juvenile detention, violent offenders are the most likely to be the abusers or other juveniles. 4: In prison, Adults are also abused, with this train of logic, it'd would therefore be impossible to send anyone to prison. Moving on to his second subpoint: Its a huge jump to say that just because the death penalty cannot be used against juveniles treating them through the criminal justice system is unconstitutional. Obviously if someone is mentally not fit for court, a judge wont sentence him or her to death, they take into account the characteristics of the defendant. In an AFF world, the resolution allows for age to be taken into account as a mitigating factor. If it's unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to death, then a judge won't. Moving back to my own case, Contention 1: In sub-point A: Feld does give reasoning to explain how juvenile courts violate rights. The very nature of a juvenile trial violates the constitutional right to a trial by jury. Jury trials have been shown to have more favorable outcomes for the defendant. This means the juvenile courts don't meet the requirements of the social contract because juveniles aren't receiving their rights. Furthermore, my opponent twists my words when saying that juveniles in the adult system would be at a disadvantage. Juveniles in the juvenile system sometimes being treated softly when its convenient, and sometimes being waived to adult courts when its convenient puts everyone at a disadvantage because of the obviously uneven playing field, so to speak. My opponent fails to argue against my point about the loss of rehabilitative effect. I argue this card to negate the only potential upside to the juvenile justice system so that it's understood that it is unjust and there is no upside. Regardless of him arguing that point, I argued it, and there fore my not responding, it should be taken as a drop and I win on that point Moving to my second contention: Sub-point A: As with the same reasoning as previously stated my opponent dropped this point, It argued that juveniles are cognizant of their actions, so punishment through the adult system for violent offenders is reasonable. Sub-point B: The idea that this point could be used as a turn is confusing. I argue that in the AFF world, age would be a mitigating factor while still giving the defendant all of the advantages and processes of a real trial. Additionally, my opponent failed to negate this point and tried to unsuccessfully use it to support his case . I would urge you to take this as an affirmation by my opponent of this argument. Let's not forget, these aren't youth that are stealing gum balls, the juveniles were are debating are hard-core, animalistic, violent people who have acted out in a way that has harmed an innocent and taken their liberty. I urge you to affirm.