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

Order is going to be 3-off (some counter-ks, etc), the NC, the AC.1ST OFF The Cyclopses made a deal with the devil. They would give up one eye and they would be able to see the future. But the only future they were able to see was the day they were going to die. If they tried to change that future, like not to sleep under the rock they saw fall on them, then they would die an even more painful death that they did not see coming.The negative is a cyclops marching along their own pathways of linear causality to a death that they have asked you to postpone by voting for them, every round they ask judges to save their lives, begging for the mercy of the ballot, living under the rock of global catastrophe waiting for it to crush them. Such an existence entrenches a form of depressive melancholy in our consciousness that negates the pleasure of being alive our breaths choke our throats our food turns to ash in our mouths, makes us into slaves of the future, willing to march in these straight lines of causality for the sake of any preservation for the sake of anyone who will save us, for the sake of a strong leader to come secure the dangerous future.This salvation mentality is the basis for the popular rise of the most destructive forms of fascism and sets the stage for a continuous repetition of the atrocities of the 20th century and the atrocities of what DnG call our social fascism. This debate round is about competing strategies for encountering the world. Use the ballot to encounter the present! Experience the pleasure of a precarious existence and find the world as if you are experiencing everything for the first time like a scientist on an alien planet.2ND OFF The negative posits themselves as masters of the theatre of policy and utilitarianism, able to create a new reality which more closely resembles the ideal form which makes their idea defensible. This drive towards purification and explanation, this will to truth, is an attempt to escape suffering and creative potential which negates life. (Turanli 2003) Their external call to the truth without realising the internal dynamics of the debate going on right now are the harms that I am talking about.When they call for a wider reasoning of why their impacts matter, they just call to the "real-world" without understanding the societal and life-influencing ways that the 1NC actually causes and doesn't resolve those issues. And, the 1ac’s political statements are justification for their pathos of reaction; the aff is a valorization of resistance to capture their boredom. Activism gives them a feeling of revolution while keeping everything the same. Nietzsche 1887 The craving for suffering - When I think of the craving to do something, which continually tickles and spurs those millions of young Europeans who cannot endure their boredom and themselves, then I realize that they must have a craving to suffer and to find in their suffering a probable reason for action, for deeds. Neediness is needed! [Not ist nötig.] Hence the politicians' clamor, hence the many false, fictitious, exaggerated "conditions of distress" of all sorts of classes and the blind readiness to believe in them. These young people demand that—not happiness butunhappiness should approach from the outside and become visible; and their imagination is busy in advance to turn it into a monster so that afterwardthey can fight a monster. If these people who crave distress felt the strength inside themselves to benefit themselves and to do something for themselves internally, then they fill the world with their clamor about distress and all too often introduce it into the feeling of distress. They do not know what to do with themselves—and therefore paint the distress of others on the wall; they always need others! And continually other others! —Pardon me, my friends, I have ventured to paint my happiness on the wall. Their call to an external way of living damns themselves into the same cycle and just keeps the same things happening -- my call to an internal way of living and approaching the fact that we have nothing, but accepts that this nothingness can be changed, is the only side that can have a vote cast for.3RD OFFTheir evidence is bad vote them down for multiple reasons:1. It's key to friendship2. It's key to fairness3. It's key to aff groundTHE NCFirst, you need to be extending all of that evidence that I give you in the 2nd off that talks about how their pathos-driven reaction to the world is a harmful one. In cross-x, they can never articulate a wider reasoning why their impacts actually matter, they just say that there might be some sort of biological death -- I am the only one that actually tries to give you a way for evaluating the discourse in the debate; only when you have some sort of value to life, which DnG say is incompatible with the fascism they coin, can you ever hope to achieve some wider impacts - especially the wider impacts that the 1NC calls for.Let me say that again, DnG specifically argue that they only weighing that should be happening is through the lens of the social and biological death that I am forwarding - their impacts are worthless. What is life if there is no value to it from the lens of the 1AC?THE ACTheir arguments are worthless for multiple reasons. 1. Just because it may not be possible doesn't mean that liberation from fascism isn't possible or that we shouldn't try. I hate your authors, they should die, they don't weigh anything based on the AC, your generic answers are non-responsive and that's an independent reason to vote you down. 2. So what if children are, in the SQUO, dependent on parents, my framework absolves them of this need for infinite drawing on the parents. Seriously, I am critiquing paternalism, your author is not responsive at all. 3. I don't claim solvency, I claim that in-round discourse of allowing for the destruction of the paternalist drive in all of us leads to my impacts not happening - you are an adolescent autonomously making the choice to debate, and thus you are kicking out the mommy-daddy complex that you are afforded. 4. My autonomy-first framework says that, all things considered, we should look to the benefits of autonomy before all else because it's really gucci. You aren't responsive ever. 5. My value outweighs, extend that argument that I made in cross-x about how my value is the core to basically all other ones so you have to be evaluating ethical egoism, which is at odds with the NC. 6. My impacts are realised, theres are just 'maybe something bad happens when the aff wins', while mine are in-round 100% sure to happen to prevent our complete destruction from society