People should have the right to make dangerous choices.

Since this is the last round, I will not offer new substantive contentions and will simply sum up how I see the debate. First, if you scroll back to round one, you'll see that I opened my case with the generalization "exceptionally dangerous choices should only be taken in exceptionally dangerous circumstances. " As you can see, I don't want to prevent risk-taking. I want to protect risk-takers. I want to make sure that firemen, lumberers and policemen alike have the qualifications they need to do their job. I say people who train for years to be a stuntman should be privileged over those who have no experience whatsoever. I told you, in round two, why this is in principle - because expertise is the basis of freedom. I also proved why the state should enforce this. My model gives these benefits. Pro has ultimately attacked this analysis from six angles (excluding three or four dropped points), some of which were repeated and rehashed across multiple points. The analysis that he ignored was that his model undermines training institutions, forcing them to shut down and making dangerous decisions even more dangerous. This is important. His model is not only allowing poor decision makers to make dangerous decisions, but even dwindling the pool of good decision makers until all our choices are made by unqualified people. Again, he did not respond. I also made a minor point about sped-up development time, to which I saw no response. First, he says we should also account for an individual's self-responsibility and utility in assessing people, which of course we can't. On the first issue, I have already told you that self-responsibility cannot be objectified and therefore would only be discriminate if included. Furthermore it isn't playing out in reality - most doctors are responsible. On the second issue, I told you last round that everyone who wants to do something will have a reward, so reward can be assumed. On all of these points, my opponent gave you no response. Second, he claims new activities don't have standards and therefore should be banned under my model. This was a new argument dropped into the last round. My simple answer is that my model already accommodates for this. We shouldn't do things just because they're new and we know how to do them. We should do things when they become safe to do. When we learn of the safe way to do something, we should be allowed to do it. If the safe way is common sense, then doing it is not a dangerous decision and therefore not relevant to the motion. When something cannot be done safely, why would we do it? Third, he claims that when denied some risks, people might move on to more dangerous risks (such as smokers going to on more dangerous risky behavior). Again, this was a new argument dropped into the third round. The reason why people smoke is because they are pressured into it, directly or indirectly. Nobody goes around smoking for the sake of risking their life. Therefore, if we apply counter-pressure, one can reasonably predict smoking rates will drop. Look at cannabis - where legal, cannabis is smoked more frequently than where its illegal. The same pressures apply to unhealthy eating. Without extra pressure to eat unhealthily, why would people do so? Cigarettes suppress appetite slightly, but not to an unhealthy level. My opponent offered no narrative of where the pressure would come from, so the point must fall. Even if he did, I anticipated this point with my point that people care about government standards. My opponent did not respond. Fourth, pro argues that few people die due to their own stupidity, so people are naturally risk-averse, so my model is not needed. Maybe he should have responded to my counter-analysis, that my model isn't for the many, but for the few who don't play by society's rules. He also didn't really engage with my point that smoking is a dangerous decision because it so frequently causes death, other than saying "I say it's up to them. " That assertion, characteristic of much of the rhetoric in my opponent's case, was never properly substantiated. I also think he is making dodgy use of statistics, for instance, counting a freak act of nature as preventable. In any event, the point fails. Fifth, that the tests for stuntmen or fishers are subjective, while other risk-takers, such as entrepreneurs, are almost entirely self-selected. First, I have already told you that being an entrepreneur or similar is predicated upon getting a small business loan. Even if you don't need one, not everyone can start a business, for instance, previously bankrupt people. To make a dangerous decision within a business there are usually laws requiring the decision is made with a due amount of care. Those are not subjective tests. They have each been objectified in bank codes and court cases. On dangerous occupations, there is nothing subjective about knowing fishing regulations or stunt safety procedure. Either you do or you don't. My opponent never told us why it is subjective, other than that only the people doing the professions decide what they can do. That's ignorant of my analysis in round two that these things can be tested. Of course you don't just take people's word for it - you determine their ability before you let them take the risk. Sixth, that bureaucrats are zealous anti-risk crusaders. However, restricting choice carries political capital that ensures extreme restrictions will be voted out. Also note that my opponent is really only asserting this, having given no analysis as to why this is true. My opponent did not respond to any of this, although I gave you both points of analysis towards the end of last round. Therefore the point cannot stand. As you can see, my model has stood the test of all six of my opponent's attacks, and therefore should win. Risk-takers can only teach us what is possible if they are actually able to succeed in taking those risks. One can never mandate the success of all highly risky activities, but the least one can do is take risks responsibly. Risks are great. I welcome challenges. I am grateful to farmers, explorers and miners, not because of the risks they took, but because of the success they've found. That success came from their expertise. We don't let anyone do anything in society - certain freedoms must be restricted for the good of ourselves and others. Let the experts overcome the dangers. Don't leave it to amateurs.