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

My promise of ceasing to use the word "I" after the first paragraph has expired because the second round is over. I am now able to use "I" in this round and will. My opponent has stated that juveniles "can NOT" be tried as adults unless they commit murder with a specific weapon. However, her statement does not apply to all states, because juvenile laws widely vary between state legislatures: http://www.slate.com... . Also, it doesn't matter whether or not juveniles can currently be tried as adults under any state or federal legislatures because the debate is about what ought to happen, not just what is already happening. Because my opponent has again failed to defend why keeping a system in place is always, or at least generally the best option, her use of this argument is invalid. The con also points out that regression in the mental state of the brain affects juveniles, but she consistently fails to say that this prevents the from being able to tell right from wrong. She also mentions the possibility of environment affecting juveniles' ability to tell right from wrong, but anyone could be affected by his or her environment, not exclusively juveniles, and absolutely nothing in the adult court system forbids the defense from asking the jury or judge to consider the defendant's environment. When my opponent states that juveniles going to jail would make them more likely to become repeat offenders, she fails to back this up with any evidence whatsoever. It could be argued that because it appeals to my logic, a juvenile would be less likely to commit a violent felony if (s)he is threatened with adult consequences, and that if (s)he is convicted and finds out what adult jail is like, that (s)he will be less likely to want to go back there. The negative side points out that a juvenile tried in adult court loses all rights as juveniles and then must face consequences that will affect them and their families. But isn't that the point? Juveniles should be held accountable for their actions. Adults who must face adult consequences also affect their families as well as their own lives. The con states that reasoning behind certain legislation preventing juveniles from being tried as adults is because it is "what's best for the child." But, how does the law know what is "best for the child"? This whole argument is over what is the best way to treat juveniles who commit violent felonies. My argument is that the governments with legislation that discriminates based on age in the United States do not know what is "best for the child". My opponent presents that juveniles are still in "the learning stage" and that they have more potential because of this. This is true, but it also applies to some adults, and after the "stage" itself adults continue to learn and grow throughout their lives. You yourself have stated that the "regression" stage extends until a person is 22, and therefore some adults would fall into this category. If adult court is sufficient for those people, it is sufficient for juveniles. Also, the learning potential varies from person to person and again, there is nothing in the adult court system that prevents the defense from pointing out individual potential for change. The con also states that we are telling juveniles what is right, and what is wrong, but that does not mean juveniles themselves do not know what is right and wrong. Just because I tell you that murder is a felony, it does not mean that you are incapable of already knowing it. Also, again, there are adults who have less developed reasoning skills that still must face adult court. These adults are allowed to present their reasoning skills to the jury or the judge, just as juveniles would be allowed if they were treated as adults. The negative also said that adults know if they attack someone in a violent manner it may result in death. This knowledge does not apply to all juveniles, but it also does not apply to all adults. The excuse that a person does not understand the consequences of his or her actions can be used as a defense in adult court, and therefore there should not be a special set of rules for juveniles if their rights can be protected in adult court. I am a juvenile myself as I have said in previous rounds, and I certainly understand what murder, rape, robbery, assault, and other violent felonies are wrong, so the argument that juveniles don't understand this already does not apply to all juveniles, because without looking any further I found an example to contradict that argument in myself. My opponent has still failed to address the subject of ageism. She again has not argued for ageism, and she has not argued that her argument does not use ageism. My opponent has also consistently failed to argue against my assertions that the adult court system can justly, and effectively protect juveniles and their rights, just as they do for adults. Since she has not refuted some of my strongest arguments from the previous rounds, I urge you to vote negative. Separate from the arguments, a note to my opponent: Thank you, TKD_TY_67, for your time. I am also a first time debater, just so you know. Other than informal, classroom debates, I have not debated, and this is the most formal setting in which I have done an actual debate. I am going to debate in two weeks because my coach is finally going to let me to; he didn't allow me last time because he thought that I needed to observe first and am "only a freshman" who will have plenty of time (maybe you can understand my ageism tactics a little better now ha ha) to debate in the future. I'm also going to try extemp (only SLIGHTLY nervous about doing two events my first time). I actually joined this site to both help hone my debating skills and do what I love to do which is debating. You do still have work to do, but you can definitely improve, just as the same goes for me. I am the only person doing an actual debate event on my speech and debate team, so I feel pressure to do my best. Thank you for the compliments; they definitely help with my confidence (yes; believe it or not, I struggle to appear confident in person). It's been a fun debate, thanks again! I would shake your hand, but alas my computer does not contain such technology.