Anyone 16 or older should be held accountable for their own actions within the court of law

...okay, let's try a little fisking to make this debate a little longer.Anyone(Human) 16 or older should qualify for a higher court such as general sessions insted of Juvenile court. This is simply restating the position of PRO, so I won't say much. However, I would like to point out my opponent affirms anyone. Every single person. Let's look at who falls into the category of anyone:MeThose who suffer from mental disabilitiesThose with a petition of Right[1]Those who are acting as diplomats or equivalent from another country.Now, you may hold different weight to each of these things, but I plan to argue that "all" people is too wide a group to call to order. The refferee[sic] for the juveniles usually just take[s] the delinquents['] drivers license away for a period of usually 1 year...Alright, my opponent probably is referring to a referee of the juvenile court[2], but the fact that this is all that happens most of the time shows one simple "fact": that delinquents usually do not need to be punished to the extent that they need a full criminal hearing and be taken to a serious punishment. However, I question that this usually happens. If this was not the final round, I would probably ask for a citation of this. However, if we look this up at all, we can see[3] that "The referee will make a recommendation to the judge regarding the finding and disposition. Dispositions that the referee recommends are subject to approval by the judge and include those available in matters handled by a judge with the exception of out-of-home placement". In other words, he will make an advisory settlement. If the adivce he gives is only a one year driver licence ban don't you think that shows how little danger there is?Therfore[sic] the general sessions should just have to go ahead and accept 16 and older.Again, simply an affirmation to the motion. If I was to make the argument into a syllogism:P1 - "The refferee[sic] for the juveniles usually just take[s] the delinquents['] drivers license away for a period of usually 1 year"P2 - ???C1 - Profit Therfore[sic] the general sessions should just have to go ahead and accept 16 and older.The first premise is wrong, there is no second premise, and the conclusion does not link to the first premise.[A] child starting at the age of 10 can begin the process of being criminally involved with Juvenile court, that gives an iindevidual 6 years to stop and realize.I don't know how to respond to this. I don't even understand the point. Is it a second idea? A postulation? An argument? I would, again, ask for clarification, but I have no extra rounds.My argument:My argument comes from the simple proposition that not 100% of children should be subject to their own actions. I shall split it up into two seperate groups: those who cannot represent themselves, and those who do not represent themselves.Cannot Represent themselves: the psychologically deficientThose who are psychologically deficient cannot represent themselves. This much is clear. The law specifically addresses this, and says "Where in any indictment or information any act or omission is charged against any person as an offence...but was insane as aforesaid at the time when he did or made the same, the jury shall return a special verdict that the accused is not guilty by reason of insanity"[3]. This states quite clearly that one who is psychoogically deficient may be deemed not to represent themselves, and they are not guilty of any crime.Does not represent themselves: the AmbassadorsAmbassadors have what is known as diplomatic immunity, which "in the UK is conferred on all entitled members of a foreign mission (and entitled family members forming part of their household, provided they are not nationals of the UK) who have been notified to, and accepted by, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) as performing a diplomatic function. Immunity is dependent on rank, and ranges from immunity from criminal and civil and administrative jurisdiction to immunity for official acts only."[4]. As they represent their country, and precedent has given them immunity, they do not represent themselves, and therefore they are not themselves 'prosecutable' of any crime.If you agree with either of my arguments, they prima facie rank over my opponent. I suggest they have made a poor attempt at a debate, and has not messaged me even though they have forfeited to restart the debate or in any way attempted contact myself. The spelling and grammar has been poor, and have made unsubstantiated (unsourced) claims. I feel the vote is obvious, vote CON.1 - http://www.britannia.com...;2 - http://referees-association.org...;3 - http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us...;4 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk...;