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

My opponent drops a few key arguments and misunderstands a few others, and because of it he's losing the round. Let's start on the framework debate.Extend Campbell. Campbell talks about how any time we make a normative claim about anything, including concepts like Justice, that they carry ontological assumptions within them. Until we address the ontological questions assumed within normative statements, normative statements are meaningless. Con never makes any kind of response to Campbell. This means that you're preferring morality to justice, as I'm the only one questioning these ontological questions. Don't let him make a response to it in the last round because I won't be able to make any kind of response to it. This means that I'm winning the framework debate entirely because I'm the only one making any kind of attempt to link to morality, whereas Con doesn't even attempt to link into it.But, if you don't buy that, extend my response that by his own literal statement (a.k.a. where he says "If something is unjust, it is immoral."), morality and justice are equatable. He responds by saying that morality is the means for the ends of justice, but he provides no warrant for why they still can't be interchangable. In fact, it begs the same question of what the actual difference is, which is a question he's not providing a good answer to. This means that even if you prefer his framework to my own, then I can still link into it. Moreover, according to his entire page about positive and negative liberties, the only thing that's preventing me from linking into justice is me showing that adolescents can't make rational decisions. So let's go to substance now.Extend the three studies that I provided in the last round talking about how empiricially it's been shown that adolescents have the same rational decision making as adults do, especially in terms of making medical decisions that affect their health and being in the long term. His sole refutation to the three studies I show is that they deal with hypothetical situations and not with actual events, thus we should prefer his evidence about the brain studies. There's a number of responses that can be made to this:1. This is blatantly untrue, and any brief scanning of the studies I cited will show this. Look to "The subjects' responses to questions were evaluated and scored by a panel of twenty experts on four standards of competency: evidence of choice, reasonable outcome, rational reasons, and understanding. The results indicated that fourteen-year-olds demonstrated a competency equal to that of eighteen and twenty-oneyear- olds" from the Sloninat evidence, look to "They found that minors aged fourteen and older "demonstrate a level of competency equivalent to that of adults."' These results support earlier work performed by Jean Piaget which suggested that individuals enter the "formal operational stage" during adolescence, and thereafter "possess the cognitive capability to reason, understand, appreciate, and articulate decisions comparable to young adults." from the Will evidence, and look to "showing that adolescents ≥ 14 years of age did not differ from young adults in their ability to understand diagnostic and treatment information, rationally consider alternatives, and make reasonable choices. Developmental analyses indicate that by age 11 children begin to understand the physiologic basis of disease, and children as young as 8-10 years may be capable of an “adult” understanding of death as universal, unalterable, and permanent." from the Derrington evidence. All of this speaks to specific, real-life event calculation of consequences.2. His refutation to this makes no sense: if we can't test people's competency with hypothetical examples, then that takes out literally every way of testing anyone for an understanding of anything. His argument is absurd. 3. Extend the second reason I gave you to prefer my evidence that says that even if his arguments about brain development are true, then the fact that these studies exist show that his evidence doesn't actually matter. Even with lesser developed brains, adolescents possess the ability to make these kinds of decisions. This should tell you exactly how important the brain development is to the resolution (hint, it isn't). 4. But even if you don't buy that, extend the Baldwin evidence which is talking about how making bad decisions shouldn't exclude one from having rights. Adults are capable of making mistakes as well, and we still give them the rights to make their own autonomous decisions, even before they hit the magical "25 years old" mark. His response is that it's not about the making of decisions, but rather the rationalizing of decisions, and that we don't hold adolescents to the same standard as adults. But a) this misses the mark of what Baldwin is even talking about -- it doesn't matter whether it's the acting or the rationalizing that's the key distinction because there are adults that fail in this regard too. We don't punish those adults, though, which seems to suggest that this actually isn't a relevant distinction, or at least ought not be a relevant distinction, and b) We actually can and often do hold adolescents accountable on an adult-like standard for their actions. Adolescents can and have been tried as adults under the judicial system and last I checked insurance companies don't really make distinctions for minors who get into car accidents and forgive them for their "inability to rationalize the situation". Last I checked they're punished more severely with higher car insurance rates.So Baldwin stands. Even if he's right and that adolescents aren't able to rationalize their decisions as well as adults can, that ought not be a deciding factor in whether or not they deserve the right to make their own autonomous decisions. The negative case actually drops from this card alone.5. But even if you haven't bought a single word of what I've said so far, you can extend Steinberg. Steinberg is the game-over mistake from Con because it talks specifically about how making generalizing statements about things like brain development in adolescents misunderstands how we actually make decisions and misunderstands the maturity requirements that are relevant in decision making. Only looking at empirical trials and tests of decision making capacity can we actually come to understand adolescents potential in making good, autonomous decisions. This is the game over mistake because this goes entirely, 100% dropped from my opponent's last round. He doesn't make a single response to the very long, lengthy card that explicitly states that everything his case is about is entirely wrong.Don't let him stand up and make a response to this card. He had the chance to respond to it and didn't. Hold this mistake against him. And I won't have a chance to actually defend myself after this round, so letting him respond to it in the last round is inherently unfair. Because I'm winning Steinberg, you don't look to any of the brain studies and PFC evidence. Since that's entirely what con's case and refutations are based around, his entire case drops at that point, as do his responses to the plan as they were all predicated around the brain studies as well.So let's go to the plan.Extend the framework. The only way to be moral is to reject fix gender identities, which is coming from all the Butler evidence I read. The only way to actually go about doing this is this is the plan, which go almost entirely unaddressed throughout the entire debate. Extend the harms of not doing the plan, which is the Shober and the ISNA 1 evidence talking about the psychological harms of not affirming as well as by not affirming we're re-enforcing and re-entrenching sexist and patriarchical standards within society that we ought to reject. None of it goes addressed. It outweighs the negative case in that even if he's right that adolescents brain deveolpment isn't quite there, the harms are more harmful and more important to solve for. There's no actual harm listed by the negative to affirming the plan, and he's not doing any work to show that by affirming we don't solve for the harms, so I'm the only one with any kind of actual impact toward the resolution. I'm the only one with actual offense. Then extend the solvency of adopting the Yogyakarta method. This ensures that adolescents are making decisions that are free of unwanted outside influences and are purely autonomous. There's no response to the solvency other than adolescents brain development isn't there, but that's already responded to.Conclusion:The debate breaks down really simply.The framework debate is a wash. Either I'm winning it in which case you affirm the resolution because I'm the only one trying to disrupt fixed gender identities, or you throw it out entirely because I'm showing that I can adequately link to his framework of justice. The plan goes entirely unaddressed. I'm extending off clean offense from the imacpts of not affirming the plan, and giving you weighing to show that even if his case is right and the brain development isn't there, that the harms of not affirming are too great for that to matter.Also I'm winning that adolescents can make rational, autonomous decisions on the negative side of the flow, so the entirety of the negative case falls away at that point from the three studies I showed and the Steinberg evidence.And even if I'm not winning there, I'm showing that it's not even important to the ultimate decision through the Baldwin evidence by showing that this ought not be something that actually distinguishes adults from adolescents. There's literally no place you can negate the resolution and I'm the only one with any kind of offense back to the resolution.