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

I will begin with my case and then move on to my opponent's case. Firstly, my opponent offered no counter-framework so the debate will be evaluated based on who best upholds life. My opponent asked me which is more important: saving an innocent life or the money involved. But this clearly shows a lack of understanding of my argument. As I stated in my argument, the lack of understanding of finances causes death. And my opponent also assumes that adolescents can and will make the choice that is in their best interests, but as I stated in my second contention, these adolescents don't actually have the brain control to do so. My opponent claimed that my argument about cosmetic surgery violated the definition of medical. But this is false. Let me restate the definition to clarify: Medical - of or relating to the science of medicine, OR to the treatment of illness and injuries. ; of or relating to conditions requiring medical but not surgical treatment. "Or" is defined by Merriam-Webster as used as a function word to indicate an alternative. So medical could relate to EITHER the science of medicine OR the treatment of illness or injury. Thus, I meet the definition and you should extend my arguments. On my second contention: My opponent counters my argument that adolescents don't have developed brains by citing their argument that adolescents "as young as fourteen" can make decisions the same way as adults. So our evidence conflicts. I have three responses to this. (1) Prefer my evidence because my study looks at the brains of adolescents while my opponent's study just looks at a small isolated group of adolescents. So my study is better because it is applicable to more people, as well as being in a real-world setting outside of the lab. (2) Prefer my evidence because it is from a more credible source than my opponent's evidence. Their evidence is from a topic brief which may or may not use actual, credible evidence. My study links directly to a university institution which can be trusted to do credible research. (3) Even if you believe my opponent's evidence, it only claims that adolescents ages fourteen and over should be able to make autonomous medical choices. But the definition my opponent provides in their case talks about adolescents as young as ten. If ten to fourteen-year-olds don't have the right to make autonomous medical choices, it is not really giving all adolescents the right to do so and you should negate. So in this way my opponent's study actually benefits my case. I also never claim to support adolescents being tried as adults in law, which is my opponent's other main argument. Let's move on to my opponent's case. I have already responded to their first contention while talking about my case. So I don't need to talk about that again. Moving to their second contention. My opponent talks about the UN Declaration of human rights. They claim that the right to free expression means that they should be granted the right to make autonomous medical choices. But let's flesh out what this right to free expression really means. "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice. " This has nothing to do with the right to make medical choices, only to express their wishes and have information. But even if you don't buy that, this "right" makes no sense. Children have the right to access to information of all kinds? So, does this mean that a parent cannot prevent a young child from accessing pornography? Or websites where drugs are sold? This right makes no sense. My opponent's third contention talks about how adolescents want to be involved in the decision making process. But would you prefer that these adolescents make a choice that results in their death or that they are slightly less involved but stay alive? Most people would say that life is better, and as this round is evaluated on who best promotes life, it is clear that that is the correct choice. I have proven many times over that I protect lives much better than my opponent does.