People should have the right to make dangerous choices.

This is the round where I refute my opponent's case, including his case against my case. Since I don't have the letter count for a cool intro, let's get right into it!Pro 1. Restrictions unjustMy opponent argues that since bureaucrats do not know you, your risks and rewards, they will be making their claims about your ability based on statistics. That's not how it works. Look at car licenses: the government doesn't profile people's right to drive based on crash statistics. Rather, they say that if you can pass the test, you're good enough. That is a fairly accurate way of assessing how dangerous your choices are. We don't just let anyone be a doctor or lawyer because we recognize there is a high level of risk involved. Do we exclude certain doctors based on statistics? No. We examine their ability.If my opponent is advocating justice, discrimination based on who you are should be irrelevant to his calculation - otherwise the argument only promotes arbitrary inequality. Further irrelevant is the reward. If I don't want to be a doctor, I won't go to medical school and sit the test. If we have no reward, we won't need to make the choice.Finally, my opponent states that informing somebody of the risk goes far enough. First this was only an assertion, second it's an untrue one - we don't just warn people of the dangers of lighting fires near a tank of LPG, we actively prohibit it, and for good reason.Pro 2. Progress depends on riskI don't think the risks necessary for progress should be taken by just anybody. Without proper training I should not go on a commercial fishing boat. The fact is that we catch more than enough fish already - indeed many people fear that we are over-fishing! We need to examine the ability of people who take dangerous risks for us to make sure that the risk has been as minimized as is possible.The next stage of this argument is that I am apparently only advocating for wasting money on bureaucrats who slow development time and scare people. On the first point, the cost of qualifying somebody to take a risk is offset by the savings of not having millions foolishly take that risk. Not having a system in place undermines necessary training for dangerous professions and thereby endangers everyone who is employed by those industries - as well as annoying us, who will end up having less fish after all the fishermen are killed in storms. On the second point, development time is not slowed by ensuring minimum standards of competence for dangerous work - indeed, it is sped up because everyone always has a minimum skill set. Finally, yes, my opponent is right to claim that some do not have the courage to front up to "bureaucratic" events, such as a rally safety briefing. If that's the case, those drivers won't have the courage to make a dangerous choice while under the pressure of driving at insane speeds down poor-condition roads, and therefore probably shouldn't be driving.Finally he claims that it is fundamental to human freedom to be allowed to make dangerous choices. That is saying that nothing is a privilege because every choice is a fundamental human freedom and therefore our non-absolute right. If my opponent denies the existence of privileges, how can he claim to prove that making dangerous choices is not one!?Pro 3. Government-enforced slaveryMy opponent opens this point by mentioning smoking is not a burden on others. However for an individual, smoking cannot be done safely. You can make it more dangerous for yourself, but you cannot smoke safer than the default. The trouble is that the default is incredibly dangerous. 18.1% of all deaths in the United States are attributable to tobacco (http://www.csdp.org...). As I have gone on to show, the role of the state is to stop us doing stupid things. It cannot be safe, so it must be stupid.Then my opponent asks where we draw the line. Easy. The line is drawn at the point where there is no safe way to do something dangerous. That's why we have building codes for staircases which, in many cases, force homeowners to not have their stairs too small. If we can't do something safely, we shouldn't be allowed to do it.Then we read that since governments ban dangerous choices, they ban all choices they might consider dangerous, which leads to a statedom of prayer and ceremony, which leads to us losing our souls. Again this is pure rhetoric. I have given clear reasons why governments cannot ban all choices, and even if they did, there is no causal link between banning choices and mandating prayer.He also claims the alternative is self-responsibility. But I'm only advocating legislating against taking actions that are so dangerous for an inexperienced individual as to be necessarily irresponsible!Pro 4. Ineffective?My opponent claims people regulate these things themselves. If that were the case, then legislating for the minimum standard that already exists won't have any negative impact, because nothing will change. However I don't think people do regulate themselves. This is like my opponent is assuming his all-seeing power is guiding us under the status quo! The reason why we compromise our safety so often is because the standards don't exist.Then my opponent asserts that people don't care for standards (1-sentence wonder argument). I doubt that too. Most employers today look for qualified people. That in itself will get people caring about standards.Con 1. Not everyone is an expertIt is irrelevant whether somebody is actually able to pilot a light aircraft or surf by some rocks. What is relevant is the risk they take on in doing so. That's why many beaches have flags telling us where it is safe to swim. Making the dangerous choice to swim by the rocks is bad because of the danger involved, regardless of whether the kids were lucky enough to not get hurt. And yes, pro surfers could get hurt on those rocks too (just as Jackie Chan might mess up a stunt) but the point is that their experience reduces that risk. I argue that reducing the risk should be the basis for rights.Next we hear a refutation of my claim that objective standards exist for stuntmen, dangerous sports, or dangerous jobs. First, agents won't represent stuntmen unless they can show that they can do the stunts. Usually this means going to one of the hundreds of stuntmen schools out there. The standard is objectively set by the coordinator for each movie. Second, dangerous sports are closely monitored by competition organizers and training facilities. You can't do any white-water rafting without several hours of expert instruction. Third, the standard for dangerous jobs depends on the job and is set both by the companies that run these operations and local regulation. You can't start up a commercial fishing operation without some understanding of fishing laws, for instance local quotas.It might be objected that many of these standards are already set by society, so why the government interference? Again, there are some people who just don't play by the rules society establishes. This is a problem for us to fix.Con 2. Role of StateHere we only one attack, "tyranny of the majority" - democracy is not always fair. He's right. But the cause of this unfairness is bad democracy. As I have shown, the multitude of loud opinions conflict each other, meaning they'll never get majority support, so only the non-controversial opinions usually get resolved. Sometimes it is true this does not happen. But we're dealing with the purpose of the government here. That a few abuse the system should not mean the voices of the many get ignored. Here the voices are calling for standards. I'm saying - let them be heard!A minor related point was raised that the government will be egoistic. First, no evidence. Second, they have a strong mandate not to be, as I have shown already.With all my opponent's points addressed, I look forward to my sum-up next round!