Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

Con's Arguments:So Con effectively just makes the singular argument that adolescents ought not be able to have autonomy because their parents have more experience so can maybe make a better decision. There's a number of responses I can make to this:First, Even if you buy that parents are better at making decisions, that doesn't mean that adolescents can't make the decisions themselves. Con needs to be arguing for why adolescents can't make decisions, not why adults are better. Even if adults are better that doesn't mean that adolescents can't make good decisions themselves.Second, Even if she's showing that adolescents are worse than adults at decision making, that ought not exclude them from rights. If I'm overweight and out of shape, I probably can't complete a marathon. But even though I lack the ability to complete the marathon, I still have the right to sign up and try. Con needs to argue why adolescents being unable to make good decisions means that they should be excluded from rights, and she's not doing that.Third, neither of the first two responses actually matter because adolescent decision making is empirically provent o be just as good as adult decision making, meaning the experience difference is irrelevant. Sloninat[9]: "empirical research on cognitive development and medical decisions supports Piagetian theory that around age fifteen children have the same decision-making capabilities as an adult ... In a well-known 1982 study ... They took a test group of 96 subjects ... The subjects' responses to question 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 ... the older adolescents ... were able to list a greater number of benefits and risks of the medical treatements and were able to anticipate the consequences of treatment in more abstract manner ... Comparisons of adolescents and adult decision-making with regard to risky behaviors ... have demonstrated that adolescents and adults are equally able to identify possible consequences of risky behavior. In addition, adolescents and adults assess the consequences similarly; they estimate similar probabilities or likelihoods of consequences." This means that adolescents can make the same decisions as adults, meaning that there's no reason to not to give them rights.But fourth, cross-apply Agatston et al. and Keith and Martin 1 to this response. Even if adults are able to make better decisions because of their life experiences, they're never in the position to make these decisions because adolescents don't tell their parents about the cyber-bullying, for fear of their parents taking away their internet access and making the bullying worse. The only way to solve this problem is impliment the plan and give adolescents the right to go without parental consent, which means affirm.And fifth, cross apply Driggs. Without the autonomy to go and seek medical health treatment for mental health issues without their parents knowing, minors are likely to just not go get help at all, which prevents solution to the problem. It doesn't matter how much better the parents decision making is if the adolescent never allows for a decision to be even made by not wanting to go. This means that in order to solve the problem, we need to affirm.The Plan:Outside of this sole response, there's literally no response to the entirety of the plan. This means that you can extend across Webster talking about how cyberbullying is a problem. Then extend out DeHue et al. talking about the harms of cyberbullying and Weisz et al. talking about the impacts of those harms. Then extend out the plan-text of granting adolescents the medical autonomy to sek treatment for mental health issues without parental consent if necessary and Mallot and Beidel talking about how treatment is effective at solving for the harms of cyber bullying. All of this goes entirely conceded. Conclusion:The round breaks down pretty simply. She essentially drops the plan to make a single argument. I'm winning against the argument in five different ways.