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

Pro's just not doing enough work to answer back for the framework issues and isn't doing anywhere near enough work on the substance level to garner any kind of offense. And, he concedes to my burden set-up, so this means that because he's not winning sufficient offense coming from his case, he loses the round. On Kant:Extend my turn to Universizability. Nothing is universizable medically. There's no medical decision that we can will upon all rational actors to take because no two situations are the same medically, meaning that different options exist to meet different needs in different situations. There's no one universizable answer to a medical problem, thus trying to advocate for Kant in this debate fails because he'll never be able to meet the requirement of universizability. His responses to this are insufficient to answer back for this. His attempt to appeal to an "on balance" side of things misunderstands the way universizability works in the first place, and the tangent he makes about euthenasia and an adolescent's right to life doesn't respond in any way to my argument against universizability. Insofar as the turn stands then he can't fulfill his framework which means that he can't actually affirm the resolution. Extend the turn I make to reversability in that it opens the door for perpetual violations of worth and an endless cycle of violence as each crime commited justifies further crimes from other people. We ought to reject his framework for this reason. He says that it doesn't work because I wouldn't will being myself getting killed onto other people, but doesn't respond that people would will killing others onto other people. We can see this because murderers and serial killers exist. This means that with each kill we justify further killings under the concept of Reversability. And it wouldn't matter killing doesn't mean the Kingdom of Ends if I'm giving you a reason to reject the concept of reversability since they're, according to Pro, two entirely serapate things. Then, extend the first response I give to the Kingdom of Ends that says that it relies on his second contention being true in order for it to be true. If competence is a requirement to enter the Kingdom of Ends, then if I'm showing you that adolescents aren't competent then his framework is a priori false. He never responds to this anywhere in the debate. Don't let him make a last minute response to this. Then, extend the third response I make that says that it's impossible to actually determine if an end I'm advocating for is actually the end or just a means to a different end. The mere fact that we're having a disagreement over what end is really the actual end we should be striving to achieve in this case (his advocacy of freedom and my advocacy of health and life) lends credence to the uncertainty of ends. This means that we're never actually sure if we're meeting his framework and we're never actually sure if we've met the Kingdom of Ends or not. There's no response to this, don't let him make a last minute response. But even if we can understand what's actually an end, extend the second response I make that says that the negative best meets the Kingdom of Ends by protecting the lives of the adolescents. My end comes first because having freedom doesn't really give us anything if we're dead. If I'm best protecting the adolescent by preventing them from making mistakes that harm themselves, then I'm best meeting the Kingdom of Ends. This means that if you buy his framework for whatever reason, I best meet it which means that you still negate. On Decision-Making Ability:Extend my turn to Piaget's theory of development. According to Piaget adolescents only begin developing their decision-making abilities at this age, and that development only concludes later in adulthood. This means that adolescents lack the same development that adults have, thus are more prone to making mistakes and endangering themselves. His response is just flat out false and a misunderstanding of what Piaget actually advocates for. The progression of one stage to another indicates that, much like passing Calculus 1 means that you're ready to take Calculus 2, finishing one stage means that you're ready to learn about the next stage of development, not that you're fully capable of performing the next stage[1]. This is critical in the round. This means that Piaget's theory of cognitive development actually negates the round. This means that you're presuming negative on the comptetence debate because now not only does my evidence support my side of the debate, but his evidence supports my side of the debate as well, meaning I have a broader platform of support with far more consensus that my position is correct. And, on the "I dropped adolescents can make key medical decisions argument":My opponent is being intentionally deceptive with his sources. Compare the tag lines that he uses for the same piece of evidence from the last round ("You also have a 17 year-old who is unable to refuse life saving surgery, but can be tried as an adult in the eyes of the law. ") to what he's claiming it says this round ("My opponent dropped an argument that I had brought up in my last round showing that despite adolescents not being able to make some medical descission, but they were able to make certain key decissions ranging from abortions to life saving surgeries on their children despite being an adolescent. "). Those are two entirely separate claims. Don't punish me for my opponent obscuring what his sources are talking about, especially if he only provides the citation and not a link to the actual text of the source. And the UN argument is literally an argument from authority - his argument is that because the UN has recognized it, we should to because it's the UN yo. I'm really not that upset I dropped this. And, extend my response to the study he cited that his own statistics support my side of the debate. His own study says that adolescents make rational medical decisions less often than adults do. Because adolescents are worse at these decisions, we ought to not allow them to make the decisions to protect their health. What number the adults are at is irrelevant in the sense that whatever number it is is above the number for adolescents, meaning that adults are still better. His argument is that the divide isn't that big, whereas my argument is that a divide exists in the first place, and that's the important factor to realize. This is where his rollercoaster analogy fails - we have to think about what's in the best interest of the adolescent and what best protects them from harm. If they make worse decisions, this means that they're more likely to cause harm to themselves than they are to make a good decision, meaning there's no good reason to give them the right to screw up their life. This is the game-over mistake in the round because this means that there's literally not a single piece of evidence my opponent uses that doesn't support my position more than it supports his. Which means I'm just staight-up winning the competence debate. Moreover, you can still extend the three studies I cited that shows that behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally adolescents aren't capable of making these decisions. His response for why his study should be preferred doesn't make any kind of sense. There's no quality versus quantity distinction - that's like saying the one study that shows that vaccines cause aids is just as valid as the hundreds of studies that says that they don't and that saying that there's a litany of evidence against the claims is just a "quality versus quantity" issue. It doesn't actually respond to the reason why more evidence in favor of a position means it's more likely to be true, nor does it make any kind of sense realistically. Moreover, even if you want to look at it from a quality perspective, my studies are of higher quality because he drops the other two reasons I give to prefer my studies. My studies are more recent than his studies are, meaning that they're more indicative of what's actually going on today rather than what might've been going on in the past, and that my sources go into specifics as to why adolescents can't make these decisions, while his source only asserts that they can without providing any kind of internal justification for why they can. This means that not only do I have more evidence that supports my position, but I have better evidence that supports my position than he does. And, extend the argument I make that says that educating them isn't enough to actually solve back for why they can't make these decisions. It goes dropped throughout the entirety of the debate. This is critical because it means that there's literally no way for the affirmative to fix the problem - the lack of ability to make these decisions rationally is inherent to the affirmative position. This means the only side looking out for the welfare of the adolescent is the negative. Conclusion:I'm winning on all three parts of the framework debate showing you why either a) his framework fails entirely, or b) negating best fulfills it rather than affirming. I'm winning on substance by showing you that adolescents most definitely cannot make these decisions anywhere near as much as adults can, meaning that we shouldn't allow adolescents to be making these decisions. And since this level of the debate is necessary for him to actually win his framework, because I'm winning here it provides a third reason to not buy his framework. [1] - . http://www.simplypsychology.org...;