People should have the right to make dangerous choices.

If my opponent's conception of an Orwellian dystopia arising from people not making dangerous choices sounds a little bit scary to you, then take heart in knowing that I'm not arguing for banning choices in favor of government-enforced slavery (as you will see). This kind of emotive thinking was characteristic of my opponent's case - he played on people's fear of government bureaucracy, and on people's love of risk-taking or even using everyday things that people take for granted, such as walking down stairs. When you actually look at the logic of my opponent's case, suddenly it doesn't become so appealing. Every single one of his points was premised on the use of statistics to decide what makes a harm significant. Therefore the simplest rebuttal to every single one of his points is that what makes a harm significant is not a statistic, but the experience of the individual.In terms of my case structure, I will offer a truckload of specific attacks on my opponent's case in round three. In this round I will simply give two solid reasons why we should not have a right to make dangerous choices, and include a few rebuttal points scattered into my argument.1. Not everyone is an expertWhen I was 4 years old, even though I was fairly confident at walking, my parents would not let me walk down the stairs. Only after I had practiced with them for many hours, under their intense supervision, would they allow me to climb a spiral structure five times my own height. They were confident that I was no longer at risk of significant harm. When I was 12 years old, the ski-lift operators refused to take me to the top of Mt Ruapehu, where the toughest slopes were. I had to start out at the bottom where gentle areas were set up for beginners.The reason why we allow Jackie Chan to leap around the Eiffel Tower is because he knows what he's doing. He knows how to do absolutely crazy stunts, having trained for countless hours at the circus, and therefore the choice is unlikely to be significantly harmful. If I was to try to leap around the Eiffel Tower I would be promptly and rightly arrested and put on suicide watch.The way to make a dangerous decision to minimize the risk. That is true for all manner of possible dangerous activities. Driving really fast should only be done on the racetrack, because doing it on a random road - even when there are no other cars around - is too risky for an individual. However, we make an exception for rally car drivers who are trained to race under these conditions. In other words, what gives a person their freedom to choose to do something is their ability to overcome the possible dangers.The way to minimize the risk is, as I showed in the first paragraph, to learn under controlled conditions, where there is little risk. As one becomes more experienced one can increase the level of risk, but the risk is offset by the increased experience one has earnt. That's why I can't go to the bank and loan hundreds of millions to develop a new pharmaceutical - I have absolutely no idea how to create a pharmaceutical drug, meaning the risk for me is very high, so the bank knows that my chance of success is ridiculously slim. However, if I was the leader of a team of ace scientists, the bank will be more inclined to allow me to take the risk, because the risk of failure is relatively low.This, of course, begs the question of what makes one an expert. It cannot be tied to an exact likelihood or statistic of harm because this cannot be established (unless one can divine the future). At the same time the standard must be objective. My contention is that such standards in fact already exist for every activity. Driving, for instance, is often tied to both a test and a few supervised hours on the road. Developing pharmaceuticals is tied to having the relevant qualifications and probably some years of lab work. We don't just let people fly commercial aircraft until we are sure they are expert pilots. Amateur pilots, while they might luckily be able to fly such an aircraft, are simply too risky.My overall point is that where there is the possibility of doing something correctly, we should hold people up to a standard that society has already reasonably worked out. In some cases, where there is no safe way of doing that activity without significant individual harm, the only reasonable standard is to disallow it, as everyone is necessarily an amateur.2. It is the role of the state to stop us doing stupid thingsMany countries have laws mandating seat-belts, bicycle lights and car warrants. States provide guidance to people wishing to commit suicide, they fund lifesavers at the beaches, and generally contribute more than anyone to our society's education. Face it - the role of the state is to stop us being dumb.This isn't government ideology, as my opponent would have you believe. It is my understanding that the status quo is not government-enforced slavery. However, it must be conceded that most truly dangerous activities in our society are currently privileges reserved for those who know what they are doing. What I want to show, however, is the reason why the government is charged with enforcing this state of affairs.In our society we hold a wide variety of competing views about where the line should be drawn with respect to various dangerous choices people make. This is a good thing, as should be self-evident to debaters like us. The state is the only institution that, at least in theory, allows all of us to have our voices heard. I can't go to McDonalds and tell them about how great KFC is. I can't go to the KKK and tell them how awesome black people are. I can't go to Greenpeace and tell them that the environment fails. Why? Because none of these organizations listen to dissenting opinions. However, dissenting opinions form the heart of government - I can write to my representative right now and tell him whatever I want. If my idea is likely to have any support, then my representative has an incentive to bring it up. It is the one organisation where people of every kind of background and ideology are heard, and more importantly, regularly make themselves heard. Moreover, the strength of these opinions generally directly translates into the decisions made by the government. What we should and should not be allowed to do is something we all have our own opinions about.Therefore the government is the best placed institution to decide what we should not be able to do. The question therefore becomes when, not if, it is the government's role to restrict something. The reason why the government restricts things that we know are likely to cause serious harm to an individual is because the state marketplace of ideas nautrally generates all manner of opinions on what the state should not allow. Only those ideas that are generally universally accepted to have serious harm to individuals are therefore, ideally, legislated against. This sets a high threshold for harm which allows for as little bureaucratic intervention as possible while minimizing the risk of a lot of people coming to individual harm.Of course, I know that no government is perfect. All too often we hear cases of when the public mandate has been ignored. However, my case is that the government is still the best placed arbiter for managing our competing wants to restrict certain risks from being taken, and that the government is charged by the citizens of the state to prevent other citizens from being stupid.Allowing dangerous choices is a dangerous path. We all intuitively know that giving 8-year-olds access to mercury is probably a bad idea. Of course mercury is a very useful substance when we know how to use it properly - but that little 8 year old would be forced, practically enslaved, to not experience mercury if I win the debate. I didn't need to give you all that analysis for you to know that's flawed. Voters, there are some rights I'm happy I don't have! I'm proud to oppose.