Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

So even though this round went a little strangely, I'm going to be spending this last round summarizing the debate and why you're affirming the resolution.Reason One You Affirm: Role of the BallotExtend McGee. McGee talks about how using fiat to create imaginary worlds where policies come and go is a utopian rejection of reality and isn't feasible within the world of debate. Saying we should create a system where all autonomous medical choices is based upon the Mature Minor Doctrine or that we ought to base all of our moral questioning on what's best for the community is pointless because nothing we say here will have any kind of policy-impact outside of the debate -- our cases don't become law if we win the debate. This means that the role of the ballot is for the judge to intellectually endorse a position, not to decide on which side is most feasible/probable to occur. This debate isn't going to make either side occur - the likelihood of implimentation is irrelevant to a position being correct. So you as a judge should evaluate each case to determine which one is more likely to be correct and which one is something that we can do within the round. This is problematic because my opponent doesn't provide any kind of position of his own. There is no case that he is advocating for, which means there's no position for the judge to endorse. This means that the only position that there is available for a judge to endorse is the aff. And, don't listen to his turn to McGee. Just because adolescents not having medical autonomy is the status quo doesn't actually show us why it ought to be the status quo. The likelihood of something happening is irrelevant to its correctness. He's not fulfilling this, therefore he can't link into the role of the ballot, which means you as a voter cannot vote for him. Moreover, his position needs to be one that we can impliment within the round. Talking about outside the debate round impacts is irrelevant because our cases won't actually create those impacts if we win the round. Impacts must be something we can do RIGHT NOW. I'm the only one doing this -- I can reject the metaphyscial expectations of the Western fascist philosophy and become vampire RIGHT NOW. There is no negative position that can compare to this. Thus, I'm the only one who is linking into the role of the ballot. So, this debate is really simple. It doesn't matter how far-fetched the idea of becoming a vampire might seem to you as a voter. The role of the ballot is to endorse the position that is most intellectually correct and can be done within the space of the round. Whoever best meets these criteria win the round. I'm the only one doing this. So even if you buy 100% of his responses against the plan, you're still affirming because I'm the only one who is accessing the role of the ballot.But, his refutations don't really hold water, either.Reason Two: The PlanExtend Weheliye. Traditional views of personhood are used to reject and exclude minority populations and exclude them from moral consideration. We need to radicalize our conception of what it is to be a person from the stable forms of identity that we have today to something more fluid and relative. His first response to this is silly. I shouldn't have to mention the past instances of slavery, the suffrage movement for women's rights, and the LGBT movement for gay rights for there to be examples of this happening. His second response is just flat out wrong - there's no circular reasoning. Weheliye specifically talks about how the inclusion of only people who meet our narrow confines of what it means to be a person prevent us from stopping violence commited against others and prevents us from ever righting inequality that exists between the minority populations and the majority. Moreover, my opponent vastly misunderstands the aff. Literally nowhere in my case do I argue that identity is an illusion. I ask him to point out where I make that claim, because I never do. Weheliye's argument is that our traditional conception of personhood is horrible and we ought to reject it. And the analysis I give above Ramey isn't that identity is an illusion, but rather the concept of a stable, static form of identity is a) false and b) incompatable with how we create knowledge (which is what Ramey is talking about). He's putting words in my mouth that I never said.And his third response is another misunderstanding of the aff. I'm not arguing for a stable conception of identity. That's specifically what I'm rejecting via Weheliye. The using of needing a soul as a benchmark is specifically the instance of needing a stable sense of identity to extend the hegemonic white control of Western society. So, to be perfectly clear: I'm /not/ advocating for a stable, objective sense of identity. I'm arguing for a radical, subjective sense of identity.Then, extend Kriss. The need for a stable sense of identity and personhood is an instance of fascism that's constantly replicated within Western philosophy. When we're looking for some stable identity, we're regulating what people are and are not allowed to be i.e. If only x, y, and z are things that a person is, I'm not allowed to become 'a' or I'm no longer considered a person. We ought to reject this fascist mentality of identity in favor of something that exists between the realms of the traditional sense of existence and non-existence.Kriss is important because this is precisely why I ought to be allowed to become a vampire. Becoming a vampire is exactly what will allow us to reject the Western fascist ideology. There's no response to the warrants coming out of Kriss anywhere within his arguments. Don't let him make an arguments against Kriss in the last round since I won't be able to respond to it. He had the room and chance to respond to it but didn't, so hold it against him. Then, extend Winnubst. Winnubst talks specifically how becoming a vampire allows us to deconstruct the boundaries of the stable identities of the fascist philosophy and why these boundaries should be deconstructed. And extend Winnubst 2. The vampire is anti-thetical to traditional senses of personhood because it's lack of mirror reflection is indicative of it's lack of a soul, which has been referenced in classic literature. The more we spread our vampirism, the more of the West we destroy. His sole response to vampirism is that the lack of a mirror reflection isn't indicative of the lack of a soul. But a) this isn't responsive to the amount of classic lit and Christian lit that make this claim which is referenced in Winnubst, b) his source is literally just random people from the internet posting their opinions without any kind of warrant behind any of their beliefs. There's no reason to accept his source. But then c) his own source backs up my position. To quote directly from the source: "The original explanation was that mirrors reflected the soul, and since vampires didn't have a soul there was nothing to reflect." This is directly warranting my position. The only other response that he puts against the idea of vampires overall is that identity isn't impermanent, that who we are and what creates our identity cannot change, and that the physical changes that would make becoming a vampire are impossible for me to undergo.To hit the first part, there's two responses to this. First, Extend the analysis I give above Ramey. I never deny that the construct of an "identity" exists, rather my objection is that this construction is not objective and permanent. To say that "I am Zaradi, and Zaradi has brown hair" prescribes brown hair to my identity. If I were to then go dye my hair blonde, I would be a fundamentally different Zaradi than the Zaradi that had brown hair. Brown hair does not belong to me, since I'm not the only one in existence that has brown hair. Second, Extend Ramey. Ramey talks about how the only way we can gain knowledge is through the rejection of objective forms of existence and the realization that the things we experience that make up our identity and our existence are constantly changing into new possibilities and new forms of existence. This is the only way that knowledge can be created. This means that the only way that we can really understand the way that we exist is through the rejection of objective modes of existence. Affirming does this as I literally change the form of my existence mid-round. And since I'm the only one who's doing this, I'm the only one who's meeting the requirements of existence set up by Ramey. He drops Ramey and doesn't make any kind fo response to it. Hold him to this drop.Then, on the second part:First, he takes his "physical descriptions" from Twilight. I reject Twilight as an accurate description of what a "vampire" is. My vampires don't sparkle, tyvm. Second, these objective physical descriptions are the very thing that the aff rejects via Ramey. Obviously not all vampires meet the same descriptions as multiple descriptions of vampires exist. Reject his categorizations of what I need to meet to become something as an example of the fascist West's attempts to control our identities. Third, cross apply the role of the ballot being about intellectual endorsement of an idea. Likelihood of me actually becoming a vampire doesn't make the idea of becoming a vampire less of a good idea. His response misses the mark.Reason Three: BurdensResolutionally we both have to defend our sides of the resolution. I have to show why adolescents should have the right to make autonomous decisions and he has to show why they can't. I'm the only one doing my side. He has no case of his own for his side. So if you don't buy literally anything this round I've said, you affirm because I'm the only one with offense in the round toward the burdens.Conclusion:I'm meeting the role of the ballot, he's not. The plan stands, let me be a vampire. And I'm the only one with a case. Affirm.