Instigator / Pro
1
1499
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#1578

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

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
0

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Lucy
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

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

Definitions
Adolescents: Young adults who have not reached the age of majority, from approximately age 13 to 17. This cut-off is somewhat arbitrary but covers the most controversial period.
Ought: Implying moral obligation or duty
Right: We would do wrong to infringe upon an adolescent's ability to make an autonomous medical decision.
Autonomous: Freedom to act independently, in this case independently of parents/guardians/caregivers/etc.
Medical: Anything relating to the field of medicine, whether medication, surgery, therapy, vaccination, etc., that is legally prescribed/performed/administered by an appropriately licensed medical professional following the relevant guidelines.

If you take issues with any of these definitions, let me know in the comments or a PM and we can work them out.

Note that the character limit is 5000. I believe shorter character limits make us better debaters and writers.

Structure
I don't believe in restrictive structures, but here's a suggestion and what I will likely follow
R1: Opening arguments
R2 & R3: Rebuttals
R4: Conclusion

-->
@DynamicSquid

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: Tie

>Reason for Decision:"
I usually look in a unique format to differentiate two people in a debate. For example starting with an INTRODUCTION, then your ARGUMENTS, and a CONCLUSION. But you guys seemed to change your format between rounds. This made it really confusing to follow through.
Both of you guys however provided links, so that was nice.
I also noticed how you guys clash with the opponents general statements, instead of line by line. It can be hard to clash line by line with a 5000 character limit though, but I would still recommend doing so.
For the arguments, I felt like both sides kinda did the same job.
In the end, I felt like this debate was really messy, and I couldn't decide a clear winner. I however agree with Zaradi's vote, but I don't consider that a significant win.
TIE from me."

Reason for Mod Action: To cast a tie vote, the voter must "clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more information: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718. The voter did not fulfill the basic requirements of the voting policy either by failing to evaluate the arguments present in the debate. Ergo, the vote must be removed.
************************************************************************

-->
@Zaradi

>Reported Vote: Zaradi // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "Really messy debate overall. A lot the debate centered around things and issues that were never really impacted out and neither side was doing a whole lot in the way of explaining why the arguments they were making mattered in terms of my vote. This was particularly bad around the topic of adolescents just having a right to make a decision - at the end of the debate, I'm still not sure why it matters if they have a decision or not, nor how I weigh it against other arguments being presented.
At the end, the only cohesive argument being advanced that had any kind of impact tied to it at the end of the day was Pro's argument for kids going out on their own for less safe DIY procedures that were super bad for their health and is prevented in the pro world. I hate how underdeveloped the argument is, but I cant find any response to it from con other than it's a minority of cases, which doesn't really do anything outside of potentially minimize the impact off of it? But that doesn't really change the fact it's the only real impact I have to vote off of. A lot of room for improvement from both sides."
>Reason for Mod Action: I made a mistake by removing it. I missed the arguments that were surveyed by the voter. The vote does meet the requirements under the CoC and Voting Guidelines. Apologies for the mistake.

-->
@Zaradi

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zaradi // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Pro

>Reason for Decision: "Really messy debate overall. A lot the debate centered around things and issues that were never really impacted out and neither side was doing a whole lot in the way of explaining why the arguments they were making mattered in terms of my vote. This was particularly bad around the topic of adolescents just having a right to make a decision - at the end of the debate, I'm still not sure why it matters if they have a decision or not, nor how I weigh it against other arguments being presented.

At the end, the only cohesive argument being advanced that had any kind of impact tied to it at the end of the day was Pro's argument for kids going out on their own for less safe DIY procedures that were super bad for their health and is prevented in the pro world. I hate how underdeveloped the argument is, but I cant find any response to it from con other than it's a minority of cases, which doesn't really do anything outside of potentially minimize the impact off of it? But that doesn't really change the fact it's the only real impact I have to vote off of. A lot of room for improvement from both sides."

>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Guidelines, the voter must survey the chief arguments in the round, synthesize and weigh those arguments and counter-arguments, and come to a conclusion based off the preceding steps. While I would hate to take away a vote from a new user, particularly one that came from DDO, I must do so here. While one or two arguments were addressed and some weighing occurred, the bulk of the arguments were never mentioned. In particular, there was no mention of counterarguments whatsoever. I hate to do this, but rules are rules.
************************************************************************

Yeah I knew I was going to lose; I was certainly messiest and just didn't do a good job. I'm going to do this debate again when I have more time in a few months with whoever and I'll do better and make clearer and by far better arguments (though generally the same thing I tried to argue this debate in a way but the right way)..

Yeah I knew I was going to lose; I was certainly messiest and just didn't do a good job. I'm going to do this debate again when I have more time in a few months with whoever and I'll do better and make clearer and by far better arguments (though generally the same thing I tried to argue this debate in a way but the right way)..

Let me know if you guys have any questions about my RFD or the debate overall.

-->
@Zaradi

Thank you!

I'll try to get to this tomorrow.

P.S. The first sentence was just an FYI relatively relevant to something I cut out.

Btw I was like 1 min. 20 seconds away from the deadline again.

P.S. I may have been a bit extra repetitive, but I still felt like that character limit was way too restrictive for my taste. Sometimes I get a bit wordy. And I might've could've edited it better, but I've had to delete a bit this round.

they cant have sex they cant smoke or drink why shoul thay be allowed to cut there dicks and tits off?

life and eath maybe all that gender dysoforia crap? kids can make a decision about having sex they cant make a decision about cuting their balls off

Wanted to make it more rebuttal-ish feel as if I was going to say something else wonder if checking that spot I wrote all those notes will shed light on if was going to say more or not felt like I couldn't make this more rebuttal-ish because low time and low personal time anyway would've waited until felt like had time which is never and also low char. limit etc. idk ...

I guess my argument's fine and good enough and all IDK if could make it better and I probably feel like it's worse than it is spent a lot of time brainstorming little time reading what I brainstormed Idk if I could really make it that much better but I still just don't like how my life's going right now effin' thing Just wanted say that. IDK.

I didn't even catch the brief mention of government in your case, though there's nothing I need to say since you haven't justified it yet. I'm curious to see how your argument will go.

Fourthly, I haven't expanded my arguments as much as I'd like and am planning to enhance many of them this upcoming round. There’s a bit more I’d like to say.

And fifthly,
"Now, this does not mean all parents make the most rational decisions. But, trusting either the parent or the child for what’s best for the child, the parent more often than not will know best. A parent might make a decision over a deeply-held political belief, as you were referencing, something that is controversial. But keeping politics aside, as well as parental rights over their child, this would not imply to give children the right to decide, but the government."
seems unclear, and I would like to mention that I will better-clarify this in the next round of the debate. I had written the argument out and was going to add it to this comment, but it ended up getting really long (longer than my round 1 argument) and off-topic to vaccinations themselves, and it's mostly a counter-argument, anyway.

-->
@Lucy

Here are some mistakes I plan to make right in the next round of the debate:
First of all, the first link in the 7th paragraph of 9 was, mistakenly, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/04/09/mobile-access-shifts-social-media-use-and-other-online-activities/; however, it was meant to be https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/01/07/how-parents-monitor-their-teens-digital-behavior/. I had a list of citations in a word document, and accidentally copied the unneeded one below the one I wanted instead.
It seems as if you did that with your second link, so I guess I don't have to feel as bad.

Secondly, and this is not really important, but I had copied two links at once when pasting the fourth link in the second paragraph, and I had used the wrong link of the two for the third link in the second paragraph, all mistakenly.
The fourth link in the second paragraph was supposed to be https://www.raisingchildren.net.au/teens/behaviour, and the third link in the second paragraph was supposed to be https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3468907/. These do not really matter or affect the debate, however.

Thirdly, and this does not affect the debate either, but I was going to add formatting and headers.

P.S. I will add commentary tomorrow, providing notes on a few things I rushed through. I will also clarify them in the next round of the debate to make it official, but there are a few leaps of logic or odd citations or something of the such I would like to clarify.

Also, some of the links almost have hidden meanings as rebuttals, but I didn't have time to spell them out so I just hid them. Some of the links I think also imply more than what I had merely written. So it would be cool if you guys checked them.

I was literally 1 minute and about 20 seconds from the deadline.

-->
@Lucy

Uno reverse card

-->
@Patmos

Okay, cool, thanks.

-->
@LordLuke

Lincoln Douglas debate is a form of debate that you can do in high school or college. in September of 2015 this was the LD topic.

Anyway, I've accepted, and will be happy to debate! I'll start writing my argument maybe like tomorrow if I can.

-->
@Dr.Franklin
@Patmos
@Lucy

What are you guys saying? What was it that happened on that date?

-->
@Dr.Franklin

no u

-->
@Lucy

Ooh, I remember this one. LD 2015 September October topic.

oh this is sad

-->
@Lucy

So you do believe the law may still limit one's Medical choices, but just not the parents. Hmmm...
This is a good debate! I'm leaning towards Con myself, might accept, 'll have to think about it...
Not 100% sure yet. But if I am against this proposition, I might make this each of our first debates!
I oughtta think more about how and what this would mean realistically.
My biggest problems would be (1) making this not overly philosophical and (2) fully covering and thinking about what this truly might mean/do/affect in the real world.

-->
@Lucy

I'm looking forward to reading this one.

-->
@oromagi

Hello, and thank you! :)

-->
@LordLuke

The intent of the resolution is just the legal stuff, for example whether children should be allowed to get themselves vaccinated without parental consent. It would not cover self-administered care like diy surgery or illegal drugs. Gender affirming surgery would not be covered because current guidelines, to my knowledge, require the patient to have reached the age of majority. Puberty blockers would be covered, hormone replacement therapy may also be covered. I've edited the definition to account for this.

The second question is something I would lay out in my opening case, but basically, "yes as long as it's legal and a licensed physician acting in accordance with major medical guidelines prescribes/administers/etc. it".

-->
@Lucy

Hi Lucy! Welcome to DART & good topic.

-->
@Lucy

Could drugs be "Medical?" What about drugs taken legally, but prescribed illegally? I think that exists. Or drugs taken illegally, but for medical reasons?
And does trans surgery count as a "surgery?" Even blatant self-mutilation, performed by themself? Would any or all of these count?

Also, just to clarify, they would have the freedom to act independently, but would they always have the freedom to act, to do absolutely anything they desire (as far as medicine is concerned), just so long as they could pay for it independently?