The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,015 times Debate No: 84296
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




First round is for acceptance only.


Interesting subject. I accept and look forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


O1. For medical choices that do no prolong life or improve health, such as aesthetic procedures – if the parent does not want to pay for the procedure, then the adolescent will have to pay for it themselves. Otherwise, for procedures that prolong life or improve health, the parent will have to pay for them.

The highest value in today’s round is Ethical Egoism. (Definition here:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 02 “Egoism”,

This value must be upheld as it is the only way to ensure a proper departure of adolescents from paternal control. They do not reject paternalism due to selfishness but for moral reasons. (Same source as above to see what this means)

My criterion is therefore to advocate
Heckman, 02

  • Nomadism ... exists outside of the ... State ... characterised by movement across space ... in sharp contrast to the rigid boundaries of the State. The nomad has ... territory, ... follows customary paths ... is not ignorant of points ... the points determine paths, they are strictly subordinated to the paths they determine, the reverse happens with the sedentary. The ... point is reached only ... to be left behind ... The life of the nomad is the intermezzo. (380)¶ The nomad, is thus, a way of being in the middle or between points. It is characterized by movement and change, and is unfettered by systems of organization. The goal of the nomad is only to continue to move within the "intermezzo."

My criterion best upholds my value of Ethical Egoism because it allows free action. The individual is not controlled by the state and he or she can exist in a smooth plane, outside of control. They are allowed to develop in a self-interest that is morally right to society.

C1. Oedipus

The triangle of the family promotes a social unity – each member of the family has a specific role to which they must conform – if they do not conform, society will view these individuals as deviants – the forced cooperation of the family is the psychoanalytic colonization of Oedipus.
Deleuze and Guattari further elaborate in 1972, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

Immature have liberty while they are immature and as part of the process of becoming mature citizens
Hamilton 2010 explains,;

When the adolescent makes his own autonomous decision, he or she is breaking the dominant authority of mommy and daddy – this breaks the Oedipal triangle – no longer is the child scared of mommy and daddy power, as it defies the norms of society.

Society wants adolescents to stay in the vice of the parents – if the adolescent chooses freedom over mommy-daddy, society will begin to punish – it will blame the adolescent’s rebellious nature on the Oedipus complex – it will say that the boy will want to rebel against the father because he is jealous of the father’s relation toward the mother – this is vice versa with a girl.

Of course, it is obviously not saying the child wants to sleep with its opposite sex parent and kill its same sex parent – but society is saying that your little rebellious nature is bad – it is saying that the only reason for this rebellion is because you want to defy your parents – Oedipus is designed to make the rebel child feel guilty – so society will do this by labeling he or she as rebellious.
Deleuze and Guattari further elaborate on this point in 1972.

If the child is forced to submit to society, it enters into the Nuclear Family, a perfect family – society’s grand design for conformity and control – if everyone is the perfect family then no one will question society at all and the hierarchies and exploitation can continue.
D&G elaborate in their book.

When the state uses excuses such as Oedipus to stop the rebellion – this leads the child to desire their own repression, fascism – they question the hierarchies of society and the state punishes the child by making them feel like they hate their parents and want to rebel – the child will desire their own repression by wanting the hierarchies of society to control them so that they do not seem like they are hurting their parents – we must not let this exploitation happen – an adolescent can have their own autonomy and they can question the hierarchies of the state.
D&G elaborate in their book.

Fascism is the path to pure destruction, as D&G explain in 1980 in A Thousand Plateus

The Nomad is a way out of Oedipus – it frees them from the territorialization of the psychoanalytic family and allows them to resist the dangers of fascism.
Seem 72 explains



Ok let's get on the right page than.

You offered no definitions no round rules in the beginning round so I will do it my way. By your only claim in the debate that encouraged me to join. Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. First I will start with definitions.

Adolescents: "(of a young person) in the process of developing from a child into an adult."

Autonomous:"acting or able to act in accordance with rules and principles of one's own choosing."

Medical:"Medical means relating to illness and injuries and to their treatment or prevention."

So should all minors have the right to choose their own medical choices in all scenarios?

The answer should be an obvious no for many reasons.

1. Not all children thoroughly understand how desicions may affect them later in life.

2. It is a team effort for adolescents, between parents, doctors. Not just adolescents.

3. The end decision is usually made by the legal guardian because they should understand what's best for their child.

I don't understand what exactly your are saying.
I will have to ask you to stay on topic for this debate. I will rebute when your debate stance makes sense. I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2


I concede your needless definitions. As for your question -- yes, but payment for them is specified in my 1AC.

You don't have any framework (values/criterion), so you should just accept mine as the ultimate value for looking at today's round. Standford in the philosophy department defines ethical egoism, and I defined and explained nomadism through my Heckman 02 card. Free action upholds ethical egoism, and nomadism upholds free choice -- nomadism links directly to my dropped value.

Basically, my case is using the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari in their books about the nature of the family and the individual. If we allow free choice to make decisions, we can rebel against the power structure and so on. Society in the status quo of not allowing free choice views individuals as devaints, and has forced cooperation - this is where Oedipus comes in.

Defying parents through this free will is entirely good, I claim. Negation means affirming conformity and exploitation/hierarchies. This fascism, as Guattari coins in his books, will lead to us all dying.

Okay, so your entire case is basically that it is good for parents to decide. But look to my case, you see that this power struggle is inherently flawed - this is the rule of exception through the use of Oedipus. All people (adolescents and adults alike) have personal liberty and can make personal choices to attack these power struggles, so while they may not know the entirety of their decisions' implications, this is the only way to attack the nuclear family! The parent does not know best -- they exist to attack the adolescent and continue the hierarchy that is inherently flawed.



Okay you have no sources. You claim that because adolescents have personal liberty or freedom of choices (which is true for every living thing) that they should make their own medical choices. Your source is a book which I haven't read so I have no idea if such a book exists! Therfore that is an unaccurate and unsupported source.

I have stated why it is up to the adults to make a desicision. If you want I could add some science in also.

Adolescents are particularly sensitive and responsive to influence by friends, desires and emotions, researchers say. It"s one of the hallmarks of this stage in life.

Teenagers often don't make the right choices.

"A major reason why teenagers often respond to influences with irrational decisions is the presence of a brain chemical known as dopamine. The brain releases dopamine when something makes us feel good, whether it"s receiving a teacher"s compliment or finding a $20 bill. Dopamine levels in general peak during adolescence. In teenagers, the strength of this "feel good" response helps explain why they often give in to impulsive desires."

If you want to talk Bible talk,
"Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord."

In conclusion to this round it should be clear why adolescents shouldn't be allowed to independently make medical desicions. I look forward to my opponents response again.
Debate Round No. 3


What even? Just extend literally everything that I said.

If you don't believe that books exist by some of the most famous philosophers of the 20th century, google it I guess? Your own ignorance of the facts doesn't mean that they are inherently false or something.

Adolescents might be subject to influence, but this exists to attack the nuclear family ... rebel against power structures, and so on and so on.

Deleuze and Guattari are not just people I made up. It'd be illegal for me to give their entire works for you to see on the internet, so I can't do that ...

Vote aff since literally everything I said of worth was dropped from the get-go...


Ok in my opponents hypocritical statement she says I didn't acknowledge her arguments. However she did not respond to my last arguments either and they went unrebutted. For this reason vote con for my opponent was terribly hard for me to understand. Also she never correctly rebuted my arguments. This was very disappointing as I expected a great debate filled with sources. In conclusion my name is Brian N Johnson and this debate has hit a sad ending.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Yes. If you want the full cites (full quote) then let me know and I can give them to you, I thought it'd just take up too much space.
Posted by FourTrouble 2 years ago
Have you even read Anti-Oedipus?
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: TheResistance// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro's values and criterion were the standing. As a LDer, I have no choice to vote for Pro. Lexus clearly hit values hard and good; his case and rebuttals were strong.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G, or source point allocations. (2) The voter insufficiently explains arguments. Much as a standing value and criterion are indeed important, the voter does have to explain why Pro is winning under both of those, and why Con isn't.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Forever23// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD- Contact me if you have any questions.

[*Reason for removal*] While the arguments points are more than sufficiently explained (and I recommend that the voter re-post the vote with just those points explained and given), conduct and S&G are insufficiently explained. Admittedly, some discretion is allowed when it comes to allocating conduct, but merely being upset that one side quotes too much is not sufficient reasoning. Neither is the existence of major and minor S&G errors unless those arguments become difficult to understand as a result. The examples that the voter provides do not come off as so difficult as to warrant this point allocation.

Note: The reporter had trouble opening the link. I had no trouble. Just make sure you're careful when copying the link.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Deleuze and Guattari say in anti-Oedipus everything I claim :p not out of context.
Posted by Briannj17 2 years ago
That's fine, I didn't learn anything either. Your sources were confusing and we're used out of context in my opinion.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
I need not rules nor structure - I believe in free talking instead of constrained communication. Free rebuttals and construction far outweighs any benefits seen by a round structure or rules.

Many rules prevent kritiks or structures don't allow themselves well to kritiks. Kritiks are (debatebly) great, so I don't like rules or round structures. Tejretics, when he actively did AoW, he had literally some 30 rules in place to constrain the topic. I love the topic and its systems, I hate the prevention of that ideals.

I'm sorry for being rude earlier, I just didn't feel like this debate taught me anything - and debate exists for educational purposes.
Posted by Briannj17 2 years ago
Of these you supplied none.
Posted by Briannj17 2 years ago
And rules.
Posted by Briannj17 2 years ago
Debating also has definitions and round structures.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Forever23 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: