A surprising fact that stuck with me is that fifteen-year-olds are already expected to make adult-like decisions in some serious settings, so the age cutoff seems arbitrary. That makes me think lowering it is reasonable. I admit I do not have a strong way to back that up beyond the gut feeling.

[No submission - Time expired]

The practical consequence of keeping the age where it is: a fifteen-year-old who commits a serious crime faces no criminal liability, and gangs can exploit exactly that gap by using younger teens as shields. My opponent says a child is still a child, and that's fair, but lowering the age to 15 doesn't mean throwing kids in adult prisons. It means serious acts get handled through a juvenile system with age-appropriate consequences, rehabilitation, and rights safeguards. Respecting a child's rights and holding them accountable aren't opposites. At fifteen, someone generally knows right from wrong, and the law should reflect that.