Question: Should the voting age be lowered?

Title: Drinking Age Content: Do you think that the voting age should be lowered to age 18? If so why?

Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: I will just clarify the rules, but, as stated they seem to be correct. Pro has the BoP. Specifically, if Pro cannot prove why the voting age should be lowered, then Pro has lost the debate. It is not enough to simply argue that it doesn't matter whether or not the voting age should be lowered (i. e. lowering it has no effect)--Pro must make the case that's it's beneficial in some way or another to lower the voting age.

Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: My opinion is that the voting age limit should be lowered to 16 as that is in the very center of the passage from childhood to adulthood. Many responsibilities are given to people at the age of 16 and I believe that voting for president should be one of them.

Title: The voting age should be lowered to 16 Content: The younger generation is arguably affected the most by many of the votes that take place across this world, yet they do not get a say in what happens. I believe they should, hence why the voting age should be lowered to 16.

Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: Give your rebuttals in round 2 along with the opening argument. The voting age should be lowered as it would give a wider range of voters and give more free will to students. Wider range of voters Not all people in a country are even interested in politics, much less for voting. Furthermore, adults can be paid to vote, but children have a more idealistic sense and may be harder to corrupt. Children would be harder to buy as they haven't seen the real world yet, therefore believe that their vote matters and that they should be loyal towards their country in voting. Furthermore, as children don't earn money, they don't understand the difficulty of earning money and therefore would need more money for their vote to be bought. Free will Decisions of the political party severely impact teenagers, such as changes in the age limits of drinking, driving, gambling, and movies. Then why they don't have a right to choose their future?

Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: There's a bunch of reasons why the voting age shouldn't be lowered The average 16 year old would be completely uninterested in politics and wouldn't even know the importance of voting. There are only a small minority of 15-16 who are interested in politics and want to help change their country. If the voting age was lowered to 15-16 then the kids would vote which one is "the cool one", also candidates could easily the vote from a child by promising to destroy homework or by making detentions illegal while on the other side that same candidate is about to make bad decisions for the country. Con states that "Children would be harder to buy" which is false. You could pay a child almost any amount to do something especially if it was just voting, the child would see that as writing on a piece of paper. Children are easily corrupted especially at a young age, this is why we shouldn't lower the voting age.

Title: Should the voting age be lowered Content: The voting age should be lowered for many reasons: 1) People think that kids would make horrible choices with the power to vote, but adults make horrible choices too. like for instance look at who is in office right now. Us teenagers did not. 2) The government can control our choices, so we should have a say in the government. 3) We are at least somewhat mature (i would say mature but some are not and are probably going to stay that way through adulthood anyway)

Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: Yes it should be reduced as most adults are ill-informed and teenagers are still in school so they at least get bits and pieces of politics in history and other subjects. I don't see why I need to be 18 to cast a foolish vote.

Title: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Content: Definitions: Voting Age: The legal age at which citizens of the United States can submit their opinion on current matters to be counted during national elections. Hello, my name is Wendell Phillips and I am the PRO speaker stating that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Before I begin, I'd like to point out that xStrikex, my opponent, is a classmate of mine and I am very excited to debate this controversial topic with him. My Points: The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. While young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years. Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right? I rest my case.

Title: Turnout Content: Another argument against lowering the voting age is the fact that at all previous general elections, the youngest age group tends to produce the lowest turnout. Allowing 16-year-olds the vote will further reduce turnouts at UK elections.

Title: Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK. Content: Pro doesnt give a single coherent reason of why the voting age should be lowered. However there are quite a few reasons why the voting age of the UK should not be lowered.1) Young people dont care about politics, and numbers show this2) Young people know far less about the politics involved than older voters3) There really isnt a dire need to expand the voting rights4) Lets face it, who knows what they can do to the UK. .. - 1 - Why should the voting age be lowered if young people dont even vote? . http://www.theticker.org...http://voices.yahoo.com...http://trace.tennessee.edu...http://mypolitikal.com...Point is, young people dont give a damn about voting, and the younger they are the more apathetic they are. - 2 - Young people naturally are more misinformed about politics and politicians. http://www.policymic.com...http://www.appeal-democrat.com...Simply put one of the reasons why young people dont vote is that they dont know anything about the politics or politicians. - 3 - There is no dire need to expand the number of potential voters in UK. UK Voter turnout is still at 76% while the US is still below 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org...Point is, UK doesnt need a larger voting population because the number of registered voters in the UK who actually vote is rather impressive - 4 - this one is really my own opinion, and I know that there are some intelligent 16 year old UK political nuts on this site right now, but a majority of UK 16 year olds are,How do I put this. .. . Would you trust this person to decide who serves in government? . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I'd sh*t my pants tooTo summarize my argument, the voting age should not be lowered in the UK because the UK already has a stunning voter turnout, young people dont want to vote, young people dont know much about politics or politicians they are voting for, and trusting all 16 year olds to vote scares the sh*t out of some people.

Title: Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Content: Voting Age Should not be LoweredThere are three main reasons why voting age should not be lowered, these are: 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, they do not yet have enough experience or are as aware of the world around them and the way it will effect their lives and that 16 and 17 year olds and their lack of understanding on the responsibility of casting a voteFirstly, are 16 and 17 year olds mature enough to handle a vote? No, they are not. If they are not yet considered mature enough to be in the army, protecting and making decisions for their country, they are definitely not mature enough to decide the future of themselves and others. Most 16 and 17 year olds do not pay taxes, so therefore none of their money will go towards the way their government is running the country. If 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country. As well as this your brain is still not fully developed until you turn 30.16 and 17 year olds have not got enough experience of the world to vote. They will not have had a long term job or the responsibility of running their own lives but the proposition would hand the way the country is run to a 16 year old? If you would not trust an average 16 year old with your life why would you give them our country. We do not have 16 or17 year old politicians so why have voters that age? They will both do the same, decide the future of the country.Could a 16 or 17 year old handle the responsibility of voting? You are only allowed to be part of a jury when you are 18 and older, making the decision that could change someone's life forever. This shows they could not handle the responsibility of deciding the future of millions of the other people in their country. So no, they could not handle this responsibility.So as I have shown 16 and year olds should not get a vote, if you disagree please accept my challenge!

Title: Lower the Voting Age Content: You may go first. I am FOR lowering the voting age, and for this argument we will talk about lowering it to 16.Here are some extra rules:If either side curses, they lose right away.No new arguments may be brought into the last round, only rebuttals. This counts in conduct.Formatting counts for spelling and grammar in voting. Meaning both sides must make their argument look good and be easily readable.

Title: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Content: Welcome to DDO (debate.org)! Yes, the Proposition is a classmate of mine and I return his excitement. I hope that this will be a fun debate for both of us. As the CON side, I will be arguing that the voting age should not be lowered to 16. And without further ado, I would like to begin this debate. Refutations "As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens." Just because 18 year olds are capable of making choices much like 21 year olds does not mean, in any way, that 16 year olds can cast a mature, independently-made decision. I argue that there is a transformation when a person grows from 16 to 18. At 16, a boy or girl is in his or her sophomore years, still very young and maturing in high school. However, an 18 year old is a senior in high school and is very capable of making self-decided decisions and mature enough to understand politics, government, and society. 16 year olds have not completed their full studies of the United States government. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... "More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote." Does this necessarily mean that they are mature? Marrying is a huge responsibility. A responsibility that 16 year olds have not demonstrated their ability to handle. Marrying means there must have been a great bond of love between two people, love that must have distracted the 16 year old from high school work. Raising a family is usually also a party of marrying. Just because 16 year olds can have sex does not mean that they are mature. When a 16 year old drops out of high school, that must mean he or she is extremely lazy and does not wish to learn. This is not maturity. Furthermore, if a 16 year old doesn't wish to be delayed by the work of high school, why would that same person with to receive a full time job? If someone is devoted to studying, then why would he or she get a job, for that same matter? This is not a clear-cut case of maturity. Lastly, 16 year olds are not allowed to actually fight in the army. They can receive cadet training, but cannot risk their lives [1][2]. Plagiarism. Same source as above. "Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system... there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others." You have provided no evidence for any of your arguments. Your former argument about passion, energy, enthusiasm, and responsibility have absolutely no true cases in which 16 year olds would have possessed such feelings. Anyways, the evidence will be provided in my arguments. Argument is plagiarized. http://debatewise.org... "In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum." Please explain this entire paragraph and put it in your OWN words. Further plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... "Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago." As my opponent himself has stated, we should revert to a system where well-educated people can vote. 18 year olds are much better educated compared to 16 year olds. They are in their senior year or have even possibly finished high school. 16 year olds are still stuck in high school and do not yet understand politics and government. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... Proposition, I ask that you provide real, hard-core evidence and facts rather than state opinions that you have plagiarised from Debatewise. Arguments 1. 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote The large majority still lives at home and goes to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18, they have finished high school and have legally completed all their educational requirements for their life, they have become much more independent, and they are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents' opinions or adopt silly ideas for the sake of rebellion. Worse, they may be uninformed and vote for the candidate not for his or her policies but the candidate's give-aways A research team headed by The Chief of Brain Imaging at the National Institute of Mental Health, found that in teenager brains, the part of the brain in teenagers where long-term consequences spring to consciousness is not fully mature [3]. 2. Not everyone needs to vote. Governments do things which affect every age group but that does not mean everyone deserves the vote. Should 12 year olds get the vote because school policies affect them? Should toddlers get the vote because health services affect them? No - we trust parents to cast votes after thinking about the interests of their families. And there are other ways for young people to have a say - they can write to elected representatives and newspapers, sign petitions, speak at public meetings, and join youth parliaments. It's not like we're shutting these kids out of the political world forever. Come 2 years time, they'll get to vote. 3. 18 is the best age to have as a minimum for people to vote When you're 18, a lot of things happen to you. First, you officially become a U.S. citizen. This is also the age when you get your driver's license officially, are allowed to take any job you want, and have finished all required education by the U.S. government and can go to college. Now, what about 16 and 17 year olds? Well, they can practice driving under a licensed supervisor, can practice having a job as long as it isn't one of the 55 job types not permitted by the Federal Youth Employment Laws, and they can practice taking college exams or practice completing school. Obviously, in those 2 years gap between 18 year olds and 16 year olds, much maturity and experience is put upon the teenagers, which without, they would be too irresponsible to vote or do most of the things that we legally allow 18 year olds to do. Due to the fact that I have run out of space, I will add 2 more points the next round. I await my opponent's response. Sources: 1. http://wiki.answers.com... 2. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com... 3. http://www.nimh.nih.gov...

Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: In my opinion, the voting age would be better off staying the same. From the amount of young people already neglecting their right to vote, to potential of misuse of the vote, it is worthless and/or potentially disruptive to the voting system. Even though 16 year old kids do have several rights, voting is important, and therefore 16 year olds must be taught some responsibilities before they have the right to vote. Therefore, the voting age should remain at 18, and I think most people agree that lowering the voting age would be a risk that isn't worth it to take. Thank you for the debate 1davey29.

Title: Turnout Content: This would not be the case, as 16 and 17 year-olds are more likely to be in, or to have recently been in, an environment where politics can be discussed. This means they will have a developed interest in the subject and will be more likely to vote. Even if reducing the voting age were to reduce the turnout, it is preposterous that we should limit the franchise to avoid producing an embarrassing statistic. There would be more people eligible to vote and hence the actual voting numbers would presumably increase, even if percentage turnout didn’t. "Some people are concerned that lowering the voting age would lead to a lower turnout in elections, the theory being that a larger voting population made up of younger voters, who are currently less likely to vote, would reduce the overall turnout. However, analysis by the Electoral Reform Society shows that if 16-18 year olds turned out in the same proportion as the 18-24 age group, there would be virtually no effect on turnout. Even if not one 16-18 year old voted, overall turnout would drop by only 2%. Women are less likely to vote than men, poor people less likely than the more affluent and people from minority ethnic groups less than white people. Nobody suggests that these lower turnout groups should have their voting rights removed. No one should suggest that some 16 and 17 year olds not voting is a good enough reason to deny the many that do want to vote." - Electoral Reform Society

Title: Children should be allowed to vote. Content: I accept the terms as my contender has laid them out and gladly accept the challenge. I will be arguing on the Pro/for side of the debate. I will argue that age restrictions have no place in our voting system. I will use resources including only scholarly articles and textbooks, which I will access through Indiana University Libraries. Not only will I conclude that humans under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote, but I will argue that it may be beneficial to their cognitive/social growth. Let the fun begin :)

Title: Lowering the voting age Content: Ladies and gentlemen, in this debate I am here to oppose the motion that the house would lower the voting age to 18. The context of this debate is that there is a low voter turnout. That is the problem that brings us to have this debate. Also this is not due to the fact that the voting age is too high, but it is due to the fact that there is voter apathy and lack of mature and politically active electorate. So, firstly, I will prove that lowering the voting age has inherent harms and should not be undertaken. And secondly, I will present an alternative that raises both voter quality, and participation rates. Moving onto my first argument, which is that it is impossible to find a reliable standard for maturity among young people. And, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, ladies and gentlemen. So, on the first level of analysis, what is the standard of maturity? We challenge the proposition to give us a clear, objective standard, and support for the idea that 18 is a reliable standard, as opposed to the legal age in Korea of 19. And second of all, in the second level of analysis, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, because young people of today are simply less mature than in the past, and are more sheltered than ever. Young people were forced to grow up quickly, and assume responsibility in society quickly in the past, ladies and gentlemen. They were forced to have jobs earlier, to marry earlier, but that is not the case today. Today, many children in Korea are being spoiled, letting their parents deal with their problems, even after they are quite old, ladies and gentlemen. And the so-called "kangaroo youth" are becoming an international problem. A prominent example of this is the Hanhwa chairman fighting for his son who was over 20 years old at the time, ladies and gentlemen. So we say that actually young people today are less mature and we see no reason what-so-ever to lower the age more than the maturity age that was in the past. For my second point, which is that young people of today are more likely to vote for style rather than substance. Not only are the young people today less mature, they are also very pop-culture oriented, easily persuaded by candidates who may be popular rather than good with high quality, which will reduce the quality of the votes overall, and distort the candidate's focus, ladies and gentlemen. And on the second level of analysis, the majority of young people today do not care about political substance. We demand that the proposition show us an uprising among young people in Korea to get the voting age lowered. Without this, how can they prove the political will among 18-year-olds? Is there a clear, measurable standard for determining the level of political participation and willingness among the youth? I say there isn't. And finally, to my third argument. The opposition brings you an alternative that can effectively solve the problem, as opposed to the harmful proposition plan. The counterplan is a compulsory voting clause in the law plus various measures to increase participation, such as voters' education, guaranteed government subsidy on candidate platforms, media broadcasted debates, "Get out the Vote" campaigns, and et cetera. What is needed is more people voting wisely, not a lowering voting age. The compulsory voting clause will bring clearly increased participation regardless of enforcement. In Thailand, this is not enforced, but even if it wasn't enforced, the voting rates rose by about 15% after the clause was established. And in Uruguay, it was enforced, and the voting rate soared from 67% to 88.2%. So it is clear that the benefits are existent whether you enforce it or not, and the government can choose enforcement. But either way, the clause plus the supplemented participation measures, such as Bush's "Get out the Vote" movement, will be successful. Because of these reasons, I ask you in this round to oppose this motion. Thank you.

Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: If we were to lower the voting age to 15-16 then governments (of some countries) would force kids to vote like they do for adults and it'd be pointless because majority of all the children voting wouldn't know the importance of voting. My opponent then states that children are very active on social media and would know about the current events from there which is useless. Children on social media don't even pay attention to the news, especially if it was concerning politics. Pro keeps stating that Children are harder to buy because they have this "Sense of justice", children are already becoming corrupted because of social media. Any kid would be willing to sign a piece of paper for $10 or less, why? because to them, it's something meaningless. This is why we shouldn't lower the voting age, you wouldn't want ignorant children choosing the future for your country.

Title: children at 16 have no sense of decesion making Content: I'd like to tell my fellow opponents that voting requires complete thinking and high order thinking.....added to it gud decesion making is also needed .....and children at 16....have no sense...they will go copying others and make a decesion that will spoil their and other's life ...so, according to me voting age should nt be reduced

Title: voting age should be lowered Content: I believe that the voting age should be lowered. at 16 we allow kids to drive, and a car is lethal weapon so why would you think we could trust them with voting?

Title: The voting age should be reduced to 16 Content: No, the voting age should not be reduced to 16. I agree with you when you said that is unconstitutional be paying taxes without representation, but this situation must be resolved since a reform of the quantity or kind of taxes that the under 16 should pay. The voting age was set pretending that people would be able to make an analytical election. A random person at age of 16 generally is starting to know how the world works and what to look for in life. Their opinion might be easily influenced by false arguments and the campings could be measured by a lack of truthful proposals.

Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: I accept. Voting is the process in which we choose the officials that will represent us, and requires a lot of thought. Through voting, we elect citizens into government offices and put our trust into them, and hope they will represent us correctly. Because this is such an important decision, I believe that the voting age should remain at 18 and not reduced to 17 or 16.

Title: Consistency Content: It is argued that the voting age should be reduced to provide consistency between the age a person can vote; with the age they can leave school; marry; have children; leave home; pay taxes; work full time; and join the armed forces. and also at the age of 16 you can choose to have sex it is legal to have sex at 16 which is a big responsibility in its self also as you can have sex you can choose whether to have a baby which would make you a parent and on all the medicines and food if you are over 10/13 you are classed as a adult so why can’t they have the opportunity to vote? Can you please specify these qualities that at 16 year old lacks.

Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: The voting age limit should be lowered from 18 (17 in some states) to 16 at most. My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? many people are sophisticated enough to vote even under the age of 16! Format for debate: Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Final statement

Title: Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Content: Lowering the voting age to 16 will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, have an appreciation for local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those just two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings, school, parents, and stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote. Lower the voting age, and youth will vote.

Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: My opponent seemed to believe that this resolution was undebatable. I'm here first of all to prove him wrong, and second of all to show why I've long thought that the voting age restriction should definitely be lowered. Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance. The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, given that most reasonably western societies are quite multicultural. The vote we're talking about specifically is any general vote to determine legislative and/or executive office, as the case may be in that jurisdiction, in a national election format (so local body elections could be excluded etc).

Title: YES, give them the rights they deserve! Content: First of all, your proposed scheme here poses a practicality problem: who or what, will be deciding on the maturity of 16 years-old voters? How would "maturity" be measured? Through tests? If we do let a group of 16 years old vote, and we ban another group of 16 years old from voting, then the problem of injustice will arise. Protests are likely to be sparked. From your argument, it can be seen that your only reason for lowering the voting age to 16 is that "David Cameron ruined this country". But it is unfair, if not dangerous, to damage existing voting system and democracy to exercise one group's political views.

Title: Resolved: Voting should NOT be based on age Content: I accept your challenge and will debate that voting should be based on age. Please clarify if your argument is as "themohawkninja " said in the comment section below. Right now I am under the impression that I will be debating against the use of literacy tests and political knowledge to decide who is allowed to vote. Pro will have to prove that there is a problem with the current system and that changing it as such will fix said problem. I look forward to this debate.

Title: Increase turnout Content: The youngest age group has always provided the lowest turnout at elections. Reducing the voting age will further reduce the national average turnout for elections. This matters because we don't want to look bad to other contries.

Title: There needs to be a cut off Content: Everyone would agree that there has to be a minimum voting age. Most people believe that the line should be drawn at 18 rather than 16. Although some 16 year olds may be mature enough to vote, most have not yet formed political views of their own yet. On average, young people are much more likely to be ready for the responsibility of voting at 18. There is then no reason why 16 would make a better cut off point than 18. At both ages some rights are given, at both there will be some who pay tax who are not given representation, at both some will be immature. There is no clear dividing line so there can be no clear reasoning for lowering the voting age to 16.

Title: The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 Content: Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered.

Title: lower the voting age to 16 Content: Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages

Title: Lowering the voting age to 16 Content: Adults have forever messed up the country, so what would be the harm in allowing sixteen and seventeen year olds to also vote? Under the law of eighteen and older that we currently have, minors who are intelligent enough to monitor an election and unbiasedly elect a canidate are forced under the leadership of the biased and politically uneducated voting of adults. This is not fair. Lowering the voting age to sixteen would allow teens a fair chance at really deciding their future.

Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: Con would now like to remind readers of the purpose of this debate. The resolution states that we should lower the legal voting age to 15. For Pro to uphold this resolution they must first and foremost explain why this is beneficial. Pro makes many seemingly convincing arguments for why this would be beneficial to 15-17 year olds but fails to show why it would be beneficial to the country. Also Con has made convincing arguments that this would be detrimental to a democratic society and has backed up these arguments with scientific evidence. Con will now attempt to summarize the arguments made by Pro and show a) none of the claims are substantiated rather are all hypothesized reasoning and b) Con has refuted many of the claims made by Pro with scientific evidence. Engagement/Education: Pro argues that 15-17 year olds become disenfranchised due to not being allowed to vote and that this creates an apathetic view towards voting which may result in them continuing not to vote once they do reach legal voting age. Con's main argument against this is admittedly partially of an appeal to the absurd which is why Pro characterizes this argument as being a “slippery slope” argument. Furthermore Pro states that in New Zealand students are not taught politics until the age of 13/14 thus 15 is a good age. This is not a slippery slope argument and while Con does make the argument absurd by going as low as 5 years old, Con does not feel it is absurd to consider 12, 13, or 14 year olds when Pro is making the claim that 15 is the “correct” minimum voting age. Furthermore, anyone familiar with US primary education will note that Government/Economics is generally a senior level course (17/18 years old) and thus would rule out 15 being the minimum age by Pro's own arguments for education. This is one of many instances where Pro makes a claim but offers nothing but anecdotal evidence or hypothetical arguments. If Pro's claim is that it is generally normal for children to learn politics as early as the age of 13/14, then Pro should have presented evidence to back up that claim. Without evidence, we are left with either New Zealand's educational curriculum or the United States'. This does not help to clarify this argument. Change: Pro makes the argument that older generations are more stuck in their ways, making them more likely to promote the status quo as opposed to teens who are more likely to adopt new, novel ways of thinking and thus better policies. Con presented polling data showing that, in fact, teens are more likely to merely vote however their parents do. In Con's rebuttal, they attempt to shift the BoP: “To be a valid argument, pro still needs to show why independent reasoning is a valid excuse for not allowing voting. ” Actually Pro's argument, that teens are independent and novel thinkers, has the BoP. Once again, they fail to present such evidence while Con has provided evidence that this is not the case. Pro's one piece of evidence to support this claim is a poll showing that European youth support gay rights at a much higher rate than their older counterparts (. http://www.eyp.org... ) --which they did not even present as evidence for this particular argument. First this claim presupposes that indeed gay rights are a good thing. While Con agrees, this is not objective reasoning and thus does not support the argument that change is a good thing. Next lets look at Pro's rebuttals of evidence that Con presented showing that teens do not make for very good voters. No Stake: First Pro attempts to attack Con's source which states that only 25% of teens in the US have summer jobs [8]. Pro's major problem with this source is that the number is a model not a statistic. I do not know where Pro gets this idea from or how this refutes the source. Even if we go with the historical high of 60%, this still means a large portion of teens do not work (much higher than for normal adult unemployment of <10% and even underemployment of around 20%). “From the 1950s through the 1990s, between 45 and 60 percent of teenagers had summer jobs” [8] Furthermore, following a link from this article shows that this is from US Census Data [9]. Even so, Pro makes the claim that this is irrelevant: “Nevertheless it's not relevant, because con has never justified why:1) voting is an economic decision or has primarily economic impacts2) teenagers cannot make decisions on behalf of others they care about3) we should not care about those teenagers that do work, and4) teenagers cannot think about their future” First, Con has shown points 2) and 4) to be the case with scientific evidence [1, 2, 3, 4]. I ask readers, what evidence has Pro presented showing these to be true? Furthermore, Con never made the argument 1). Instead Con stated that taxpayers have a right to decide where their money goes—this is not directly related to economic decisions. As for point 3), Con has stated that while some teens do work, the majority (or at the least a large portion), do not. Irrational/Immature: This argument comes down to evidence. Con has made the claim that teen brains are still developing and that studies have shown that they primarily use their amygdala as opposed to their frontal cortex when making decisions. This hinders them from making correct cause-effect decisions. This means teens are not likely to understand the ramifications of their political decisions. Pro's only rebuttal to this evidence is to present hypotheticals intended to refute sound scientific evidence. I don't think comparing Early 20th century “neuroscience” with modern neuroscience research is a valid argument (i. e. saying people argued women's/African Americans' brains were inferior—they merely stated this fact, there was no scientific evidence to back it up as I have presented for teen brains). I think the evidence vs. non-evidence speaks for itself. Con has presented numerous sources—what sources has Pro offered to support their arguments? In conclusion, this debate comes down to evidence. Pro has made elegant pleas as to why teens should be allowed to vote. However, all of Pro's arguments hinge on one single assumption: teens will make good voters. Con has presented overwhelming evidence to support the idea that a) teens are irrational and thus cannot make good political decisions and b) teens are likely to just vote the same as their parents anyway. I will end with a quote from one of my sources which I think hammers home the idea that 15-17 year olds, living at home with their parents, are not likely to make independent decisions. “By the end of the high school years, there’s a “high point of agreement” between parents and children, he said. But during the college years, children who no longer live with their parents are “pretty malleable,” subject to influence from peers, the media and current events and issues, Franklin said. ” [6] Sources:[1] . http://www.aacap.org...[2] . http://brainconnection.positscience.com...[3] . http://www.tesh.com...[4] . http://www.cnn.com... [5] . http://articles.mcall.com...[6] . http://gazettextra.com...[7] . http://www.gallup.com... [8] . http://www.slate.com... [9] . http://online.wsj.com...

Title: There needs to be a cut off Content: This applies equally to having the cut off at 16 rather than 18. If it is questionable at both ages then since this is an issue of human rights we should err on the side of caution and give the vote to as many as possible. This would mean lowering the voting age.

Title: Increase turnout Content: A further argument in favour of reducing the voting age is that reducing the voting age will increase turnout. This is because people are more likely to maintain the habit of voting throughout their lives if they start at a younger age. At present, a child will usually leave school at 16. They are leaving an environment where political issues can be discussed and debated, increasing their interest in politics. Once they have left school, they may have to wait up to 8 years before they have their first opportunity to vote at a general election. By this time, they have lost interest and are less likely to vote.

Title: The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 Content: The voting age in the U.S. should be lowered to fourteen years of age. The rationale behind this is that the working age in the U.S. is fourteen. Now, if one is working a pay-check job, then the government is charging taxes on that pay-check. And if one is being taxed by the government and they do not have the right to vote, then that is taxation without representation. Taxation without representation is one of the reasons why the U.S. broke away from British rule in the first place, so it is ironic and somewhat ridiculous that the U.S. now imposes taxation without representation on anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 who is working a pay-check job. There are basically three logical arguments that I can think of that are on "my side of the fence", so to speak: 1. Total Agreement. "The voting age should definitely be lowered to 14." 2. Compromise. "The voting age should be lowered, but not to 14; it should be lowered to 15, 16, or 17." 3. Alternative solution. "Voting rights should be based on something other than age, such as credit score, employment, level of education, or some other basis." You may agree with one of the above opinions, or you may have your own opinion. I hope that I see lots of original positions, different from the ones listed above. Thank you for joining or commenting on this debate.

Title: There should be no voting age Content: Extend my position You don't have this straight. Again if you are unclear or have any questions PM me, or ask me them in the comments section. I want you to do everything I stated in Round 1. It couldn't possibly be any clearer. In short: 1. Make a clear affirmation 2. Define any terms in either your affirmation or supporting information 3. Cite all points you make that aren't merely logical ones with a direct link to what you are talking about 4. Make logical points about why there should be no voting age. Your only points so far only emphasize why there should be further restrictions on voting, not why there should be less. The reasoning you have given makes no logical sense. You are basically saying: "We let tons of other incompetent people vote, so lets increase that incompetency by letting children vote too" To which I respond, shouldn't we be striving towards more competent voters, not less competent? Show me the benefits no age restrictions etc. Could newborns vote? Could anyone that speaks vote? All valid things to put in your explanation.

Title: The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 Content: :) "Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered. " Not necessarily. Actually, I would go against this. How are they informed? Most may have a job, but not one that they have to depend on for money in order to live. They do not own a house, have children, or maybe not even have a car! They do not understand how the "real world" works and therefore do not have the right to vote. Most are not concerned or involved in taxes and house mortgage and this is what most of the candidates focus on. Teenagers' brains are still developing. I will also mention how many stupid decisions 16 year olds make. I am certainly not saying all, but many do. Should these children who are still living with their parents, who do not own a house, are not involved much in the economy, and are just learning to drive really need to have a say in the government? The voting age now is certainly not causing anybody harm and is working our just fine. Also, I will mention how most of the 16 year olds would be biased due to their parents' opinions.

Title: Lowering the voting age Content: Hello Jane. And hello guys. In December 19th in 2008, we have presidential election. In election, if people are over 19, our country give us a voting quality. I think we have to lower the voting age. According to Dr. Sam, people always said if we give university student a voting quality, they will pick wrong president because they are stupid and they have short thinking, plus because they have low ages. Well, it's wrong. I mean it could be in old days, because they are poor so they can;t study well so they don't know how to pick a great president. But now a days, it's different everyone. Now a days, there is less that student can't study. So they can be smart then in old days students so they can choose a great president. So we can lower the voting age. In 2008, we have many president candidates. And they come out with many reduction. But, can we believe it? I think that lower ages student can't pick great president is no just they are stupid, short thinking or they have low ages. It's because president candidates said lie in they're reduction. So we need to lower a voting age. According to homepage kuro5shin, lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout. For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life. Kids Voting is a program in which children participate in a mock vote and accompany their parents to the polls on Election Day. Reports show that even this modest gesture to including youth increased the interest in voting of their whole family. Parents were more likely to discuss politics with their kids and thus an estimated 600,000 adult voters were more likely to vote because of it. Lowering the voting age will strengthen this democracy for all of us.

Title: The voting age in the United States should be eliminated Content: The voting age in the United States should be eliminated for several reasons. First, this country was founded on 'no taxation without representation'. Despite this, in the 2008 presidential debate, over SEVENTY MILLION citizens, a majority of whom did pay taxes, were denied the basic democratic right to vote merely for having been born in the wrong year. Second, it's discriminatory. We've had laws in the past that arbitrarily denied the right to vote (laws against women or black people voting), but we have found such laws to be unfair. Furthermore, if a law against people over a certain age existed, it, too, would quickly be found unfair and discriminatory. It's time to extend the same respect to those under eighteen. Finally, the fourteenth amendment clearly forbids refusing people rights due to their belonging to a certain class of people. In the case of today's voting age, that class is those people who are under eighteen years of age. For these reasons, I urge the nation to eliminate the minimum voting age.

Title: Voting Age Content: I think the voting age should be raised to 21 due to young kids not fully understanding most issues that concern America. Not only raised to to 21, but college students not being allowed to vote either, due to professor guidance and pushing their agenda's on the students. They are very easily manipulated. :)

Title: It should be lowered not scrapped all together Content: In my school when the elections came up they held a mock election and you voted for the party you would vote for had you been old enough we where at an age where everything was very clichy and if you didn't vote for the right party you weren't in the group, therefore think the age should be lowered to 15/16 that way people are past that point aswell it gives you more freedoms when your 16 as these days all you can do when your 16 is have sex legally and most people do it illegally anyway

Title: People younger than 18 should be able to vote in the U.S. Content: Thanks to Pro for his opening argument!I will go ahead and utilize this round to present my own case and refute Pro's contentions.Neg Case: Firstly, let us observe that this resolution does not simply support lowering the voting age a few years; it supports eliminating the age limit entirely, allowing voting for ALL people under eighteen, ranging from infants, to small children, to teenagers. Now, there do certainly exist politically savvy teenagers who are able to make intelligent voting decisions, but I will argue that, for the most part, people under the age of eighteen, especially the children and infants, are subject to ideological indoctrination due to their lack of intellectual maturity, and are most likely going to just copy the political opinions of their parents. What eliminating age restrictions does, then, is that it gives individuals with children the ability to double, triple, or even quadruple their say in the government by indoctrinating their children to cast their votes a certain way! This is absolutely unfair to all of the nation's other individuals, who only get one ballot per person. Thus, eliminating age restrictions undermines one of the core tenets of democracy: that all citizens should have an equal say in the government.Now, on to Pro's contentions...A. Voter EligibilityPro argues that since historically we have been eliminating restrictions on voting, including the gender and race restrictions, we should go ahead and remove the age restriction too. However, there is an obvious problem with this... race and gender have no demonstrable effect on one's ability to have independent political opinions, whereas age most certainly does. And, extending the logic presented in the neg case, that lack of intellectual independence means that age restrictions are mandatory in order to avoid inequality in representation B. Taxation without RepresentationPro: "As one of the causes of the American revolution, "taxation without representation" was viewed as tyranny. Yet today if you are under the age of 18 and you have a job making money you are required to pay and income tax. Third from the bottom on this link shows those under the age of 18 still pay taxes. (2) This is Tyranny, but would not be if they had representation via voting rights."This may seem like a valid argument at first, but upon closer inspection, it is baseless. "Taxation without representation" is just a phrase with some historical significance; Pro has not provided any real Constitutional basis for us to believe that all instances of 'taxation without representation' need to be disallowed. And it certainly is not viewed as "tyranny" anymore, as Pro claims; non-citizen residents of the United States are not allowed to vote in federal elections, yet they are all still taxed quite regularly [1][2], and there hasn't really been any substantial resistance to the practice...This contention is completely founded on the unwarranted assumption that all instances of "taxation without representation" are bad.C. The purpose of voting D. Every citizen should have the right to voteBoth of Pro's points here are based in abstract, idealistic logic. I can just cross-apply my initial case here to show that the practical harms that allowing minors to vote causes is enough to override such logic.And anyways, in both contentions, Pro supports the assumptions underlying them with random quotes by notable politicians, which is definitely NOT sufficient warrant for us to accept them.All of Pro's contentions have been refuted, and the neg case still stands. The resolution has been negated.SOURCES[1] http://www.irs.gov...[2] http://www.irs.gov...

Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: Per rules this is my final focus. Con case If you recall in my first argument I mentioned that to win my opponent must provide reasoning that demonstrates why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. Let’s see if he has done that. 1: “Uniformed Voters” Essentially con’s contention here is against uneducated voting, not voting age. Last round he attempted to argue that he has shown that it is a larger issue for those under 18, though all he showed was that it is an issue, not a larger issue for the age group. In fact I can show this via my opponent’s own words. “High school seniors are usually between the ages of 17 and 18. ” My opponent has just affirmed that his stat reasonably applies to 17 and 18 year olds alike and thus this contention does nothing to negate lowering the voting age to 17. It is therefore off topic and ought not be weighed against the resolution. 2: “Propaganda” This contention addresses the issue of misinformation and voter manipulation. Con does claim that teens are likely easier to manipulate, though as with the last contention; this would include eighteen and nineteen year olds. Thus, we see this contention also does not really address why those that are 18 should vote and those 17 ought not. This contention is therefore not well established to be against the resolution so much as voting itself and ought not be weighed against the resolution. 3: “Counter Plan” Con’s alternative was for an observable metric to determine voter competence. I mentioned that this is reminiscent of Jim Crow Laws. It seems my reference here was misunderstood. I was saying that having some kind of intelligence test or metric to determine voter competence has been found to be easily used to oppress minorities. For example; Jim Crow laws. As Con has provided no kind of specifics, it is impossible for me to attack whatever metric he is referring to. Thus, my contention was that when such “metrics” have been used in the past, they have been used to oppress minorities. Final thoughts on Con’s Case My opponents contentions and counter plan miss the mark. We are discussing whether voting should be extended to 17 year olds. Nothing in Con’s case demonstrates support for the status quo which allows those the age of 18 to vote and not allow those 17 to vote. He has thus not justified denying the vote to 17 year olds specifically. My case I presented the simple concept that This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people. ” At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U. S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Con claims that this claim points toward a utilitarian framework. It does, it appeals to the greatest possible good being liberty of the people to choose outweighing the so called benefits of tyranny. Con’s claims his counterplan solves the problem I brought up. I am not sure how he sees that being the case. His counter plan seems to more than likely limit liberty not oppress it. I have shown that the difference between 17 and 18 year olds is virtually nonexistent and thus no reason there to give 18 year olds the power to vote and restrict 17 year olds. Con claims that 17 year olds ability to conscript in the military does not qualify them for the vote. If con was aware of history he would see that is the main reason 18 year olds were given the vote. During Vietnam 18 year olds could be drafted but not vote. It was argued that such an arrangement that allows you to die for your country but have no representation way tyrannical. Con again cites his stat concerning high school seniors. Again I will point out this stat also includes those who have the ability currently to vote. I also briefly argued that taxation without representation was tyrannical. He concedes this but says it does not affect his framework. Apparently con feels as though his framework is the end all be all of this debate. Though, he never addressed my framework. Clearly, I argued that what ought to be valued is liberty and what ought to be avoided is tyranny. My opponent needed to provide reasoning that demonstrated why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. He has not done so. I have shown, the difference in age between the two is negligible and thus those who have reached the age of 17 ought to be able to vote for the president that will represent them the next four years. This is why the voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17.

Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: Originally you had to be 21 to vote in the United States. The voting age was lowered to 18 because young men were being drafted to the Vietnam war before they were old enough to vote. The government changed the voting age because the lives of young people were being directly impacted by government policy, and they believed young people should have a say. https://en.wikipedia.org... Policy affects everyone including children. Small kids are not smart or informed enough to vote, but older students are exposed to things in school that make them more knowledgeable. In fact school is a great place to talk about politics. Adults are discouraged from talking about politics in public which is considered impolite. But in school, students have the opportunity to learn and discuss things. http://www.amazon.com... In most states you can begin working at 14 years old. Teens are working and paying income taxes. They are also paying sales tax on their purchases. By not allowing them to vote, it is taxation without representation. https://www.dol.gov... Con says kids are too young or stupid to vote, but that could be said about many adults as well. We don't have a screening process that makes sure people are intelligent enough to vote. Many 14 and 15 year olds are smarter than 18 and 19 year olds, or even 48 and 49 year olds. Age does not determine intelligence or maturity.

Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: Thank you for responding quickly, I shall offer the following framework since one was not provided. Framework We need to weigh the effect on the election process and results over everything else in today’s debate. Thus, if con were to show that the voting age being lowered to 17 is a net harm, then the judge should feel comfortable with voting on the negation. Contention 1: Uninformed voters Under the status quo we see that many voters are unaware of the political process. In fact, if we were to turn toward a poll from the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum shows that only 1/1000 Americans know the first 5 freedoms given by the first amendment (1). This is a problem because when people are standing at their voting booths, we see that they are not informed at all about the very basic rights given to us. We can see further in depth why voters are usually misinformed or uninformed with a startling statistic from a study conducted by the American Press Institute and the Center for Public Affairs Research, which states that 30% of Americans do not go in-depth in news stories (2). In fact, we can see this by looking at the following graphic (2). Forbes goes into more specifics by showing the fact that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party they represent (3). Why does this matter? Well, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered “proficient” in civics (4). If these are high school seniors, could you imagine the political understanding of a freshman? Well, you do not have to take my word for it, a poll of incoming freshman has determined that only 26% of them considered politics important, or kept up to date with political affairs. In other words, we would be diluting the already weak voter base so that more uninformed people would be participating in voting. We would be able to see this because generally, despite a minor decrease in the 2012 election, numbers of youth voters have remained static (5). This shows that despite a generally static trend in young voters, there is still a generally uninformed youth-voter base, which would only increase with this resolution due to allowing more people to vote. In fact, according to CIRCLE, an organization that focuses on youth in voting, has found that off the states with the most influence from the 2016 election, most of them are swing states and states where there is no general consensus on who would win. In other words, the votes from young voters could decide the election (12). This would cause problems, because without an informed base of people voting, we would see that people would be making decisions affecting many people without being necessarily informed about the magnitude, or impact of the decision. Ergo, unqualified people taking office would be the net harm under the resolution. Thus, we need to negate to prevent incompetent leaders. Contention 2: Propaganda With teen voters, we would see that propaganda would have an increased effect. In the status quo, we see that teenagers are usually more prone to impulses and their environment, as shown by the Harvard Magazine in 2008 (6). This is important because of the frequency of political advertisements and attack ads which populate the entire spectrum of media. In fact, on TV ads alone, the total spent on advertisement was $4.4 billion, which is a huge number which reaches 87% of people over the age of 18 (7). This would increase for the technology obsessed youth with increased focus on social media in recent years, as candidates are more likely to tweet, go on Facebook, or both. In fact, according to a Pew Research poll, over 70% of teens go on Facebook, and the majority of teens who use social media use more than one site (8). This is a problem due to the aforementioned political propaganda. This can be easily seen as a recent report by New Republic which found the following (9): “The prod to nudge bystanders to the voting booths was simple. It consisted of a graphic containing a link for looking up polling places, a button to click to announce that you had voted, and the profile photos of up to six Facebook friends who had indicated they’d already done the same.” What was the result? There was a .39% more of a chance that people would vote for what the friends’? preferences were. The ripple effect of friends on Facebook influencing others resulted in more than 300,000 votes for a particular candidate (9). This powerful tool could result in “digital gerrymandering,” where people abused this tactic to get people to vote for others. This would be incredibly effective against the easily-influenced minds of teenagers, who are proven to act on impulse. Thus, we would be seeing political candidates having an advantage by targeting teens at an unprecedented rate. This is happening in the status quo with Donald Trump, who uses Twitter, a social media outlet, quite often to appeal to the 90% of young adults who use the site (10). This is confirmed by the fact that the majority of young republicans actually support Donald Trump. This is not a coincidence, and with the popularity of social media and the teen’s ability to be influenced means that political candidates will take advantage with propaganda, meaning a negative vote is necessary. Thus, I urge you to negate this resolution. Counter Plan What needs to be seen is the problem and the solution. Since teenagers are not represented in politics, then we can allow them to form political clubs or PACs to further political goals. We can push for more time spent contacting state senators to make sure that youth are represented as well. Not only this, but we need to make sure that people who are voting are actually competent, thus we need to establish an observable metric that could determine the overall competence of the voter when it comes to basic rights, current events, and politics in general. However, the resolution has unreasonably harmful effects, thus a negative vote is the only vote one can imagine to be beneficial to the voting process. Conclusion One must conclude that lowering the voting age to 17 will produce harms on the electoral system and will skew the results of elections with unfair propaganda being used by future political candidates. Ergo, one must negate. 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...)

Title: Voting Age Content: I would first like to say thank you for the invite. I do not believe that the voting age should be raised to 21. The main reason that I think this is that at age 18 teenagers fully mature into adults, thus giving them many responsibilities,which, in turn, makes them more responsible.

Title: Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Content: Thank you for your replyRebuttals"I say that the reason that the younger people shold be to vote at a lower age is to help the physical problems of the United States problems"You need to explain this. You can't make the vague statement that a younger voting age would help the physical problems of the U. S. , and then go on and leave us with the ambiguity of what on earth you are talking about. If your statement is valid then I can simply say, "The reason younger people should not vote is because it will hurt the United States and cause more problems", and leave it at that and click submit. My opponent goes on to claim,"The president of todaY Is one of our best presidents yet. /he was not chosen by his looks, nor his wife of wealth. /he was chosen by his smartness. Obama has helped the Millitary (which consist of me) with killing Osama. Previously, our other presidents have been chosen for looks and their wives. Not tryikng to be consulting of our usa presidents, but to be honest, they ahev messed up our money system. Did you know that George Bush spent 11.5 trillion while he was in office? ? "All of this is utterly irrelevant and nonsensical in a debate over the voting age. This debate has nothing to do with President Obama, President Bush, etc. As the Instigator and Pro you have the job of showing that 16 year olds are mentally and psychologically competent to vote. "I think that the ages of 16 would think into smartness. With them thinking about college, they wouldnt be thinking on the looks of these people"You have never effectively proven that presidents of the past were voted based on looks. ArgumentsMy opponent has NOT ONCE, attacked by arguments regarding the mental abilities of teenagers being able to vote. Again at 16, you cannot be on a jury, you cannot be drafted and serve in the military, you have not completed highschool, you have not completed basic civics, law, economics, and government courses, etc. My opponent has NO RESPONSE to this. I'm assuming he read my arguments, and if he did, he would have read where I pointed out that 16 year olds are still in highschool, still taking government and law classes. It is not important to my opponent that 16 year olds are too busy with school, getting an education, having a childhood social life, haven't completed basic law, government, and economics courses to know how the law, economy and government works. As long as they vote liberal. That is why my opponent entire "rebuttal" consisted of how great Obama was and how bad past presidents have messed up the "money system" or economy. That's why he posted a nonsensical source claiming Bush SINGLEHANDEDLY, spent 11.5 Trillion dollars. My opponent wants surefire liberal voters, not informed liberals/conservatives/libertarians who know how the economy and law work. For this reason the voting age should not be lowered to 16 as long as the vast majority of 16 year olds have not completed basic law, government, and economic courses.

Title: People younger than 18 should be able to vote in the U.S. Content: People younger than 18 years old should be able to vote in the United States of America. This will be a short debate. Round 1 for con is acceptance.

Title: The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. Content: The voting age in the U.K should be lowered to 16 years as once you are 16, you have to pay taxes so a view of opinion starts to form on politics. At this age you will be thinking of your future; what occupation will I want to have? How much will I earn? Will I be able to afford the cost of living? All these sort of questions and more will be in a 16 year olds mind- they should have a right to vote. I do not agree with the statement; “16 year olds are not mature enough to decide the country’s democracy” as surely, if you work (part time at 16) and pay taxes you have as much right as a 36-year old who does exactly the same things- don’t you think so? Not only will this, having 16 and 17 year olds voting increase the variety in election results so the popularity turnout will increase.

Title: lower the voting age to 16 Content: Voting at a lower age would increase participation

Title: You should be able to vote in USA under the age of 18 in certain circumstances. Content: Before we begin this debate, American citizen under the age of 18 includes teenagers, children and even toddlers. Therefore, we must consider the future of this beautiful. If teenagers, whom haven't even graduate from secondary schools, were to vote, imagine the outcome of the election. If children were to vote, they might be easily bribed with simple candies by outsiders, resulting these actions to taint the voting system of this country. If toddlers were to vote, they will definitely toy with the voting system. In conclusion, it is obvious that we need to think responsibly. Therefore, we shan't allow citizen under the age of 18 to vote due to the fact that they are still not considered as adults nor responsible enough.

Title: should under 18s vote Content: I contend that those under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote in certain circumstances; if they can pass a test showing adequate understanding of U.S. history and government, and if they fit all the other requirements that those over 18 have to fulfill to vote. In fact, I believe that as a country we should reconsider the aversion to the use of poll tests as a condition of voting. While in many cases those tests were abused to require an unrealistic knowledge level and were applied in a discriminatory way, if they were standardized and fairly implemented, they would help ensure that the electorate is informed enough to vote. The problem that minors don't have adequate education would be answered by requiring these poll tests. Personally, I am undecided about the issue; however for the purposes of debate I am taking the Pro side based on the only implementation (requiring poll tests) which would in my view make voting rights for minors make sense.

Title: People of all ages should be considered inherently equal. Content: So I ask my opponent but one question: Do you think an 8 month old baby should be allowed to cast a vote in a democratic election? More to the point, do you think there should be any age restrictions for choosing the people who govern our society and order men and women into battle? Are you really proposing that an 8 month old (As you stated in your opening argument) should have the same vote as a 30 year old? Should we also draft that 8 month old into service? Should we let the 5 year old work in a factory? Is it ok for a 66 year old man to marry a 5 year old girl? Or should we have some form of age restrictions? Imprecise though they may be. You're premises, I fear, do not work in practicality and reality. Do some societal laws and ideas need some revision? Sure. Are some teenagers more responsible than some adults? No doubt. Does this mean we should get rid of age restrictions all together? Absolutely not.

Title: Teenagers and voting Content: I saw a debate of a similar nature on this site and decided it was not conducted rightly, so I have decided to re-do and see what happens The Argument- the voting age should be reduced to 15 Definitions(if any are really needed) vote- the right to vote in US governmental elections I would like to begin with a little examination of what qualifies adulthood. Legally adulthood is reached at the age of 18, but many of us under the age of legal adulthood already exhibit the signs of maturity and good citizenship (the things I believe are required to vote). Many teenagers already deal with many of the things adults deal with, such as work and managing their own lives, as at this point in their life they are preparing for adulthood. Seeing that teenagers, if not legally, socially are adults see no reason a teenager should be denied the right to vote. I believe the big question that could be put out there against this point is "Are we prepared?" and I would next like to answer that question. The simple answer to that question is yes....the longer answer to the question is slightly more complex. In teenagers we see a wide range of maturities from childish to very socially responsible, but I also see that spectrum played out even with people who are legally adults, which makes me ask the question that I am debating here today. Does the simple fact that adults have been alive longer qualify them to vote, is a mentally disabled adult more fit to vote then a mentally competent teenager?. I would contend the answer is no Seeing that age is not a factor I will move to others. Education is very important when we consider who should vote, but does education mean just graduating from high school and college?. Once again I say no, Many teenagers are educated very well even before they attain these 'symbols'. Im fairly certain there are a few debaters on this site that are teenagers and can hold there own in political debates. One of the founding fathers of this country had no high school or college degree and no one today would say they were not capable men. Seeing that education between adults and well applied teenagers is essentially the same I see no reason that this should disqualify us either. In closing if maturity and education do not separate us then what else that matters really does?. And if nothing else does separate us then why are we denied the right to vote.

Title: A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes Content: While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy.

Title: They deserve to have a say. Content: If they are now in a responsible stage of their life, they deserve a say on who will decide how their schools will be run through elections! Yes Because If a sixteen year old can join the Arm forces, then the right to vote should be allowed. If the voting age is lowered to 16, then politics could become a GCSE course, meaning they will be fully prepared at an early date, ready for an election if they are 16 for example.

Title: Voters should be required to take a test before voting Content: Side-resolution- Voting age limit should be dropped if there is voting test. Lack of knowledge is the reason why voting is 18 plus, right? Then why people who don't anything about the candidates allowed to vote? Surely there should be test for voting, and the age limit dropped.

Title: Lower the Voting Age Content: I think you are very focused on the idea that a percentage of people don't live long enough to vote. It is sad that people die young but we can't change laws because of that. 4-year-olds die of cancer, we wouldn't lower the voting age to 4 to accommodate them. "However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time." Not being able to vote does not mean you don't have rights over yourself. it means you need to wait till you are older. Actually less than a fourth of teens have their own opinion...but, even if you don't buy the influence argument, teens still are not ready to vote. Children do have free will but they are not mature enough to vote. As I said before: "Studies have proven that full brain development usually occurs by the age of 25. Teenagers are known to be more emotional and impulsive than adults. Their voting is likely to be immature and also not very well-informed." "Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference." This is very problematic. Instead of just adding more uninformed voters to the pool, we need to educate the ones we already have! You can't just say, well our voters are already ignorant so who cares if we add more ignorant voters? That is not how elections should be, elections based on misinformation and ignorance are not true elections! I wish you wouldn't compare women's suffrage and civil rights to teenagers not being allowed to vote. They are not the same, teenagers are not being oppressed the way women and African-Americans were. In conclusion, teenagers should not vote because they are not mature enough and to allow them to vote would lead to more problems and questions: 1. In that case, should non-citizens get to vote? 2. What about 10-year-olds? 3. Now we have more misinformed voters who will vote based off emotion instead of logic and facts

Title: The lowering of the voting age>>> Content: Where oh where to begin... For starters, this is an insult to those who are 24 and have graduated college. Especially those who have graduated Yale, Harvard, MIT, or any other ivy-league school. I will even go as far as to say some 14 year olds have the brain capacity to vote intelligently, although I'm not saying that we should lower the voting age to 14. You are applying a small statistic to a vast number of people. Your argument is just completely illogical and it's, as I said, an insult to many of the middle-aged voters in the United States. 25 year olds are able to see the ramifications of their actions quite clearly whether it be voting, driving, or anything else.

Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: Con says kids are too ignorant and immature. I did not confirm that, I said that ignorance and maturity is not determined by age. That was the last line of my previous round. It's a shame that Con does not know how to read. Perhaps Con should not be able to vote even though he is 47. If he cannot grasp basic comprehension then he should definitely not be casting a ballot. But the government does not weed out the ignorant and immature. They only weed out by age which I explained is unfair, does not make sense and is contradictory with other values (like no taxation without representation).

Title: Should the drinking age be lowered to 18 Content: I believe that the drinking age should be lowered because firstly its not like have a underage people do not drink. There are 14, 15 year old drinking all the time at parties because they have such easy access to alcohol. If and 18 year old is old to vote and considered responsible because they are legally an adult why can they not drink.

Title: No, wrong subject. Content: No, 16 yr olds should not be allowed to vote. They are the best on games and mindless modern trivia, but not on worldly subjects or politics.

Title: The right to vote, should be open to all. Content: I misunderstood what I was arguing, and I most likely cannot make a good case for this, but I will try. People make stupid decisions, yes, but an age limit or stoping prisoners from voting does not mean we still don't make stupid decisions. And by stopping people from voting, the stupid decisions voted in leaders make will still affect them, they just would not have a say in it. And yes, 6 year olds might not seem like the people who should be voting in our current environment, but in the end I think it COULD work. One, parents would have a big say if these children can go to the polls, and two education about politics and foreign policy would be pushed to the point where it would be a core subject in school. Stupid decisions are enviable when voting is done fairly, so why not let everyone have a say?

Title: SHould voting be mandatory for all US citizens Content: Ok first of all I will fix your opening argument. "NO ALL CHiLDREN IS NOT MATURE ENOUGH AND MOST PPL WHO DO NOT VOTE DONT KNOW ABOUT THE ELECTION PROCESS." "The answer to the question is no voting should not be mandatory. Not all children are mature enough to cast a vote, and most of the people who choose to not to vote make the choice because they do not know enough about the election process. There we go much better, first of all I will point out I personally am 100% opposed to mandatory voting. In fact I think that we should issue a IQ test before voting but that would make it way to hard for Obama or Hillary or liberal nominees in general. Ok first thing is first "not all children are mature enough to cast a vote" according to the laws in this country in order to vote you must be 18 years of age. Eighteen is the point in time when a child is now legally and adult so your point about children not being mature enough is moronic children do not vote. "and most of the people who choose to not to vote make the choice because they do not know enough about the election process." Well, that in fact may be a true statement but that is the point of high school, generally speaking by the age eighteen you should be old enough to know where you stand as far as politics are concerned.

Title: Minimum Voting Age -Speed debate Content: Your job is to argue that the current voting age should be, both logically and morally, kept the same.I will argue that the minimum voting age shouldn't exist at all. 500 characters max, and ten munites to argue. Think of it of as a speed debate.

Title: You shouldn't raise the voting age to 21 Content: Though it is not a problem per say, the idea of 16-year-olds being given the right to vote isn't actually a bad idea. Also, yes, children do look forward to being able to hold power and vote on something - so why not give them that power at a younger age? After all, by then, we do have adult responsibilities so it would be incorrect to say that we are 'too young' to vote at that stage. Furthermore, if we had more 16-year-olds (and, as I assume, 17-year-olds) with this right, the results of our future votes would differentiate and become a lot less conservative. As a result of this, we would be welcoming a much more open and diverse array of people in our society - with higher levels of LGBTQ+ acceptance being an example of a positive impact a lower voting age could give.

Title: An opportunity for civic studies Content: While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their democratic rights and duties. What each democratic body does would seem to clearly be information that every student should learn as regardless of voting age it is going to be a civic duty for most of their lives.

Title: Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Content: Thanks Pro for creating an interesting topic. Seeing that my opponent has made his arguments I will as well.Opening Arguments16 year olds should not be able to vote due to the fact that the vast majority are in high school and have no even completed basic law, history and government classes. This automatically makes them much more misinformed and unknowledgeable than the average voter about the way their country is run, what is and is not legal, etc. For example, students in the U.S. who haven’t studied the U.S. constitution would not be reliable decision makers when it came to voting for or against a proposed law, proposition, policy, etc that may enforce constitutional law or violate constitutional law. Furthermore 16 year olds are often busy with school, extracurricular activities, events at home, etc and are often much more involved in their social and school lives than they are in the subjects of social issues, foreign policy, and economic matters. 18 is a much more legitimate age to be able to vote. At 18 you deemed mature enough by the government to become drafted into the armed forces [1] At 18 you are deemed responsible enough to decide the outcomes of court cases [2] You are most likely a graduate from highschool and completed basic social science and civics classes You are no longer under your parents legal control and are able to work, provide, and take care of yourself as an adult Vote ConSources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: why 17 year olds should vote and why not Content: 17 year olds should be able to vote because it helps but notice teens need something to do before becoming an adult nobody wants to vote unlike teens . this is my first debate so have mercy please

Title: Should Students vote in local school broad elections. Content: on the kindergarten and younger students, could vote, if the teachers or parents took a day before the election, to explain the issues and what each candidate's agendas in "laid men terms". But the issues effective us ( the students) more that most. This could also be useful for practicing for when you turn 18 and vote. (we should actually lower the voting age for all elections-http://www.debate.org... )

Title: Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Content: Introduction Hello, Con! I am excited to debate this issue for many reasons: my primary one, however, is because I have not debated in a long time and this looks like a good debate to get myself back in gear. It is an interesting idea, and you make some pretty interesting points. However, I feel I can counter them, and provide a few good reasons of my own for why the voting age should be lowers, or, at least, why eighteen year olds are no more responsible or mature than a sixteen or seventeen year old. I know that this will fulfill my burden of proof, but it will at least, hopefully, show why your arguments are not quite as good as you may believe them to be, in my opinion. That being said, let's start with rebuttals! Rebuttal 1: Maturity My primary issues with this point are that you have not provided statistical support for your claim, and you are begging the question. You are basing your reasoning behind why you believe eighteen year olds are more mature than sixteen year olds on things such as military age. However, this conclusion is under the assumption that eighteen year olds are mature enough to join the military, or that sixteen year olds are not mature enough to. The primary reason why the age to join the military is eighteen and not sixteen is because most sixteen year olds are in high school. This is not a problem of maturity, but a problem of circumstance. Of course, I can also turn this argument around and say that, because sixteen year olds are mature enough to own and drive a car, they should be allowed to vote. I am sure you disagree with this reasoning: but why? It is the same reasoning you are using with why they should not; I'm only turning it on its head. In fact, you made this point for me! “If 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country.” I would hardly say that the amount of teenagers paying taxes is low: “At any given time approximately 45% of 16-17 year olds will be working and up to 80% of all teens will have a job before they graduate from high school. ” (1) If you have a job, even as a teenager, you pay taxes. That does not even take into account the fact that teens overall spent an estimated 9.7 billion in sales taxes alone! (2) Our brain is not fully developed until we hit thirty. Indeed. Are you arguing that we should increase the voting system, then, to 30? Rebuttal 2: Experience Why would you not trust a sixteen year old with your life? What about a sixteen year old makes them more untrustworthy than an eighteen year old? Furthermore, sixteen year olds cannot run for office. This is true. However, neither can an eighteen year old. Can you guess what the youngest age you can be to run for any political office in the United States of America? 25. (3) Are you arguing that we should raise the age to 25? But they are not fully developed themselves; so, 30? Yes, most 16 or 17 year olds have not had a long-term job or have run their own lives. But neither will an 18 year old: in fact, most people will not have this responsibility until they leave college, which is usually around 22 (given that post people finish college with a bachelor's degree). This is not even mentioning the fact that, whoever is on the ballot, adults will vote for at the same percentage as children. If children can vote bad, than adults can vote bad as well. There is no objectively wrong vote, though; one's opinion is their own. Your basic argument regarding the whole untrustworthy children when it comes to making decisions is one that can be applied to any adult. After all, I wouldn't trust just any adult with my life. Sixteen year olds would have the same options as adults. Rebuttal 3: Responsibility That logic is just silly. You must prove that a sixteen year old cannot fulfill the role of a juryman. The primary reason they are not is, once again, a problem of circumstance: being on jury requires that you miss school. Furthermore, juryman are decided based on voting registrars; you have to vote to be a part of a jury! So, this begs the question: 16 or 17 year olds cannot vote because they cannot be juryman because they cannot vote. This is circular logic. Point 1: No taxation without representation It is what the founding fathers fought for: teenagers pay quite a bit in taxes, as I have already pointed out in rebuttal one. As such, they deserve the same level of representation as others who pay taxes. Indeed, they may not pay the same amount in taxes as everybody else, but circumstances have always been a factor in what taxes are given to what people. After all, 47% of people do not pay income tax, because of age or socioeconomic standing (most are elderly or poor, or both). Point 2: Stability Sixteen and seventeen are good times to vote, stability-wise. Eighteen is one of the worst times, in fact. Sixteen and seventeen year olds are stationary; they attend school and have a regular social life. They have no real major changes that affect their lives. However, eighteen year olds are generally transitioning to colleges, attempting to find stable employment, and sometimes trying to find a place to live. This is also a time of economic instability: after all, college is significantly more expensive than anything you'll need to pay for in high school, and those who do not go to college still need to find a way to sustain themselves outside of their parent's homes. They are still trying to settle down. Point 3: Voter Turnout Voter turnout will increase if you lower the voting age. Studies such as Merrill's study of five states that had implemented a program called Kids Voting USA, which gives children information on voting and politics, and five states that did not implement the program. He found that parent turnout increased three percent, due to parents being inspired to vote due to their kid's enthusiasm to voting. The number was as high as nine percent in some states! (4) It would be logical, therefore, that voter turnout would increase in both children and adults if the voting age was lowered. Point 4: Unique point of view Voters will, obviously, vote based on their circumstances in life. As teenagers have a different point of view as, say, a mentally senile seventy-three year old man (who has just as much right to vote as a mentally stable thirty year old), they will provide a unique point of view to the election. Along with that, their views will be heard and considered by politicians when they make political decisions that affect things such as education and raising or lowing minimum wage, as just a few examples. Conclusion I eagerly await my opinion's response. This was a lot of fun! Best of luck to my opponent; his opinions are interesting, but I am curious of his actual position: is he in favor of keeping the minimum age of voting at eighteen? Or is he in favor of increasing the voting age? Based on what he said, it seems like the latter. If that is the case, this should be a very interesting debate indeed. Sources:(1) www.oshainfo.gatech.edu/teen-techguide1.pdf (WARNING: This is a PDF file. You'll need some form of reader to access it.)(2) http://www.youthrights.org...; second point(3)http://www.earlyamerica.com...(4)http://www.uvm.edu...

Title: should kids be aloud to vote Content: I believe Children should be children they should enjoy their lives and not have to worry about law and sh1t. I believe the legal age of voting is fine as it is and children would make careless mistakes because they do not understand the world enough to make big choices as big as voting.

Title: Should young people be allowed to vote... Content: There are several reasons why young people should not be allowed to vote. There are many teenagers and even adults who are very immature. Giving them an opportunity to vote is the worst idea. Students, for example, can make poor choices, and voting is a big thing. They should start with something small, such as student council within the school, and then go from there. Even if there are some people under the age of 18 who are mature, we still have to consider the ones that aren't.

Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: _____________________________________________________________________ In 2012, only 51% of citizens 18-29 years old, let me repeat that, 18 THROUGH 29 years old, voted in the election. If so many 18-29 year old citizens already ignore their right to vote, what difference would it be to give 16-17 year old citizens the same right? "My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? " - 1davey29 Just because 16 year old people have the right to do some things, doesn't mean that they have the right to do everything. If all 16 year olds, for example, had the right to drink alcohol or serve on a jury, or even start their own families, let's face it: for most 16 year olds, it would be a disaster. However, if those rights were staggered to different age levels, they would become more mature and have more of a sense of responsibility. Some choices are just more complex then others, and in that case they must be given at a later level, so they get used to responsibility on a smaller scale before making big decisions. "If 16-year-olds cannot vote, our president, who represents our country, will not accurately represent the people's opinion. " - 1davey29 It is incorrect to say that people vote according to their age, as many grandchildren and children vote according to their grandparent's and parent's views. The government does things that affect people of all age groups, but that doesn't mean, for example, a 12 year old should have the right to vote because new school policies affect them. Should toddlers have the right to vote because the government affects them too? No, because most parents can be trusted to make the best decision for the children. Young people are also a lot more likely to misuse their vote, and use it in a foolish way. The youth would be more likely to vote for the president according to the celebrities that support the candidate, and not the candidate's actual views. While this is not true for all youth, you can be sure that there will be many young people abusing their vote. _____________________________________________________________________ Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for the debate. Source(s): . http://idebate.org...

Title: Lowering the voting age to 16 Content: I am not saying that every single right granted at eighteen should be lowered to sixteen, but just voting. It shouldn't be any lower because sixteen is just the right age to get into politics. Adults messing up America isn't my opinion, but a fact. Every decision made that led to this recession was made by adults. The decision to get into wars were that of adults. So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?

Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: At this point, we need to focus on the resolution at hand. Pro has tried to shift the debate to a quite different topic: "My position today is simple - that 18 is not a justifiable boundary." and "I'd like to have a serious chat to whoever came up with the age of 18 for voting. It's completely arbitrary. "First, this debate is not over whether or not 18 is the appropriate age to allow one to vote, second, Con actually agrees with Pro that 18 is a fairly arbitrary age and, in fact, Con will show that 18 is probably too young of an age. But whether or not 18+ is an appropriate age is irrelevant to this debate. This debate is whether or not 15-17 year olds should also have the right to vote. If Con shows that no one under the age of 30 should be allowed to vote, then Con has effectively won this case (as an example). Pro does not need to defend 18+ year olds, but they must show that 15-17 year olds being allowed to debate is better than not allowing them.Due to space requirements, Con will now present a counter case as to why teenagers (15-17) should not be allowed to vote. In Round 3 Con will present refutations to arguments made by Pro in round 2 (which are mostly circular--i.e. they assume teens make for good voters which will be directly called into question in this round).I will quickly summarize the points I intend to make. Pro makes the argument that 18 is an arbitrary age--then why do they insist on 15? Why not 14 or 12 or 10 or 5? Pro gives no rationale for when they think one becomes "rational" enough to vote. Next, Pro makes most of their arguments under the presupposed assumption that 15-17 year olds are not irrational (making this argument somewhat circular). Con will make a case that shows, in fact that 15-17 year olds (and even higher ages) are actually scientifically proven to be irrational. Con reminds voters that whether or not 18+ (for instance 18-25) should be allowed to vote is irrelevant to this case, so even if Con makes arguments that 18-25 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote is irrelevant to this case (if 18-25 shouldn't vote, then clearly 15-17 shouldn't be allowed to vote either).So what would a country want out of a voter? This is the question that must be answered by Pro, first and foremost. In Con's opinion a voter should be well informed, rational thinking, and have a stake in the outcome of an election. Con will now show that teenagers (15-17) do not meet at least two of these criteria.1) Teenagers living at home with their parents have less of a stake in the outcome of elections.I think it's fairly uncontested that the vast majority of teenagers live at home with their parents and do not support themselves. This means teens do not pay taxes (other than sales taxes), do not have an independent stream of income (meaning their contribution via sales tax is actually their parents' money), and do not support themselves. As such, policy decisions about income tax, property taxes, welfare, etc. do not have direct effects on teens.2) Teens are irrational human beings and their brains are not fully developed.An ideal voter would be able to make calculated decisions about cause and effect--they would be able to see how complex policies would effect long term outcomes. Unfortunately, teen brains are still developing and this ongoing development makes it difficult for teens to make such judgment decisions.I would expect most (older) voters to assume this prima facie: that teens are irrational, impulsive, and have very little self control. However, a) this is likely unconvincing to younger voters and b) this sentiment does not make it true! So is there any evidence to support this idea? In fact there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this idea [1, 2, 3, 4]. This comes from the fact that teenagers rely mostly on their amygdala for decision making whereas adults tend to use their frontal cortex in decision making."Their[teenagers] actions are guided more by the amygdala and less by the frontal cortex." [1]"The researchers found that when processing emotions, adults have greater activity in their frontal lobes than do teenagers. Adults also have lower activity in their amygdala than teenagers. In fact, as teenagers age into adulthood, the overall focus of brain activity seems to shift from the amygdala to the frontal lobes." [2]"And she says that adults process information in the rational prefrontal cortex. But, in the teen brain, most of the heavy lifting is done by the emotion-oriented limbic center." [3]"The part of the brain that helps us make logical and rational decisions is just developing in a teen and usually it's not fully functional until the early to mid-20s. " [4]The amygdala is more associated with impulse reactions and "gut" feelings:" The frontal lobes are also thought to be the place where decisions about right and wrong, as well as cause-effect relationships are processed. In contrast, the amygdala is part of the limbic system of the brain and is involved in instinctive "gut" reactions, including "fight or flight" responses." [2]This last quote is particularly important, as it shows that the frontal lobe is where cause-effect relationships are processed. This is paramount in making political decisions! One must understand the effect that certain policies will cause. If they do not, then they are not likely to make for very good voters. As this research suggests, teenagers are not the type of people we want in determining policy through becoming voters. It's not some "arbitrary" age limit--this is scientific evidence to suggest that teenagers are not "mature" enough to make such decisions.The next problem with allowing teens to vote is that they are not independent thinkers. Teens tend to support whatever their parents support. Again, there is overwhelming evidence to support this fact."According to Boquist, "Family is the primary agent of political socialization. It's usually not purposeful and has to do with absorption."" [5] This shows that while families influence political beliefs, there does not tend to be a rational reason behind it."Research shows that children tend to share their parents’ political attitudes—at least while they’re all still living under the same roof, said UW-Madison political science professor Charles Franklin." [6]Again, notice the important caveat: "at least while they’re all still living under the same roof". This is true of virtually all teenagers from the agers of 15-17.Finally, there is empirical evidence to show that 70% of children hold the same political belief as their parents. Specifically, 70% of children would vote the same way as their parents (77% for republicans, 71% for democrats, and 61% for independents) [7].So what does this prove? It shows that allowing teens (15-17) to vote does nothing to increase democracy, rather just works to reward parents with many children and whom tend to strictly enforce their views onto their children. So this essentially has no effect, other than giving parents with children a few extra votes for their particular ideal. Teens will not make independent, well-informed decisions. Sources:[1] http://www.aacap.org...[2] http://brainconnection.positscience.com...[3] http://www.tesh.com...[4] http://www.cnn.com... [5] http://articles.mcall.com...[6] http://gazettextra.com...[7] http://www.gallup.com...

Title: The USA Legal Drinking Age Should Be Lowered to 18 From 21 Content: should the drinking age be lowered

Title: 16 year olds should vote Content: I will argue against this. I. They are not yet adultsEven if they are informed, If they do not live by themselves, Have the ability/privilege of owning firearms, Own their own homes or apartments, Use their bank accounts, Have the ability to serve in the military, pay taxes, Or hold jobs, Then they cannot vote as they are not independent or other reasons I listed, As an eighteen year old can have. II. InfluenceYounger voters can be swayed or influenced on what candidates they should choose when voting, By their friends, Parents, And even teachers. [1] It could be more of an advantage to not yet let them vote, So they may have more time to mature, And to form their own political ideology (Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Etc)ConclusionAs younger voters do not hold the same positions in society, As older people like 18 year olds, And are not likely to be mature and reasonable in voting, It would be best to not let 16 year olds vote in elections. Sources used [1] https://www. Headcount. Org/should-16-year-olds-have-the-right-to-vote-pros-and-cons/

Title: allow voting at 16 in European Parliament elections Content: There should not be different voting ages for different elections

Title: Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages Content: Since 18-24 year olds already ignore their ability to vote there is no reason to expect that 16-18 year olds will be any more interested. At the moment over 50% of 18-24 year olds don’t vote even though they are eligible.[1] So this kind of change is hardly going to offset aging. It is also wrong to suggest that voters vote according to their age; the elderly are likely to have grandchildren whose interests they may well respect when voting. [1] Dunleavy, Patrick, and Gilson, Chris, ‘Is the UK Electorate Disengaged?’, British Politics and Policy at LSE, 12 March 2010

Title: You should be able to vote at the age of 16 in the US Content: 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote in the US. Prior to the 26th amendment being passed, you had to be 21 to vote. The 26th amendment lowered the age to 18. Lowering the age has already been successful once, why not do it again? About 10% of 16-year-olds work. Many complain that these numbers are dropping, which they are, but giving 16-year-olds the right to vote would make them feel more like adults, possibly bringing up the employment rate.

Title: People younger than 18 should be able to vote in the U.S. Content: Thank you Romanii for your refutations, My opponent observed that the resolution "supports eliminating the age limit entirely, allowing voting for ALL people under eighteen, ranging from infants, to small children, to teenagers." He went on to conclude "there do certainly exist politically savvy teenagers who are able to make intelligent voting decisions,"" My Opponent just admitted that there do exists in our society citizens who are deprived the right to vote due to age despite them being capable of their own beliefs, interests, and prefrences. Consider how intelligent the average voter really is" "In 2011, Newsweek asked 1,000 Americans to take the standard U.S. Citizenship test, and 38 percent of them failed. One in three couldn"t name the vice-president."(1) "About 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half of Americans can name at least two members of the fictional cartoon family, according to a survey. "The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms." (2) Here is another link that shows more of the same (3) Turns out many of those who can and do vote are not particularly "politically savvy" unlike those teenagers my opponent says "certainly exist." If we were to exclude the less politically savvy adults from voting it would be argued that we have taken away their unalienable right to vote. Therefore it is not reasonable to restrict one from voting due to intelligence. He goes on to that children "are most likely going to just copy the political opinions of their parents". "What eliminating age restrictions does, then, is that it gives individuals with children the ability to double, triple, or even quadruple their say in the government by indoctrinating their children to cast their votes a certain way! This is absolutely unfair to all of the nation's other individuals, who only get one ballot per person." The same was argued about giving women the right to vote, giving their husbands two votes instead of one. As it turns out many women do vote with their husbands and many do not. As far as if it would be fair to give individuals with children the ability to double or quadruple their say in government, does not an adult with three kids under the current set up only have one vote to represent four peoples interests? That in not fair either. Remember I am in no way advocating that parents vote for their kids but that the kids have the ability to vote because they are citizens. It would be a hard case to prove that the average voter in the U.S.A. is not "subject to ideological indoctrination due to their lack of intellectual maturity." My opponent says ""Taxation without representation" is just a phrase with some historical significance; Pro has not provided any real Constitutional basis for us to believe that all instances of 'taxation without representation' need to be disallowed." Con is correct that there is not real Constitutional basis to believe that all instances need to be disallowed. I never argued there was, however the historical significance has had a huge impact on our society today and in many ways is a part of American culture. Many Americans still believe it is tyranny to tax without representation.(4) I certainly agree. Considering that many citizens who have the right to vote do not vote, it is a shame that we keep some citizens who would like to vote from voting just due to age.(5) Conclusion: To my delight it seems that Con at heart agrees with me as he stated in his argument that ""..one of the core tenets of democracy: that all citizens should have an equal say in the government." I agree. All Citizens regardless of race, gender, and age, should have an equal say in the government. This is a no brainer Vote Pro! (1)http://www.salon.com... (2)http://www.alternet.org... (3)http://www.publicpolicypolling.com... (4)http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)http://www.fairvote.org...

Title: You shouldn't raise the voting age to 21 Content: The voting age is a tender topic that at the moment, isn't exactly what many would call a problem, so why mess with that now. Many kids and others look forward for the right to vote that now at this moment in our country is a right that we shouldn't tamper with.

Title: Youth are not represented in politics Content: This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example – why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired?

Title: Lowering the voting age Content: In this round of debate, in this round, I am going to talk about some rebuttals on Pros points, ask Pros some questions, and summarize my arguments. The proposition side has, firstly, said that in nowdays, students are very so smart that they can choose the president wisely. She also said some points from Dr. Sam. However, it cannot be true. First of all, she did not state the exact source and did not explain who Dr. Sam is. Second of all, she said about the studies and being smart. On the other hand, study does not really affect voting quality. For example, somebody who is very bad at study can choose the president very wisely. Even it is true, she did not tell us why it is. Also, she said most of the students are smart in these days, but does that mean the minorities are not people? Although there might be many students who are smart, what about the rest of the others who are NOT smart? Secondly, she has told us that if students can vote at the younger age, it can be their habit which can increase the voting turnout. In contrast, it is not always necessarily true. In 2007, the voting age has been already lowered from 20 to 19. However, in the latest Presidential Election, it showed the lowest voters turnout- It was shown that only 60% of the total voters had voted for the election. It finally means that lowering the voting age does not affect people for increasing voting turnout. It only gets decreased more. Now, I would like to ask MickeyMouse these questions: 1. Do you believe that 18-year-olds make better political decisions than the most mature in society, such as 50-year-old businessmen? 2. The Korean Constitution states that you are an adult when you are 20 years old and that when you're 19 years old, you can have certain political and business rights. So what do you think about that? What is your basis for saying that the standard of an adult is 18 years old in Korea? 3. Even 18-year-olds cannot set up their own businesses, they cannot invest, they cannot vote, they cannot participate in political parties, and such. So, how can you say that those who are younger than 19 year old actually do have these valid social experiences that you need for the basis of voting? 4. Do you have clear and objective standard for maturity? Moving onto my summary, I would like to emphasize, again, my points. First, people whose ages are under 19 are not really mature and they do not have any valid social experience. Those who are younger than 19, still have to be taken care of by older adults. Thus, they are not independent, which means that they are too immature to participate in election. Second, young people mostly like style better than substances. They do not really care about the quality of the candidates, but care about being stylish. It is because they are pop-oriented. So, they can choose the president wisely since they do not consider about what should be considered about. Lastly, it is because of the purpose. What we seriously need to talk about is more people voting good-quality president, not lowering the voting age. Lowering the voting age, does not really mean choosing a wise president. So, therefore, because we live in the country called Korea, where the age is 19, we believe that we should run away from the international trend unless we change the Constitution. We live in a society where the cultural basis of an adult is 19 years old. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, we beg this motion does not pass. Thank you very much.

Title: People Should Be Able to vote at 16 years old Content: I actually strongly disagree with when you stated "On the contrary, this is the very REASON that the voting limit should stay where it is. At this stage in a person's life, they're learning responsibility." Most teenagers begin to learn responsibility at about 16 years old. At this age they're becoming adults, but they're not there yet. They're learning things like having a drivers license and started relationships if haven't started already. But, this particular statement that they learn responsibility at whatever age is more of an opinionated topic. "You think a teenager that is in high school and going through the whole "teenager stage" is going to care about politics? Granted, there are exceptions, however the majority of early teenagers are not well-versed in politics." That's actually very true. Not many teenagers are very included in politics. How many Americans who are 18 years old actually care that much? What about people who are 35 years old? A lot do, but then again some actually don't. It seems to me that you're saying people can and should only vote if they're well-versed in politics. "16 year olds have a standpoint in politics? Do you honestly think that we should expand the ability to decide our nation's future for the next 4 years to teenagers?" Like I said, how many voters have a standpoint in politics today? I know a lot do but some still don't. So those people shouldn't vote at all? That risks alienating citizens in thinking that the only way for them to have a say is to be politically active. I disagree with that. "And studies show voting is a habit that has to start early. If people don't start out as voters, they're less likely to ever vote. Some researchers fear that as this generation of nonvoters ages, they will stay that way, causing a dangerous dive in voter turnout as baby boomers and older generations die out. In the 2000 election, senior citizens voted at about twice the rate of 18- to 24-year-olds." By: Carl Weiser of the Enquirer Washington Bureau To see the actual article go to this link http://www.enquirer.com... Good luck to you!

Title: People Should Be Able to vote at 16 years old Content: Let me just say that you're mainly referring to "teen" as a 16 year old. We have to both keep in mind that an eighTEEN year old is still a teen. Just saying that so we can avoid confusion. Definition of "vote": express one's preference for wordnetweb.princeton.edu "What I'm saying is that people should only vote if they have analyzed all parties, considered possibilities, found one they actually agree with, and so on, and so forth. Basically, I expect them to make a smart vote. Do you really expect this from a teenager? Let's face it, teens don't give much towards America." Yeah, you're probably right by saying they should vote when they found one they actually agree with. But how do they agree with a party? Politically or just because they think one's better than the other. There's practically no law that says voting only can take place if one thoroughly analyzes a party. Not everyone votes the same way. Not everyone puts the same things into consideration. Teens can actually give a lot to America because many start serving in the military at 18 and get a job before that. At the age of 16 teens can be treated like an adult. They can pay taxes, have a driver's license with little to no restrictions and can be charged for adult crimes even death penalty, get married and so on. In conclusion, 16 year olds should be allowed to vote because, they are young but intelligent. Like stated before, 16 year olds are often taking some type of government class or civics at that age which could make it one of the key ages to start. It pretty much means they could be the smarter voters. Governments, including the United States are desperate to bring the young people back into the civic fold, to try and make them feel they have a stake in their country. Incorporating voting at an earlier age is essential because less and less people are voting every year. Earlier you said that many 16 year olds won't do it. Exactly. If that's what you're saying then only the ones who will know what's going on will vote and have the say, although I think many more should vote. Thank you for this great debate Con.

Title: If You're Old Enough to Join the Army, You're Old Enough to Vote Content: I got into an argument about this with someone and thought I'd debate it here. Before 1970, the age in the U.S. when people were allowed to vote was 21, but 18 was the age when people could join the army, and get drafted. This caused quite a stir in the midst of Vietnam and the voting age was lowered by the 26th Amendment. I agree with this. If someone is able to join the army, particularly to fight in a war which requires a level of intelligence and maturity, then they are certainly capable of voting and making other adult decisions. Likewise, in the case of a draft, it is unfair to force people to fight for something they had absolutely no say in. I will expand my argument next round.

Title: There should be no voting age Content: There should be no voting age. If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote? The argument that youth "should not vote because they lack the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions is valid only if that standard is applied to all citizens." But yet this standard is not applied to all citizens, only young people. "We do not deprive a senile person of this right, nor do we deprive any of the millions of alcoholics, neurotics, psychotics and assorted fanatics who live outside hospitals of it. We seldom ever prevent those who are hospitalized for mental illness from voting.

Title: Should Youth have the right to vote Content: I believe that Youth Should have the right to vote and here is why. #1 People of all ages are required to pay income and sales taxes; therefore, denying them the right to vote is taxation without representation. #2 Children are legally permitted to have sex or drive a car in some countries, which are more dangerous and difficult than voting. #3 Voter turnout among youth will improve if young people get in the habit of voting before they reach 18 and go to colleges far away from their state of residency, like it did in Germany when some states lowered their voting age for municipal elections. #4 Education for and about democracy would be better served if there were no voting age. #5 Government entitlements suppress fertility, which means the youth demographic is systematically suppressed, with no political power to offset the effect. #6 Governments derive their just authority from the consent of the governed. To be legitimate, those who govern and those who legislate must be elected by the people, not a special subset of the people, such as those over the age of X years. #7 Those who oppose Youth Suffrage say that youth do not to have sufficient understanding of the realities of life to participate in voting. In response to this, most youth suffrage advocates point out these are the identical arguments used against women's suffrage, as well as the abolition of property requirements, in the past. Likewise, mental capacity or knowledge is often not a bar to the elective franchise.

Title: People Should Be Able to vote at 16 years old Content: Greetings to my opponent and the audience! I look forward to a great debate :). "Currently, in the United States of America the legal voting age is 18 years old. Now, I'm sure the government has this because when you're at 18 years old you're technically an adult. I think that this is not fair at all because the government is pretty much saying that only adults can decide who rules our country." Yes, you're technically an adult when you're 18 in the United States. Of course adults rule this country: where do you see a teenager running for politician? Where do you see teenagers managing businesses and working at jobs? "But, many people actually believe that 18 is the worst age to start voting because so many steps are being made in the person's life, going to college, getting a job, possibly starting a family/relationship." On the contrary, this is the very REASON that the voting limit should stay where it is. At this stage in a person's life, they're learning responsibility. The 18+ year old has most likely already COMPLETED a government class and is at least competently-versed in political affairs. I'd like to note that many of those steps my opponent suggested do not happen contemporarily. "Studies also show that the sooner you start voting the more confident and consistent voter you'll turn out to be. Many Americans never vote and if this is put in their mind at an earlier age, I believe that the nation could actually get more voters and everyone's voice can be heard. In fact, in the 2000 election people over the age of 50 had twice as many voters than people in the age group of 18-24." I'd like to see the actual statistics of those studies. Also, the good ol' quote "quality over quantity" applies here. Just because I can buy an expensive car, should I? Just because I can doesn't mean I should. Same with voting. You think a teenager that is in high school and going through the whole "teenager stage" is going to care about politics? Granted, there are exceptions, however the majority of early teenagers are not well-versed in politics. "Another argument I'll make is that kids are still in school at the age of 16 unless drop out or early graduation. Usually at this age, kids are taking some type of government class which can actually make them smarter voters. Voting is not necessarily something you get good at since its your stand point. That's why I believe that if we incorporate voting at an earlier age such as 16, we'll have more voters in the future and people will think about it a little more." Simply because teenagers would have the ability to vote does not guarantee that they'll actually put thought into this vote. Have you seen a high school? I'm sure you have. They would incorporate race, ethnicity, how the person looks, the way they are, et cetera. Right, it's your standpoint. 16 year olds have a standpoint in politics? Do you honestly think that we should expand the ability to decide our nation's future for the next 4 years to teenagers? They may not even be well-versed in what presidential candidate wants what and they'll just vote for whomever seems superficially appealing. I also hope for a wonderful debate. Good luck, Pro.

Title: Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages Content: There is a notable difference between how young people and the elderly are treated. Giving the vote to teenagers would force politicians to take them seriously. Policies on education (e.g. student loans) would have to take their views and interests into account for the first time. 16 year olds today are well-educated and media-savvy, so they can express informed opinions. But at the moment young people’s views are easily ignored by those in power because they don’t have the vote. The vote for 16-18 year olds would help redress the growing age imbalance which is occurring as a result of aging. In the rich world by 2050 one in three will be a pensioner and one in ten over 80.[1] These voters will clearly be looking after their benefits at the expense of the young. [1] The Economist, ‘A slow-burning fuse’, 25 June 2009

Title: Alcohol age in America should remain at 21 Content: I disagree. I believe the drinking age is too high and should be lowered to 18 for a number of reasons. I believe id a person at the age of 18 has the right to venture off alone and vote and make decisions for this country they have the responsibility to drink.

Title: Drinking age should remain at 21 Content: I disagree. I believe the drinking age is too high and should be lowered to 18 for a number of reasons. I believe id a person at the age of 18 has the right to venture off alone and vote and make decisions for this country they have the responsibility to drink.

Title: Should the voting age be lowered Content: 1) I`m not saying we lower the age to 8, I`m saying we lower the age to like 16 or something, and the teenage brain does not get fully developed until about 25 anyway. And in the article you submitted said "If they feel pressured, stressed, or are seeking attention from their peers" and voting is none of those things http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.bbc.com... 2) more adults (according to NBC) have died than kids so your argument is invalid https://twitter.com... 3) See example one

Title: Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Content: This was fun! It was a pretty interesting debate on both sides. This could go either way. Best of luck, Con. I'll post this debate into the voting forums once I have completed and posted these arguments.Maturity:This counter would work well against me, if it were not for the fact that I am not making this argument. I never said that maturity should be a factor: I simply said that your argument against why sixteen year olds cannot vote applies just as much to eighteen year olds. Sure, their brains would be more developed than a sixteen year old, but they are still not fully developed, which means you would need to provide a justifiable reason why you are making an exception for those who are eighteen to twenty-four, but not those under eighteen. I agree that fourteen year olds should not vote, but the reason why does not have to do with maturity. This is why I feel you fail to meet your half of the burden of proof (proving that eighteen is a proper voting age, but not sixteen).Good point, in regards to university being more independent. I concede to that. However, you would now need to provide a reason for why this is matters. Why does independence matter in the end when it comes to whether or not someone should be allowed to vote? This is why I feel this argument fails to meet the burden of proof.Kids leaving school was your point: you countered against my rebuttal that the reason kids do not have the ability to become juryman was a matter of circumstance was that children are not required to attend school, and can drop out as a result. You just refuted your own counter. As for learning, this is not true. In fact, in my driver's ed class, we were told to take the permit test the first two weeks into the course; it was a recommendation, actually. When it comes to voting, you are not taking an exam before you finish the course: in the United States, students take Civics and Economics (which teaches political problems and how the government functions) in eighth grade, which would be around age twelve. It is taking an exam several years after taking the course, after doing independent study on your own afterwards to decide your political ideology. I would call that prepared!Yes, sixteen year olds cannot fight. But this is not necessarily a maturity issue: after all, the army did not allow women in combat battalions until only a few months ago in the United States. (1) By this logic, are women not mature enough to handle combat? I doubt you believe this.Experience:Children still have all of those things from their parents, this is true. However, college students have a dependency on their parents as well. Parents send financial support so that their children can afford books, room and board, and basic essentials. As for jobs, teenagers get jobs to afford non-essentials. Games, extra-curricular activities like participating in clubs that require payments (like, ironically enough, Model UN and Youth-in-Government). They do not need to get a job because non-essentials are just that: not essential. They do not need a job; they want a job. This is an important distinction to make. Yeah, I was a tad silly in my reply to them living alone. I should have known you meant living independent of their parents. They are not financially independent, however; they are physically independent however, so point to you on that. But living independently does not mean that they are ready to vote, and not all eighteen year olds get this experience. For example, there are many eighteen year olds who do not go to university and college, and stay at home for several years. These people did not have the experience you describe. Would you deny these people the right to vote due to lack of experience? I doubt you would; as such, why is this an issue of experience, if those who lack experience would still vote?Responsibility:There is no reason to make the assumption that the difference is anything substantial in the span of just two years time. Furthermore, moral development (which includes the ability to make judgments) does not differ much after reaching the autonomous stage of morality, which usually occurs around the age of ten. (2) Therefore, the moral ideas of a sixteen year old likely would not be different from that of the same person two years later.Taxation:That logic doesn't really work for me. Firstly, the child is taxed for these things you mentioned, but the child does not have the ability to vote in support of politicians who support legislator regarding how these tax dollars are to be spent. The child's money is being used without them reaping the benefits of paying them: the right to vote for politicians who will use their tax money in the way they agree with. Secondly, this logic does not work because not all teens pay taxes. Only those who directly purchase things with their own money or those who have a job pay taxes. If these taxes are taken because they benefit the student, why are they not taxing all teens? Or all children for that matter? After all, these benefits affect small children just as much as adolescents.Stability:You vote to prevent worries or pressures. You will have a motivation to vote if you notice that one candidate will negatively effect you if they become a government official. You will vote for the person who will neutrally or positively effect you, would you not? It is the same thing. If you are a well-to-do upper-middle-class teenager, would you support a candidate that would tax your parents more, and likely cause problems for your household financially?Voter turnout:I believe it is sensible to allow sixteen or seventeen year olds to vote (I assume that is what you meant instead of “work,” but I could be mistaken). Voter turnout benefits the country, because more of the general public's opinions are being heard.Sources:(1) http://www.cbsnews.com...(2) http://psychology4a.com...