Our youth is our future.

Thank you for your arguments, and I will first offer my points.1. Experience A 2013 report by High Fliers Research showed that college graduates without work experience have little chance of getting a job[1]. Now, I could list hundreds of statistics to prove my point. On the factual basis, experience is valued more. From Canada with 84% respondants to a survey saying experience was more important [2], to the U.S where paid interns had a 63% chance of securing employment as opposed with unpaid or no internships, with 37% and 35% respectively[3]. Experience is valued a lot and that is an intangible fact, why? Well, only common sense can show that with experience comes safety. Businesses and employers value safety and security. Someone with plans to change the future is fine, a good example was Tesla with his Wardenclyffe Tower, which was rejected grant. Safety and conservatism are spread throughout the adult world. Only one in 5000 inventions are successful[4]. Bottom performers, who are usually newer have a success rate in terms of selling products of 45%[5]. Newer things clearly have a chance of failure. If we take the purpose of human development as specified in the Human Development Reports as "The basic purpose of development is to enlarge people's choices. In principle, these choices can be infinite and can change over time. People often value achievements that do not show up at all, or not immediately, in income or growth figures: greater access to knowledge, better nutrition and health services, more secure livelihoods, security against crime and physical violence, satisfying leisure hours, political and cultural freedoms and sense of participation in community activities. The objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives"[6] then failure stops an unsuccessful choice. It creates more paths, but more of those are at fault. We value security and conservatism and experience so that we can develop and give people more of a chance, but successfully. And this is where the youth fall in. I also think it is fairly agreed that youths are more liberal. I urge you to view this article - http://goo.gl... [7]. This article explains more than enough of this statement. The youth as shown here are more likely to prioritise growth over deficit reduction. They are more likely to be progressive on things in general and due to the nature of liberalism, more likely to want to make a change. The youth are more liberal. Now, due to the nature of liberalism placing the country is more likely to instil a change. Whether for the better or the worse, as I have proved before, it is more likely to fail. Now, in times of great recession as of 2008, it is a fairly strange notion to accept a higher chance of failure in any case. We cannot have any chance of failure with the economy, or with trade, or benefits or the welfare of people. The average age of a president in America is 54.8[8], and it is not hard to see why. People need safety for the country more importantly than advancement. Advancement will make their lives better, but safety will stop their lives from worsening if it doesn't. 2. The purpose of elders in this.If we focus on the youth then we cannot withhold safety and conservatism that lies within the old. Focusing on the youth, listening to them not only brings ideas more likely to fail but also means we do not focus on values which set the foundation for this country. If, using the example of deficit v. growth we focused on teens and switched our examples, then maybe we'll see an end to austerity, but more likely an increase in investments which hope to be boosted upon later, which are more likely to fail than austerity. But the moment we run a teen-based country, then bye-bye to the idea at all if it follows this correlation. Goodbye to conservative views in general and it is just another way to instil liberalism upon a country, which is literally going against the general views of most western countries.America here for example: The U.K has a conservative government, these countries all are listed as right wing in Europe from source [9]. NorwayBritainNetherlandsItalyGermanyFranceBelgiumDenmarkFinlandSwedenHungaryAustria And I am sure the list is very high. Conservatism is more popular, and there are certainly more people who aren't youths in America: In the end, the youth are the next generation of people, but for them to be able to make changes and affect the country, they need to be in the shoes that people are in now so they can make more informed decision on the general population, which that can only come out of them aging and not being youths. To summarize, the youth aren't the future as the future will have more elders, who are mostly conservative and the youth are mostly liberal so will contest this and negatively affect the majority. The future relies in the elders to guide the youth to make their choices more open as I have shown above, so that they can do the same when they age, making the general population a freer place. Thank you for this debate.Sources:http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...[1]http://goo.gl...[2]http://goo.gl...[3]http://goo.gl...[4]http://goo.gl...[5]http://goo.gl...[6]http://goo.gl... [7]http://goo.gl... [8]http://goo.gl... [9] http://goo.gl...