Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16

This is turning out to be quite the intriguing debate! I hope it lasts. I was also unaware that you were a member of the UK. I will try to structure my arguments accordingly, then. Rebuttal 1: MaturityI believe that your link works against you, Pro. Yes, it is true the brain is not developed (usually) until one's mid-20s. However, you do not seem to see the glaringly obvious problem with this argument: mainly, that 18 year olds do not fit this bracket either. As such, you seem to be arguing that 18 year olds are mature enough to handle voting, but use arguments against how 16 year olds should not be allowed to vote that negatively effect 18 year olds as well. Regarding schools, you seem to ignore two pretty obvious holes in this idea that 16 or 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they are still in school: firstly, you state later that whether or not they are in school is irrelevant, because they can leave school at age 16. As such, they must have the maturity to handle not being in school, by your own logic, correct? Secondly, 18 year olds oftentimes (especially in the UK) attend universities. As such, an 18 year old is bound by the same problem: they are still learning. Yes, they cannot join the army at age 16, but they are mature enough to pledge to enroll and take JROTC courses that train them in the same things they would be trained in as 18 year olds enrolling for the army. 16 year olds cannot walk into a bar, it is true. However, in the United States, neither can an 18 year old. This is different from someone from the United Kingdom, where the legal drinking age is 18 (and lower if in a household). Does that mean that the age of maturity differs between countries? Seems doubtful. It is a good point to say that teenagers are taught to drive. However, teenagers are taught to vote, as well. Not in a technical way, but they are taught political issues, the opinions of these issues, the outcome of many political ideas, and how the government and voting system works. We are taught this in the form of Civics classes and Government classes in schools. In fact, you learn Civics and Government more than you learn how to drive! You cannot use a lack of being taught as an argument, because it is simply not true. Rebuttal 2: ExperienceMost 18 year olds do not hold a stable job. Hell, most 25 year olds hold a stable job. Many people cannot hold a stable career until after college, which can last as long as four years time. You have not provided a reason why a 16 year old's lack of experience is any different from an 18 year old's lack of it. Teens are given experience in the adult world: as pointed out before, 80% of American teenagers have had a job and pay taxes before their graduations. Is having a job not experience? If not, how does an 18 year old who is has not left is parent's house, is going to college, and lacks a job have any more experience than the average 16 year old? Most do not sustain for themselves. Colleges provide cafeterias (which means they don't cook for themselves) and many parents provide their children with enough income to survive being outside of the house; as such, they do not need to get a job. On top of this, most colleges have roommate systems, meaning they are not living on their own. Rebuttal 3: ResponsibilityYes, their prefrontal cortex is not developed at that age. But, once again, the glaring hole appears: neither have the 18 year old's prefrontal cortex. Furthermore, peer pressure is a common human experience: it does not suddenly stop when you hit 18. Counter-Rebuttal 1: Taxation without representationIf they receive no representation in the form of democracy, than why tax them? That is all I am saying. I would also repeat that the same problem arises for an 18 year old, but I think you got the point by now. If a teenager is taxed, than they should have a say; it is why, for instance, a third of American colonists attempted to secede from Great Britain, as they were not given parliamentary representation despite paying off most of Britain's war debts. If they are not mentally developed enough to vote, what makes them mentally developed enough to be taxed? Or to have a job, for that matter? Counter-Rebuttal 2: StabilityYes, teens have no money pressures, live in shelter, and have few worries. As in, they have time and energy to sit down and reflect on their political opinions, and who is the right people to run the nation. This is opposed to an eighteen year old who is so worried about so many major changes going on in his or her life that they cannot simply sit down and reflect on who they think will be better, and will likely make worse decisions as a result. Indeed, people vote in the way that benefits them and for those who share their political beliefs. However, people who have an unstable life have no time to actually give this any thought. Counter-Rebuttal 3: Voter turnoutI was not so much saying that more teenagers would come out if they were allowed in earlier as I was that more parents would be inspired to vote, as the study suggested. I would disagree in saying that we are talking about adolescents: after all, my point is to lower the voting age. I can propose any lower age I feel is arguably sound. However, I am not mentally deficient: I would say 16 would be the lowest I would be willing to go. The program includes adolescents, and there is proof that more parents turn out when children (and adolescents) are excited or participating. As such, voter turnout would still increase. Counter-Rebuttal 4: Unique point of viewThey would provide the unique point of view of someone a part of the education system. They can provide a view on how to improve their education quality, for instance. As for money and finances, teens oftentimes have jobs as I have pointed out. They would provide the perspective of a youth just beginning in the workforce. Etc. Conclusion:I eagerly await your response!