Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17

Thank you for responding quickly. Allow me to refute the points at hand. Counter-Rebuttal 1: Uninformed voters I have shown empirically that voters in particular who are under the age of 18 are particularly uneducated with both cards that I used that addressed children in particular. I will quote myself: “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.” (1) High school seniors are usually between the ages of 17 and 18. This shows that high school seniors are specifically less politically savvy, as my opponent has put it, which means that this rebuttal is void, due to the fact that he has not nullified the impact of more dilution in an already weak voting base. I also have shown the fact that generally, those who are younger voters have a huge influence on the election cycle, specifically in 2016. By decreasing the voting age, we would be seeing more people who are uninformed voting. Remember, the voting rate of younger voters is usually static, but by adding more to the system, we would be seeing an increase in youth voters which will result in higher uninformed voters. Counter-Rebuttal 2: Propaganda Actually, I have proven this. The fact is, teens are more impressionable as proven by my Harvard article showing that teens are more influenced by their environment (2). Not only this, but because teens use social media more than other age demographics, we can see that they will be more influenced by social media. This is a problem since I have shown that presence on social media has effected election results, as shown by Trump (3). So no, I have proven that this would disproportionately affect teenagers at a higher rate. Counter-Rebuttal 3: Counter Plan I have proffered a counter plan that was refuted by the pro side, so allow me to respond. First, he suggests that my plan is similar to Jim Crow Laws, which is not a rebuttal, rather an opinion. At the time of Jim Crow laws, racism was rampant. This is important, because in my counter plan I have provided an alternative, which was education relating to policy and public affairs which would allow those who are disadvantaged still become politically knowledgeable enough to vote. Yet, I am confused. I asked for an observable metric to determine voter competence in the future. This could determine the general competence of certain demographics of voters to understand the general demographics for future reference for potential policy to increase said political knowledge. This was my intention of the counter plan. I did not realize the vagueness. I apologize if it seemed that I wanted to oppress groups. Counter-Rebuttal 4: Rebuttal Under the framework I provided, the purpose of government does not play in. However, let us observe he fact that if the argument that we are undermining the purpose of the government, then it would be quite apparent. Remember, we live under a social contract where people give up certain rights for protection. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, we see that the social contract theory states the following: “Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.” (4) John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both who influenced the constitution both proclaimed this (5). With this theory, we can see that some rights, such as voting, are not guaranteed. In fact, people give these rights up to live in a civil society with competent leaders put into office by knowledgeable voters. Counter-Rebuttal 5: General Observation My opponent has not offered any points under the framework I provided. Remember, we are debating the tangible effects of today’s resolution on the election process. While this may seem unfair, keep in mind we are doing this to make the election process better with less uninformed voters. Onto my opponent’s case. Rebuttal 1: “Of the people” This points toward a utilitarian framework due to the fact that we are looking for benefits for the people. I have proven that this does not happen because of the fact that we see less competent people in office with uninformed voters. Thus, this argument falls. Even if we are talking about political representation in a sense, I have offered a counter plan that, while vague, solves the problems the pro ide has brought up. Rebuttal 2: No difference between 18 and 17 year olds I have shown you through a previous statistic that 75% of high school seniors are not proficient in civics (1). Regardless of the fact that 17 year olds may be quite similar in representation due to their military conscription and other privileges given to them, this does not automatically qualify them for voting. 18 year olds have usually graduated from high school and have earned their votes. Also, weigh the points I made due to the tangible effects it would have over the abstract arguments my opponent has made, as they have no impact in this debate. Rebuttal 3: Taxation without representation My opponent claims that by not allowing 17 year olds to vote we are taxing them without representation. This may be true, but under the framework I provided, we are looking at the effects on the voting system in general. This point is then moot because it does not address the problem at hand, which is the system in which voting occurs. Remember, I have already proven that the system is bad due to the already poor voting base becoming even more diluted, which is a problem that my opponent has yet to address. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com...