Kid's should be able to vote!

I must first apologize to the Gallery for Pro's debating skills, not only had he not defined what "kid" was he also is now saying that the way i defined it is incorrect. Very well Pro, i will accept your new definitions. So Pro then goes on to say that if kids without an education can vote, why can adults without an education vote? Well it is a surprisingly simple concept that Pro simply does not get. Adults.Fend.For.Themselves. An adult is a person over the age of 17, America is a Republic, what is a Republic? a republic is a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them. So since Pro has put the "kid' limit at 9 i will now use them as an example of Pro's poorly thought out debate. So typically what grade are 9 year old children in? Most likely grade 3,4 or 5. Now lets think for a minute, according to Pro, children would be seen as responsible enough to vote for the leader of their government. And what limit do we put the voting age at? 18, so if we were to allow kids to vote, what's next? Allowing children to purchase alcohol? Allowing them to buy cigarettes? Why not Pornography too? Puberty starts anywhere from 9-15 years of age, children are bound to be curious and are most likely responsible enough to do these things right? Wrong. Children don't even fend for themselves, who buys their food? Who clothes these children? Who gives them shelter? They definitely didn't get it by themselves. Gallery lets take a look at what he says next, "So I could go as far as saying that by not letting kids vote, they are slaves under the law, with no option to change their state of living." I would like you people to reread that sentence again, they are slaves under the law? Slaves? Pro, please, do you not abide by the laws which are governed before you? Do you not notice stop signs,traffic lights, and speed limits? Do we all abide by those? I sure hope so, or else this world would be in complete chaos. So according to Pro if we were to follow these laws we would be considered SLAVES. If you are reading this you are most likely NOT a slave, and last time i knew having slaves in North America was illegal. But then again if you were a slave, you would not be a slave of the law. According to Pro. So Pro then says that children have no option to change their state of living. I would like you to read that once more, how much does the government affect children? Now since Pro has talked about America i will base this argument on it. America has a pretty good government, and usually when new leaders come into power, they will not drastically change the laws so children will be forced into labour or something harsh like that. The decisions made almost barely affect the children. But who do they affect the most? The Adults, the Parents, the ones of the age of 18. A child still has the ability to do whatever he or she wants to do, the American government has put no boundaries saying that this child will not be able to follow their career or choice because they are who they are. Pro then goes as far as saying that children are not supposed to listen their parents, what are you Pro? a rebel? Do you not listen to your parents? Do you not listen to the rules and decisions they make for you? He then carries on to say that children should hold seats in the government! Do we actually want a 9 year old boy or girl creating the laws, which everybody in America would then have to follow? Those laws were be absurd and downright offensive to the average class citizen. "Eligibility should be based on skill and expertise" And with that sentence Pro has basically ruined himself in this debate, he has just contradicted himself, had i not said that most children do not have a high school graduate degree? If you believe that adults are not allowed to vote because they do not have an education, then how come you want children, 9 year olds for heaven's sake! to lead the country in decision making? Children have no majors, or degrees, or even graduation certificates for high school. So they obviously do not have enough "skill and expertise" Pro then talks about the past, i will deal with that in my next argument, seeing how as these argument is already much to long. For that Gallery, i apologize, but i hope you agree with me that side Pro has proven absolutely nothing to help his case and therefore most likely no reason to carry this debate on. Pro, i wish you good luck in this debate.