People younger than 18 should be able to vote in the U.S.

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...