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

Thanks to Pro for his counter-rebuttals. Note that Pro has not objected to my interpretation of the resolution; this means that infants, toddlers, and small children ARE included in "people younger than 18". NEG CASEPro: "Turns out many of those who can and do vote are not particularly 'politically savvy'. .. If we were to exclude the less politically savvy adults from voting it would be argued that we have taken away their unalienable right to vote. Therefore it is not reasonable to restrict one from voting due to intelligence. .. It would be a hard case to prove that the average voter in the U. S. A. is not 'subject to ideological indoctrination due to their lack of intellectual maturity. '"First of all, I would like to point out that this is not about "intelligence" or "political awareness", as my opponent seems to be implying; it is about a *lack of independence*. It is about possessing the mental faculties to independently make decisions. Even if an adult is what we might consider "dumb", they still possess the faculty of independent thinking, being able to make their voting decisions based on their own prior knowledge and information gathered from political campaigns. However, a child can do no such thing. It is simply a matter of neurological development; a child is much, much more susceptible to indoctrination (i. e. blindly accepting whatever is told to them) due to a lack of intellectual maturity. Parents would practically be casting the ballot for them (literally so, in the case of very small children & infants), which, by the logic presented last round, is unfair to those without children and violates a core tenet of democracy. Pro: "The same was argued about giving women the right to vote, giving their husbands two votes instead of one. As it turns out many women do vote with their husbands and many do not. "That was based on a misconception of the past. However, we now know that gender has no effect on a person's independent decision-making capacity. This is not the case regarding age, as explained earlier, rendering this point to be nothing more than a false comparison. Pro: "My Opponent just admitted that there do exists in our society citizens [politically savvy teens] who are deprived the right to vote due to age despite them being capable of their own beliefs, interests, and prefrences. "This is true, but that is simply the nature of democracy: majority rules. If the majority approves of a law that the minority does not, then the minority still has to live under the majority's law. In the same way, since the majority of people under the age of eighteen are not capable of independent thinking (thus warranting the existence of age restrictions), then the tiny minority of "politically savvy teenagers" has no choice but to cope with the age restrictions. Pro: "As far as if it would be fair to give individuals with children the ability to double or quadruple their say in government, does not an adult with three kids under the current set up only have one vote to represent four peoples interests? That in not fair either. "This is, by far, Pro's most compelling objection to my case. However, it is ultimately based in rhetoric. .. Pro claims that allowing parents to vote for their children allows one person to represent the interests of four people. But looking at it from a more objective perspective, we see that the other three people, due to their lack of participation in the process, aren't really having their interests represented, anymore. It is much more logical (and respectful to their personal sovereignty) to just *wait* for the three people to gain the intellectual capacity to vote independently before allowing them to vote; that way, they will actually be representing themselves when they vote. This is what the implementation of an age restriction accomplishes. AFF CASEAll but one of Pro's contentions here were refuted via cross-application of the neg case, so really, the only contention of his left that I must refute is his one regarding taxation without representation. Pro concedes that taxation without representation is not disallowed by the Constitution, instead attempting to prove that it is commonly viewed as tyranny by the American population by citing a Wikipedia article which lists some instances of people protesting against it. However, he has failed to address my example of non-citizens being taxed without representation, which involves far more people than in any of the examples in the Wikipedia article, yet is not at all protested against by the American populace. It is clear that taxation alone is not grounds for representation; thus, Pro's contention fails. In addition, Pro brings up what seems to be a new argument: "Considering that many citizens who have the right to vote do not vote, it is a shame that we keep some citizens who would like to vote from voting just due to age. "But this is easily refuted by the rebuttal made earlier about majority rule in democracy: because most people under age eighteen are not capable of voting, the few minors who are capable and do wish to vote are still bound by the age restrictions. CONCLUSIONS-- Removing the voting age restriction allows for individuals with children to have more say in government than those without children, which violates a core tenet of democracy (equal say)-- In a democracy, majority rules. The existence of a small population of politically savvy teens does not warrant removing the age restriction-- Parents cannot properly represent the interests of their children, as Pro claims, because *they aren't their children*. It is better to wait for them to grow up and *actually* represent themselves, in accordance with the age restriction. -- Taxation alone is not a sufficient basis for representation, so one cannot use that as a reason for minors to be allowed voting rightsThe resolution is negated.