Kid's should be able to vote!

Thank you Jdizzle for this intriguing debate. So ladies and gentlemen of the gallery what have we seen in this debate? Throughout the debate Pro has brought forth no actual points of his own besides the racial and sexist issue which is now a thing of the past. But Pro also spends all of his time repeating the same thing over and over in this debate but still fails to effectively counter my points. So once again since Pro has brought forth no new points i will spend the rest of this debate refuting what he has said so far and at the end i will put 1 small final point down. Pro begins off with his own interests in politics, about his own wants and desires, but Pro is not the only child in America and i would like to bring back the point that Pro stated from the ages of 9 and up. Pro himself is around 15 years of age, allowing children to vote at age 9 would not only render useless but also cause inconvenience and an inaccuracy of votes which i will get to later. Pro's second argument is once again undermining what adults do in his life. He states that children could sign the forms themselves if they were allowed to, but i'll bring back what i have been saying in this debate. Why do children have to have it signed by an adult? Because the majority of children are not responsible enough. Pro says that i need proof? Look around you Pro, look at everything around you, you see the evidence everywhere. Things we can and cannot eat or drink, things we can do or cannot do, things we are not allowed to do without consent obviously the whole WORLD believes that people under the age of 18 are not responsible enough. Or your parents could just give birth to you and leave you there to fend for yourself, because according to Pro that is exactly what we can do. Pro some how fails to realize that it is his guardians that pay for the house he lives in, his guardians that pay for the food he eats, and his guardians that send him to school for an education. Pro is going to say, oh well we could do that too if we were allowed. No you could not, unless you want to spend the rest of your life working a minimum wage job, no you could not. You need an education and who provides for that? Who sets you up for your future? Who starts the interest in politics? Your guardians, If your parents did not buy the paper, or buy a TV or receive the news who would provide the interest? You gave life to you so you could do the things you do? You sure as hell couldn't do that yourself. In his next argument Con states that it would not be a problem if we let children vote, i will deal with this simple statement at the end. Con says that the people we vote into power would represent us and have the ability to change the law, well unless you can see the future you will not know what laws will be passed and what your representative will say. It seems that not only does Pro undermine his guardians but also the whole American Government. Children have chances to prove themselves everyday, but the reason we have laws is so that this world can be kept in order and have a chance to keep the world from turning into chaos. Pro either you do not have parents or you do not believe they love you, because if your children ran away, would you send people to look for them? If your parents do not love you they don't have to file a report of a missing child, it's only because they care for you. Pro says that children are assaulted and get away with it, but if that is the case America is one bad country. If you can have 2 17 year olds fighting each other and attempting to kill each other. I'm almost positive the police will get involved, there is your example. The reason the police do not get involved with say younger children is because they believe the parents have the ability to handle the situation, and unless it is 1 young child killing the other one, the problem really isn't that bad. "THEORETICALLY a child should be able to hold a seat in the government." Well then why aren't they holding seats right now? What, because children cannot vote? There are more adults then children out there, and if you say that the children are so intelligent and smart then they would not vote a child to run a country. "Adults are supposed to guide and lead us to PREPARE us for the decisions we are to make in the future." It's a good thing Pro is learning something in this debate... "Well why aren't say 13 year old kids prepared to take part in government?" Never mind. What Pro doesn't see is that parents ARE preparing us for the future, whether you want to be a political leader, a doctor, a lawyer or even a business man. Children are attending school so they can get a education, with that education they can become anything they want to be, and who funds that education? Adults. Can children fund it? Sure if they made an annual salary from a dedicated job, which they don't have. Gallery i am sorry, i fail to see what Pro is trying to say in his 7th argument, i do not believe that Pro has opened his eyes wide enough to look outside his walls and into his surroundings. How can you discriminate an age? if you wait a couple years you will turn to whatever age you wish to be. Saying that people discriminate against age is like saying that because you are 9 years old you are not allowed to drink is discrimination, saying that you can't join a university aged soccer team because you are 11 years old is discrimination. One final analogy is like saying you cannot get retirement income because you are 13 years old. You will grow older and in time you will attain the age requirements. While with your sex or race you cannot naturally change that, So Gallery i hope that you will see the foolishness in Pro's debate and his misunderstanding of the word aging. And for the record Pro, unless you live by yourself, attend school, work a job, pay for your own food, for your house, and for your clothing. No you cannot fend for yourself enough to survive. And of course the final small point that i said i was going to get to. Children like to have fun, it is common nature to have fun, children also have a good amount of time on their hands where they can do a lot of things such as play games, go outside and so forth. So if we allow the children to vote with this extra time they can just vote for whomever they want, whether they have been paying attention to politics or not. This would be devastating to the final result as children would just vote for whichever one looks the nicest but not which one would be the most profitable to the country. The accuracy of the vote of fall dramatically and citizens would have people running who wouldn't be there if it wasn't for children randomly voting for candidates. So Gallery I hope you all see that Pro has done absolutely nothing but waste his time in this debate and he still fails to prove why children should be given the privilege to vote. Pro then ends his debate with " vote pro for equal rights" That is absolutely and idiotic statement, and i hope the Gallery realizes why without my explaining. I will end with a final statement for this already much to long argument of saying that it would not be the peoples best interest if we allow children to vote because of as i said, accuracy of final votes, uselessness of allowing them to vote, inconvenience, and irresponsible children. This resolution surely must and will fall.