The Voting Age should be lowered to 16.

Thank you for sticking all the way throughout this debate. In this final round, I will tell you why the Opposition should win this debate. Refutations "The argument that you stated was that not everyone needed to vote. You then listed examples of toddlers voting on health. How is this relevant? Not everybody needs to vote, but shouldn't we allow those who wish to do it participate? Perhaps you misunderstood my refutation. Not everyone needing to vote has nothing to do with this debate, if someone wants to vote for their country, they should be able to do it! I'm sure if you were talking about an 18 year old, you wouldn't be saying the same thing!" The logic simple. Not everyone includes 16 year olds. This is the relevancy. Toddlers are simply also one of thos every people. We should not allow those who wish to vote to vote. Should ten year olds be allowed to vote? This point is relevant to your argument that we should allow anyone to vote, and clearly, we should not. I'm sure there are many children in the world who are at least 10 years old that wish to vote on American politics. But should they? No, because they are too immature and most don't understand what they're talking about. This applies to 16 year olds as well. "Why would attending college affect this debate? Of course, students can learn more about politics, but this is not necessary if they think they have a future in politics. Can you safely say, that your parents were COMPLETELY informed about politics before they voted? A driver's license has absolutely nothing to do with the maturity required to submit your opinion to a national election! How can someone not be mature enough, if they want to have their vote casted? There is no wrong vote! If they want to vote, they drive out to the voting station, and they are fully prepared to show what they think, how could they be considered immature? Obviously, there is some confusion in my opponent's mind about what real responsibility and maturity is." You basically answered your first question. Sure, parents are not completely informed, but they are more mature and responsible enough to make a self-decided vote, whereas 16 year olds cannot form their own opinions, are easily swayed by advertisements, and fancy commercials. A driver's license demonstrates the responsibility to drive carefully and safely. The RESPONSIBILITY and MATURENESS. Thought it may not directly affect voting, it does indirectly by showing how careful and how mature a person is to have even received that license. "If you don't understand sarcasm, I wouldn't be surprised. The argument clearly said "to its logical extreme". This was pointing out that the inability for uneducated people to vote was classist and was abandoned. You clearly do not understand what I was saying. 16 year olds could already have taken certain classes concerning government, and 18 year olds might not have taken them!" Sarcasm is not welcome in a debate! And please stop insulting me and claiming that I am confused and telling me that I can't understand sarcasm. There is no logical evidence for this argument, aside from conduct. 16 year olds have not even made it half way into high school. 18 year olds are near the completion of high school. What's the likeliness that one year of high school teaches more than the three exact years? "If anything, you are helping my point. According to this legal system, 16 year olds can marry, have sex, drop out of high school, get a job, and join the military. If they are mature enough to do all these things, why can't they simply represent their ideas in important elections? Your refutation is completely useless. Lastly, you said that 16 year olds cannot fight in the army. I am aware of this. But, they receive military training, so it is obvious that they have the maturity to fight in the army. It takes a lot of maturity, to even decide to train. Thank you for assisting me." My refutation is not completely useless. It seems as if you have skimmed my entire refutation. I proved that all the things you have listed are not mature decisions. They cannot join the military, they can only get very low pay jobs, sex and marriage is rarely a mature decision as a 16 year old, and dropping out of school means they are lazy and don't enjoy work which usually also means that they don't want a job. Anyone can receive military training. Young children can receive military training [1]. Does this mean they should vote? No, because they are immature! "If you say that there is no major difference between 18-21 year olds, how can you say there is a difference between 16-18 year olds? There is a 2 year age difference compared to a 3 year age difference. 21 is when you are 3 years into college at the most, and you are now allowed to drink (which can lead to drunk driving)." 16 - 18 is a more critical age advancement than 18 -21, simply put. Using your own arguments against you, 18 year olds can serve in the military and die for our country, have nearly finished or possibly finished high school, which is basic education, and they are considered ADULTS [2]. "Of course, the amount of 16 year olds that are not mature enough to vote, will most likely NOT vote!" There is a complete lack of evidence on the Proposition side. 16 year olds can abuse their voting powers and vote without care. Or, a 16 year old could be easily swayed by an ad and cast the "wrong" vote, which I will explain later. "In my opponent's 3rd and final contention, he stated that 18 is the best minimum age to vote. Yet, all the reasons he listed show absolutely no reason..." 18 is the best minimum age to vote because 18 year olds are more mature and can serve for our country and are considered adults. Finally, considering the "wrong" vote. There, believe it or not, are "wrong" votes. The votes that are biased, the votes without care, the votes that were easily swayed by an ad or commercial... These are all wrong votes! And this is much more likely to occur from 16 - 17, than 18 - however long you still wish to have your opinion heard. Arguments 1. 16 year olds are too immature. This basically corresponds with the "wrong" vote. 16 year olds are too easily taken over by flashy commercials or have the same opinions their parents do, without truly understanding government and politics. 2. 16 year olds do not need to vote. Why can't they simply wait two more years? There will not be a major turnout in all elections and a very small difference might be made, but not large enough to completely alter the outcome of an election. 3. 18 is the best age to have people vote. These people are mature, trustworthy, responsible, can form own opinions, and are adults and completely have the right to vote. These are the three arguments that have continued past this debate, whereas my opponent has had all of his refuted. Who you should vote for: Conduct: CON Reason: The Proposition has called the Opposition's arguments, "means nothing." He has directly insulted the Opposition's own character using words such as, "confused," I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't understand sarcasm, essentially, and "continues to ignore." Also, my opponent has plagiarized from a source. Arguments: CON Reason: All CON arguments have been unrefuted. All PRO arguments have been refuted. Spelling/Grammar: Tie/CON Reason: Various grammatical errors on PRO side. Unsure of CON side's grammar, but my opinion is that the CON has had better spelling/grammar. Your decision. Sources: CON Reason: CON has more sources, all reliable. PRO possesses 1 source, which he commonly copied and pasted off of. For these reasons, please vote for the negation of this resolution! Thank you for a wonderful debate. Sources: 1. http://www.mysummercamps.com... 2. http://www.philforhumanity.com...