should students under 18 be active participants in politics

Since I am Pro, I will present my arguments immediately. I'll also include my rebuttals directed towards the arguments already raised by Con in R1. I. The importance of politicsI'd like to immediately bring to light the importance of learning about politics. Politics is defined as: The activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. [1] Now that I've defined it though, the question still persists - why is it important? In looking at the definition, we can see that politics relates to the activities associated with governing others - be it an entire nation, a state, or even your local town. The actions of everything related to governing others, in an official capacity, is encapsulated within the term 'politics'. The reason it is important to learn about the mechanics of these activities is because it is the government which is responsible for providing and maintaining the fundamental things which keep us alive. It is the government which is in charge of our military, of upholding our laws or making changes when necessary, of balancing the budget, etc. , even in the local sense the government is responsible for the quality of our water, the maintenance of our roads and highways, or even town ordinances. Still though, why is it important for children under the age of 18? The reason is simple, it is our children which will eventually be left to make the decisions. Someday, those children might grow up to be politicians themselves, or perhaps they may grow up to be apathetic citizens who fail to involve themselves and then complain about the current state of things. The choice is theirs, but it is up to us to at-least expose them to the option of that choice in the first place. By giving them that option, we are opening a path for them to become leaders themselves someday. The potential knowledge, benefits, and freedom of choice far outweighs the lack of knowledge, lack of options, and lack of freedom that would come if we didn't at-least impart such things to our children. [1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...II. Being politically active leads to hands-on knowledge and experience "Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn. " - Benjamin FranklinBenjamin Franklin captured a pretty common truth found amongst most people. Being involved in something generally leads to a greater depth of experience than merely being told or taught about it. For instance, I could read about building a car engine, I could even watch someone do it right next to me and listen as they explain the process, but until I actually build one myself I'll never have the 'feel' for it, that fundamental experience of actually doing it myself. The same notion can be applied to politics. By actively participating in politics you get that first-hand experience that you might not be able to gain otherwise. For instance, you can literally be a part of a change in the current law, which would give you the life-long experience of knowing the mechanics for carrying out change should you ever need to do it again. Another quick example would be if you are in a small town and your town is suffering from severe water pollution. By actively participating in politics, you might be able to clear up whatever issues are blocking the politicians from enacting higher water standards. This is hypothetical but has potential to be a real-world issue and is one that could benefit from someone who has been participating in politics from an early age. III. There are plenty of intelligent, capable children under the age of 18A key reason why I support this resolution is because I believe that failing to educate or inform children under the age of 18 is doing a great injustice to those who are capable and willing to learn. On this website alone we can see countless children under the age of 18 who partake in intelligent discussions with others on topics relating to politics. This is evident for anyone to see themselves by simply clicking on the 'politics' forum section and scanning a few threads. I will expand on this with further evidence should I find it truly necessary. I believe, however, that the politics section of this website speaks for itself and shows, without fail, that there are children under the age of 18 who have both the intelligence and desire to discuss and be active in politics. **Rebuttals**IV. Students under 18 are really just children. Since my opponent is making this claim, I will leave it to him to provide evidence supporting this claim. I do not believe that every person under the age of 18 is really just a child. Some of them are highly developed for their age in terms of mentality or physicality. Even the laws in America stating that anyone under the age of 18 isn't an adult is subject to individual discretion. This can be seen every now and then in the court system where someone under the age of 18 is tried as an adult. Furthermore, such laws might not necessarily exist in other nations. So, my opponent needs to prove how "students under 18 are really just children", otherwise it is nothing more than a baseless claim. V. The most important time in a persons life, is their childhood. I fully agree, but when this statement is taken alone - it holds no relevance to the debate whatsoever. The issue is that Con uses this claim as a reason for why "children shouldn't have to remember constant political arguments and the stress of having to remember all views and opinions of each debate". This is just absurd. Being active in politics doesn't mean that you have to remember *all* views and opinions of each debate, or *constant* political arguments. Being active in politics could be the simple task of painting signs that are to be used while a new bill is being signed, or while protesting. Being active in politics could mean that you are acting as an aide to a local politician or even simply calling your state representative to express your opinion. There is no such obligation to remember every position, every argument or every aspect of politics. So, for my opponent to think so if a fundamental flaw in his argument. At this point, Con will need to show that such an obligation is a part of being "politically active" because I do not believe so due to the reasons I've just shared above. VI. Unimportant pointsCon additionally presented some irrelevant arguments such as children needing to learn about our history before being active in politics. This has no relevance because in order to be politically active effectively you would necessarily need to know or understand at-least a little bit of our history. Otherwise, you wouldn't be effective regardless. Lastly Con argues that because some lack the knowledge, they shouldn't have to be politically active. This resolution states *should* -not - *obligated*. This means that even if I win, children wouldn't be *forced* to be politically active, it would still ultimately be up to them. In closing, I've presented three arguments affirming the resolution, I've also provided rebuttals for each argument raised by Con. I now return the floor to Con. Thank you.