Our youth is our future.

His argument is rather great, yet I feel that it is not sufficient. I apologize that my first argument was not very strong and I hope to make this one complex enough. My adversary begins by sharing statistics about how greatly experience is valued in the workforce. Granted, experience is key. However, I believe that experience should be reserved for the leadership positions of a corporation. The actual employees of that corporation should be youth for the youth has: a) a recent education, therefore having the most recent facts accessible b) a wider capacity to reform what needs to be reformed c) great innovative skills This is undeniable. However, I must recognize that my opponent’s statistics are also undeniable. I give him that. However, it is also a matter of how you interpret facts. Facts simply stated mean nothing. You must interpret them correctly. Today's youth is the future generation, which means they will populate the world one day. They are more intelligible about certain things, like technology, which makes them great for innovation, which will drive is towards a bright future. This my opponent has chosen to ignore fully. My opponent states that, “[e]xperience is valued a lot and that is an intangible fact, why? Well, only common sense can show that with experience comes safety. Businesses and employers value safety and security. Someone with plans to change the future is fine, a good example was Tesla with his Wardenclyffe Tower, which was rejected grant. Safety and conservatism are spread throughout the adult world. ” Conservatism is a hideous ideology. I must concur with the “with experience comes safety” logic, but I must say that we disagree on the interpretation of the facts. I never said that we should hire only youth. I said that we should focus on the youth and give them more opportunities. Why do I believe this? Education quality becomes better and only better. Elders were educated in a time when facts were theories and certain discoveries were not yet made. The youths are the ones that are fresh out of college and have the latest data available. This my opponent cannot deny. My opponent’s statement: “The youth as shown here are more likely to prioritise growth over deficit reduction. They are more likely to be progressive on things in general and due to the nature of liberalism, more likely to want to make a change. The youth are more liberal. Now, due to the nature of liberalism placing the country is more likely to instil a change. Whether for the better or the worse, as I have proved before, it is more likely to fail. Now, in times of great recession as of 2008, it is a fairly strange notion to accept a higher chance of failure in any case. We cannot have any chance of failure with the economy, or with trade, or benefits or the welfare of people. The average age of a president in America is 54.8[8], and it is not hard to see why. People need safety for the country more importantly than advancement. Advancement will make their lives better, but safety will stop their lives from worsening if it doesn't. ” My response: We need growth and innovation, which Conservatives cannot provide. Progressivism and Liberalism are beneficial for the economy. Compare the Liberal (Democratic) spending and the Conservative (Republican) spending: As you can see yourself, Liberals can manage finances much more responsibly than Conservatives. I must agree that we need safety and experience, but I believe advancement, innovation, growth, and reform are much more important matters. It is a matter of electing the right candidates and supporting the proper movement. This is the movement of the youth; to pass education reform and innovate markets; to develop new technologies, invent new products, revolutionize the economy, and so forth. This is a fundamental trait the elders lack. Conservatism cannot accomplish this. We need Liberalism and Progressivism to lead our nation. A proper Liberal candidate, actually, can provide safety and experience as well. Again, it is a matter of electing the right candidate. My opponent’s statement: “In the end, the youth are the next generation of people, but for them to be able to make changes and affect the country, they need to be in the shoes that people are in now so they can make more informed decision on the general population, which that can only come out of them aging and not being youths. To summarize, the youth aren't the future as the future will have more elders, who are mostly conservative and the youth are mostly liberal so will contest this and negatively affect the majority. The future relies in the elders to guide the youth to make their choices more open as I have shown above, so that they can do the same when they age, making the general population a freer place. ” My response: It seems my opponent is quite knowledgeable. Again, it is a matter of interpretation. I concur that elders must guide youths into the right direction, but in the end, it is the youth’s duty to innovate and reform, invent and develop, revolutionize and influence. Conservatives lack this capacity. We must learn from the past, live in the present, and plan for the future. Elders live in the past and wish to return to the past. The youth learns from previous mistakes and innovate and plan for the future. Imagine what this nation and this world would be without innovation and reform. It would be dark. It would be dangerous. It would not be the world we recognize.