The U.S. Should Lower the Voting Age to 16.

Thank you for accepting, and I am sorry I did not state my sources. Unfortunately, my source for the IRS is currently not working so I hope you will accept the following. <. http://tinyurl.com...; [the 8th result down] OR <. http://db.tt...;. Other sources, both for this speech and my previous one: . http://www.youthrights.org... . http://www.youthrights.org... . http://www.nytimes.com... . http://www.nytimes.com... that-s-set-to-change. html . http://findarticles.com... . http://www.nytimes.com... . http://www.crfforum.org... . http://thedebatingnews.wordpress.com... &sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=international%20debate%20and%20education%20association%20voting%20age&f=false . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://assembly.coe.int... . http://debatewise.org... [and all other versions] . http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... Encarta Reference Library Now for my refutations. I'd like to issue some apologies to both my opponent and my audience for not completely restating my opponent's arguments, as I am pressed for both time and space. My opponent stated: "Teenagers love buying things. .. " Yes, 10 year olds, too, pay taxes. But do they pay 9.7 billion dollars in taxes? I don't think so. "She then goes on to say that 16 year olds can get a job…shot. " I was saying this to prove they can be responsible. Would people in general have allowed 16ers to have jobs if they were irresponsible? No. "She also says that students…yet. " Everyone is always learning, from the 2 year old boy to the 70 year old grandmother. 18ers are also in school and still learning; yet we allow even them to vote. I'd like to ask my opponent to identify a source for this point. These 16ers are educated. Their knowledge is not limited to what they learn in school. "Wait up here…ever. " Think of it this way: If 16ers were irresponsible, unintelligible, and immature, do you think society would grant them the right to have sex? "This whole argument that 16 year olds are well informed is also bogus, etc. .. ." The informed teens outnumber the uninformed teens. As my opponent himself has stated, a good portion of "worst teens" don't care to vote. Also, TEENS ARE OUTNUMBERED BY ADULTS. This is teaching the teens how to be responsible and encouraging them to educate themselves more. THERE IS NO WRONG VOTE. I'd also like my opponent's source. Teenagers are not as distracted as you think. To use your point, that is correct; I am vouching for both the bad and good teenagers – all 16ers. But so are you. Are you implying there are more uninformed teens than informed? The Opposition may state that seduction overrules teenagers' ability to make decisions and their education. Yes, I will grant them that, but to balance the scales of truth – adults, too, can be seduced. According to recent scientific studies, adults are just as vulnerable to seduction as teenagers are. This was from "Behavioral Science" by Barbara Fadem. The Opposition may also say that these kids are irresponsible. If these kids are irresponsible, we should teach them to be responsible. By giving these 16ers a chance to vote, we are giving them an opportunity to be responsible. Furthermore, is there any direct evidence that they are irresponsible? No. The reason people believe 16ers are not responsible is because it hasn't been proven that they are. Why hasn't it been proven? Because we've never given them the chance! The Opposition is probably going to bring up a very good question: If we are lowering the voting age to 16, why not 14? 10? Our society defines an adult as someone who is 18. This age is chosen arbitrarily. For that matter, why not set the voting age at 20? 25? Now, let's look at this from a scientific standpoint. Studies have shown [NYT] that kids are maturing a lot faster than they did before. To quote the article: "…development has fallen by a full year compared to…studie[d/s] in the 1990s. The timing of puberty and maturity is changing. " So yes, times are changing – for the better, in our favor. Finally, let's look at this from a cultural standpoint. In Judaism, a Bar or Bat Mitzvah is held for 13 year old boys and 12 year old girls to celebrate their coming into adulthood. In the U. S. , girls often celebrate their 16th birthday with "Sweet Sixteen. " The Upanayanam, for the Brahmins, is held at 7. For Kshathriyas, it is held at 11. This is the Hindu ceremony for a "coming of age. " In the Christian Confirmation, kids are generally confirmed at ages 13-14. Mexicans celebrate "sweet 15. " [La Quinceanera Documentary] Are we going to ignore these traditions? If, in all of these cultures, these kids are accepted at age 7-16, are we to further deny these "adults" their rights? To clarify: We aren't saying we should allow 7 year olds to vote. We are saying this to prove that 16 year olds are mature. I'd like to remind everyone that the U. S. is a democratic country, and so it is very important to include as wide a range of opinion as possible. Are 16 year olds not qualified citizens? People, I've got tradition, culture, and science behind me to prove that 16 year olds are indeed capable, mature, and intelligent. They can make decisions. Logic, science, and a variety of different cultures all say the same thing – 16 year olds can and will be mature-if you give them the chance. Here, I rest my case.