That the voting age should be lowered to 15

The problem with the opponent's counter-model is that it's even more arbritrary and irrational than my assumed 18-year-old status quo. It's not problematic to my case at all - just as nothing magic happens when you turn 18, nothing magic happens when you turn 30 either. If anything, the harms I presented of disenfranchisement and lack of change (which, incidentally, are among the many that my opponent has yet to answer) would only be compounded under such a system. In this round, I'll quickly deal with all of the claims my opponent made. Slippery slopeMy opponent asks me why 15 and not 5, only briefly but I think this is an important point so I'll give it its own heading. The reason is simple - we haven't taught 5 year olds politics yet. That would create exactly the same harm of disenfrachisement - giving them a lot of say but not telling them what any of the options mean. That's niether conductive to democracy nor likely to make them better voters. I would support an even younger age if even younger people had already been generally taught the basics of politics, which is true in a limited number of jurisdictions, but in general 15 is a commonly accepted educational standard for when these things are taught. No stakeThe majority of teenagers of that age work (naturally this depends on the country and the definition of work you use, but every statistic is a high number). They may not fully support themselves, but then again, niether do many adults over 30 (that would be the unemployment benefit, or the pension). The idea of economic self-sufficiency being an appropriate standard for voting is a flawed one because: a) if you weren't dependant on the government in some way you would have no stake in it, in which case why are you even voting, and b) what does self-sufficiency have to do with voting anyway? Why can't I make a rational decision even if something doesn't directly affect me? I further do not conceed that the government's aims are exclusively or even primarily economic. For sure, the economy is a very important thing to take care of, but people's welfare depends on more than simply having lots of green pieces of paper. Everything from health to education is in the government's domain, and for good reason - the government is the one institution responsible for the welfare of the people, being run by the people, and more importantly, for the people. Not just their wallets. Youth have a stake in government for many reasons. First, they are usually smart enough to rationalise that if their parents lose their jobs, life for them will be slightly tougher. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Teenagers are fully capable of thinking about people other than themselves, which is why teenagers have friends and help out charities or churches. Second, many teenagers do not fit the narrow mould of living at their parent's house with no job. Third, governments are about more than just economics. And fourth, teenagers like to think they actually have a life ahead of them as well. Just like many older people vote for those who will give them a better retirement even if they're not looking to retire anytime soon, so too do many teenagers actually think ahead. The proof of all this can be seen in the fact that young people DO engage politically, quite sensibly, whenever this is open to them as a better avenue than apathy or resistance. That is why programmes like the model UN and European Youth Parliament have been so successful, often simulating better outcomes for the world than what actually happens. A quick glance down the EYP's general poll archives (. http://www.eyp.org...) paints a very different picture of youth than the stakeless youth my opponent wanted to talk about. Irrational/immatureLet us, for a moment, pretend that what my opponent said is true. This is an argument for preventing stupid people from voting. Being smart is not a requirement for voting, even under my opponent's model (yes, there are impulsive 30-year-olds). Moreover, gut instincts are not necessarily stupid. Chess provides a great example of this. Computers can calculate chess moves much better and faster than the human mind ever can, but humans can still beat computers. Why? Because master chess players develop gut instincts about good and bad positions. If analysing the social costs of impacts was the only job of politicians, everyone would have outsourced their jobs to Microsoft a decade ago. There are, however, other things to consider - morality, for instance, cannot be derived by the frontal cortex. And moreover, there's no requirement on voters to have a rational reason for their vote at all. I went to a party last year where I overheard at least three people asking their partners who they should vote for in our then-upcoming election. I'm pretty sure many mentally impaired people quite literally vote for their favourite color. Even if teenagers were disinclined to use their frontal cortex, there's no reason why they can't be trained to do so. A young chess player may be impulsive, but they can be taught to think about the consequences of their moves in a bit more depth. They might not be able to see as many ends as an older player, but they can rationalise it. Similarly, when an older player points out to them what they could have done, they are able to evaluate that position (much like politicians can point things out to people). It's not like the frontal cortex magically appears when you turn 30. The fact that teenagers can consider cause and effect is clear. Infants usually work out cause and effect with things like musical toys. A quick look around this website will reveal numerous 15 year olds (and younger! ) employing some quite complex lines of original reasoning. Independant reasoningNobody is an entirely independant thinker. We didn't all, for example, independantly invent the language we speak. Independant thinking is a ridiclious qualifier for voting because it could never be enforced (given that there's no duty on those over 30 to think independantly either) and moreover could never even happen. The reason why we have schools at all is the transfer of knowlege (including political knowlege) is fundamental to our society. This is why free political association, broadcast or assembly is so important as a right. Even so, my opponent's own data proves 30% of young people vote independantly, compared to 40% of adults in the USA (. http://www.washingtonpost.com... - by the way, this is a national record) - something that can almost entirely be put down to the youth disenfranchisement I talked about earlier. ConclusionThe harm I presented in this debate is of the exclusion of too many voices from democracy. The solution is not to deliberately undermine and limit democracy further. We need to eliminate the apathy and consequential incompetence of our governments. The resolution is affirmed.