The Voting Age should be lowered to 16.

I will now refute all my opponents points, and save my best points. Refutations: "Yes, this is about 16 year olds and 16 year olds are a section of everyone. This is completely relevant and was simply just an argument stating that 16 year olds do not need to vote. It seems you are confused this time. " 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! "A driver's license demonstrates the responsibility, safety, and caution a person has used throughout his driving test. This is a key area of maturity. The fact that they can be responsible means that they can also be responsible for their own actions as well as voting. It seems you ignored the fact of them being able to attend college and learn even more. " 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. Saving my points: "Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. " Refutation of this point: As my opponent himself has stated, we should revert to a system where well-educated people can vote. 18 year olds are much better educated compared to 16 year olds. They are in their senior year or have even possibly finished high school. 16 year olds are still stuck in high school and do not yet understand politics and government. Refutation of this: 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! "More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. " Refutation of my point: Does this necessarily mean that they are mature? Marrying is a huge responsibility. A responsibility that 16 year olds have not demonstrated their ability to handle. Marrying means there must have been a great bond of love between two people, love that must have distracted the 16 year old from high school work. Raising a family is usually also a party of marrying. Just because 16 year olds can have sex does not mean that they are mature. When a 16 year old drops out of high school, that must mean he or she is extremely lazy and does not wish to learn. This is not maturity. Furthermore, if a 16 year old doesn't wish to be delayed by the work of high school, why would that same person with to receive a full time job? If someone is devoted to studying, then why would he or she get a job, for that same matter? This is not a clear-cut case of maturity. Lastly, 16 year olds are not allowed to actually fight in the army. They can receive cadet training, but cannot risk their lives. Refutation of this: 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. "As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. " Refutation of this point: Just because 18 year olds are capable of making choices much like 21 year olds does not mean, in any way, that 16 year olds can cast a mature, independently-made decision. I argue that there is a transformation when a person grows from 16 to 18. At 16, a boy or girl is in his or her sophomore years, still very young and maturing in high school. However, an 18 year old is a senior in high school and is very capable of making self-decided decisions and mature enough to understand politics, government, and society. 16 year olds have not completed their full studies of the United States government. Refutation of this: 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). Another thing, is at 16 a boy or a girl have already studied politics enough to fully understand who they want to vote for. Once again as my opponent CONTINUES TO IGNORE, is that there is no wrong vote! You cannot say that someone who wants to vote for the law or official they like, is wrong! Now to refute my opponent's main points. In my opponents first contention, he stated that 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote. Of course, the amount of 16 year olds that are not mature enough to vote, will most likely NOT vote! The 16 year olds that clearly arrive at the voting booth, and are enthusiastic about sharing their opinions will be the mature teenagers! You cannot say that 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote, because that is a complete generalization. This argument means nothing. In my opponent second contention, he said that not everyone needs to vote. Not everyone needs to vote, but that is also inferring that citizens over 18 do not need to vote! He also stated some rubbish about toddlers voting for health, I don't know what that has to do with 16 years olds, but his loss! 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 that there would be a maturity increase in Politics. Obviously, my opponent is confused about what is required to have real opinions. (all opinions are real) I'd like to thank my opponent for making this an excellent debate, and I'd like to quickly repeat my best point. No vote, is truly wrong. You cannot walk up to a person and say they cannot vote because they want a good candidate to win