Question: Should the voting age be lowered?

Voting at a lower age would increase participation There is a problem of apathy in many western countries, with low turnouts at elections. Young people are taught citizenship or civics at school with the aim of building “Knowledge and understanding about being informed citizens...Developing skills of enquiry and communication...Developing skills of participation and responsible action”[1] however they don’t get a chance to put this knowledge into practice for several years. Is it surprising that they lose interest in public affairs during this time? Because national elections are usually only held every four years or so, many people have to wait until they are 20 or 21, years after that civic education, before their first chance to cast an important vote. It is noticeable that political interest is much higher among those in education than those who are not. In Austria it was found that 68% of 16 to 18 year olds in education were interested in politics against only 45% of those who are working.[2] By demonstrating trust and promoting inclusion, young people would feel more confident in their views, become less disillusioned and eventually teach their children the same values. Introducing a lower voting age can only have long term benefits for the expansion of democracy. [1] House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, ‘Citizenship Education’, House of Commons, 21 February 2007 [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.9

There should be no voting age OK here goes: In 1971 the United States ratified the 26th Amendment to the Constitution granting the right to vote to 18-20-year-olds. The 26th Amendment was the fastest to be ratified in U.S. history. At the height of the Vietnam War most Americans realized the sick double standard inherent in sending 18-year-old soldiers to fight and die for their country when they weren't allowed to vote. Double standards didn't go away in 1971. Right now youth are subject to adult criminal penalties despite lacking the right to vote. Frank Zimring found that "Between 1992 and 1995, forty American states relaxed the requirements for transferring an accused under the maximum age of jurisdiction into criminal court,"2 and "In Colorado, for example, defendants under the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction may nonetheless be charged by direct filing in criminal court if they are over 14 years of age and are charged with one of a legislative list of violent crimes."3 What kind of twisted message do we send when we tell youth they are judged mature, responsible adults when they commit murder, but silly, brainless kids when they want to vote? This is a double standard, no different than during the Vietnam War. War isn't a dead issue now either, leaders who youth can't vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Lowering the voting age is the just, fair way to set things straight. Youth pay taxes, live under our laws, they should have the vote Just like all other Americans, young Americans pay taxes. In fact, they pay a lot of taxes. Teens pay an estimated $9.7 Billion dollars in sales taxes alone.4 Not to mention many millions of taxes on income, according to the IRS, "You may be a teen, you may not even have a permanent job, but you have to pay taxes on the money you earn."5 And teens do work: 80% of high school students work at some point before graduation.6 Youth pay billions in taxes to state, local, and federal governments yet they have absolutely no say over how much is taken. This is what the American Revolution was fought over; this is taxation without representation. In addition to being affected by taxes, young people are affected by every other law that Americans live under. As fellow citizens in this society, every action or inaction taken by lawmakers affects youth directly, yet they have no say in the matter. In her 1991 testimony before a Minnesota House subcommittee, 14-year-old Rebecca Tilsen had this to say: "If 16-year-olds are old enough to drink the water polluted by the industries that you regulate, if 16-year-olds are old enough to breathe the air ruined by garbage burners that government built, if 16-year-olds are old enough to walk on the streets made unsafe by terrible drugs and crime policies, if 16-year-olds are old enough to live in poverty in the richest country in the world, if 16-year-olds are old enough to get sick in a country with the worst public health-care programs in the world, and if 16-year-olds are old enough to attend school districts that you underfund, then 16-year-olds are old enough to play a part in making them better." The just power of government comes from the consent of the governed, as it stands now youth are governed (overly so, some may say) but do not consent. This is un-American. Like all tax-paying, law-abiding Americans, youth must be given the right to vote. Politicians will represent their interests if youth can vote Politicians represent various constituencies; currently young people are no one's constituency. Why should politicians care about the needs and wishes of youth when they have no ability to vote for or against them? Lowering the voting age will give politicians a real reason to respect the desires of young people. Youth feel alienated from politics and politicians, lowering the voting age will include them in the process. The words spoken before the Senate Judicary Committee supporting lowering the voting age in 1971 are as true then as they are now, "The anachronistic voting-age limitation tends to alienate them from systematic political processes and to drive them to into a search for an alternative, sometimes violent, means to express their frustrations over the gap between the nation's deals and actions. Lowering the voting age will provide them with a direct, constructive and democratic channel for making their views felt and for giving them a responsible stake in the future of the nation." 7 Youth have a unique perspective, they'll never have those experiences again A common argument against lowering the voting age is that it isn't a burden to wait a few years. Denying youth the right to vote isn't the same as denying women or racial minorities, according to opponents, since in a few years young people will grow up and be able to vote. Why go through the trouble to lower the age to 16 when after two years they'll be able to vote anyways? Were it that simple, then perhaps, but it isn't. Would it be acceptable to limit the right to vote to those with a certain income, reasoning that it is a flexible standard, those will less income must only work harder or wait till they too make enough to vote? No it wouldn't. Voters vote based on their individual circumstances, when those circumstances change often so do their voting habits. The concerns of a 14 year old are different than that of a 24 year old, just as the concerns of a poor man differ from that of a rich man. The beliefs and priorities of 16 year olds as a class are unique to them; we cannot expect former 16 year olds to have as accurate a perspective as those who are currently that age. If we care at all about the needs and desires of youth, they must be allowed to vote for themselves. 16 is a better age to introduce voting than 18; 16 year olds are stationary Currently the right to vote is granted at perhaps the worst possible moment in one's life. At 18 many youth leave the home and community they have lived for most their life, either to go away to college or to move away from home in search of work. At the moment they are supposed to vote they either have a new community that they are unfamiliar with or they must attempt to vote absentee back home, a process that turns off many new voters. Lowering the voting age to 16 will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, have an appreciation for local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those just two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings, school, parents, and stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote. Lower the voting age, and youth will vote. Lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life. I ran out of characters. Post your argument then I will finish mine.

That the voting age should be lowered to 15 The right to vote (and I think my opponent will agree) is incredibly important. It carries with it the power to accomplish much, and profoundly affect the lives of millions, including most of those people one knows and loves. It requires a significant amount of responsibility, but it's a civic duty, because justice and good order in our society depends on a proper and well-functioning government. The exclusion of any person from a democratic vote, taken literally, is a message from the government that they're not considered people (democracy meaning "government by the people") and that their opinions count for nothing.There was once a time when society thought that of women. Since then we've seen women do amazing things in politics. The only reason they were denied the right was because the government was mostly controlled by mysogynists. Today, unfortunately, government is mostly controlled by ageists - people who sincerely believe that young people should not have equal rights to old, simply because of their age. It's irrational, because there is no rational link between having an 18th birthday and being qualified to perform this highly important task. This debate is about whether it's justified that 18-year olds with Down Syndrome can vote, but 17-year-old national model UN ambassadors cannot.My position today is simple - that 18 is not a justifiable boundry.EngagementThe reason why youth are often scapegoated as apathetic and disengaged delinquients with no sense of responsibility is because the're excluded from all of these processes. Why care about who to vote for if you can't even vote? Why learn about government when the government won't learn about you? Why should you have a responsibility to listen to the law when the law isn't responsive to anything you say? These concerns that youth have are legitimate. Excluding youth from politics has naturally created political apathy, and more dangerously, political resistance. That is why youth are often behind cybercriminal activities - they are searching for a meaningful form of political expression. Why? Because over at the government, a bunch of grandparents are making decisions about them without them. 15 years is old enough to work. It's old enough to pay taxes. It's old enough to drive, be a millionaire, and in many countries, to leave school or get married.The harm of political disengagement is threefold. First, it's a harm to society, who miss out on this very valuable subpopulation's opinions. The strength of democracy lies in the diversity of the voices it represents, creating incentives to improve life for all the voters. The harm is that young people cannot vote, and are thus usually excluded from that discussion. This is particularly pernicious when that discussion concerns what to do with young people and their problems, because youth have a whole set of political issues that almost exclusively affect them. Second, it's a harm to the disengaged students, who will usually carry forward that apathy or resistance to their adult years. Translation: higher crime, poorer voting, undemocratic society. And thirdly, it's a harm to the responsibility of society. Responsibility is learned, not earned with age. Schools are very good at teaching teenagers to be responsibile, but do not provide any incentives to. In fact, this kind of political disengagement is a strong disincentive. I don't think I need to justify to anybody that when we don't practice things as we learn them, we're not so good at them afterwards.EducationFor the same reason that business students are best placed to talk about business, or science students best placed to talk about science, so too are politics students best placed to talk about politics. 15 year olds are politics students. Put two and two together, and the point is that youth have the potential to be the most switched-on voters of them all. Youth are a huge group - my quick calculations show that this would increase the size of the voting population by about 10% in my country, and it's probably more in others. They have the potential to significantly affect the outcome of any given election. The net impact is, obviously, that better qualified candidates get elected, provided my premise holds true that youth are better qualified voters. In the long run, education is usually harder to forget if practiced both immediately and regularly thereafter. If nothing else, the fact that not only their social and economic future but also their educational future is at stake would provide greater incentives for them to actually use the resources that are available to them, which given the nature of the educational environment they are immersed in are much more objective and informative. In wider society, this more intelligent discourse brought about by young people can only improve the outcomes of the election.On the other hand, despite the already impressive ability for young people to be politically active, giving them the vote would create incentives to learn more. Being engaged at school is generally hard when half the subjects one is taught bear no relevance to a young person's real life. By contrast, giving them the vote makes everything relevant and important to their immediate life.ChangeAs people grow older, they become more conservative. This is a natural progression because people get used to existing social orders very easily given time. This is why so many old people were upset when they discovered in the early 90s (with the more widespread adoption of the internet and so on) that young people actually had political opinions. But the opinions of young people are quite different, because they reject these social orders and strive to create better ones. This has been happening for thousands of years, and as a result, the social orders have excluded the young from their ranks.This is bad because our society is not perfect, and we want to improve it. Conserving the status quo won't change a thing, but it's what older voters are naturally biased to. That's why we need people who will make change happen. Usually, youth tend to be the most progressive of all demographics (not necessarily in the liberal sense of that word), which is good because it helps our society improve faster and breaks down the social barriers to political discourse, building democracy. Young people also have the greatest incentives to make positive change, given that they ConclusionI'd like to have a serious chat to whoever came up with the age of 18 for voting. It's completely arbritrary. It's conferring no social benefit. It's disenfranchising the young and harming the whole electoral process.I'm proud to affirm.

Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Give your rebuttals in round 2 along with the opening argument. The voting age should be lowered as it would give a wider range of voters and give more free will to students. Wider range of voters Not all people in a country are even interested in politics, much less for voting. Furthermore, adults can be paid to vote, but children have a more idealistic sense and may be harder to corrupt. Children would be harder to buy as they haven't seen the real world yet, therefore believe that their vote matters and that they should be loyal towards their country in voting. Furthermore, as children don't earn money, they don't understand the difficulty of earning money and therefore would need more money for their vote to be bought. Free will Decisions of the political party severely impact teenagers, such as changes in the age limits of drinking, driving, gambling, and movies. Then why they don't have a right to choose their future?

It would get younger people interested in politics The numbers of young people's interest is ridiculously low. How should we address this? One way would be to allow younger people the vote, as it would encourage them to investigate further into how it all works. Some may not be interested at all, thats fine. But should we really obstruct the opportunities for those interested in learning more? I think it is important for young people to be interested in politics as will affect them hugely at some point in their lives, therefore we should offer 16s and over the vote.

The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Definitions: Voting Age: The legal age at which citizens of the United States can submit their opinion on current matters to be counted during national elections. Hello, my name is Wendell Phillips and I am the PRO speaker stating that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Before I begin, I'd like to point out that xStrikex, my opponent, is a classmate of mine and I am very excited to debate this controversial topic with him. My Points: The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. 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. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. 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. When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. While young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years. Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. 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. Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right? I rest my case.

The U.S. Should Lower the Voting Age to 16. I'd like to start off with a simple: Hello, people. Welcome to this debate. At this moment, I am hoping that anyone will accept this debate. Thank you, to the person that does. I'd like to start off by saying that 16 year olds are mature. This debate is about the rights of 16-ers. If they are old enough to have jobs and have sex, then they are certainly old to make educated decisions about things that will have a big impact on their future. This is taxation without representation. According to the IRS, American teenagers are responsible for 9.7 billion dollars in sales taxes alone, not to mention the amount of taxes on income! I quote: "Youths pay billions in taxes to state, local, and federal governments yet they have absolutely no say over how much is taken" or what is done with this money. I repeat: this is taxation without representation. The least we can do is to lower the voting age so that 16 and 17 year olds have a say. Policies such as minimum wage, working hours, and conditions are also determined by governments. If 16 year olds are old enough to have jobs, then they are old enough to be able to vote on things that will affect their future. I conclude this point by stating that 16 years of age, you can get a job. You also pay taxes, as stated before. It is undemocratic that you have no say in who manages and sets these taxes. The Opposition may state that young people are not so well-informed. Well, they aren't well informed because they can't vote! If they cannot participate in a voting, what makes you think they will have the motivation to learn? They won't. Therefore, by lowering the voting age, teenagers will learn and be educated about politics at a younger age. A good example is "Kid's Voting." This is a simulation where children participate in a mock voting, such as the one held at my school, JM. Reports show that this activity increased the interest of voting in entire families! More parents discussed politics with their kids and were more likely to vote because of this. An estimated 600,000 adults were more likely to vote, according to the New York Times. I would also like to point out that students are learning much about politics in school, which also helps them to make more informed decisions. I'd like to sum up this argument by saying that this strengthens democracy and helps both adults and kids to make more educated votes. This is a new incentive for the public to become knowledgeable. What the Opposition is likely to do is to exaggerate the chances of these kids being influenced by the 3 Ps: Peers, pressure, and parents. I'd like to point out, judge, that these are not 13 year-olds. These teenagers are 16 years of age. They are mature, their bodies are adult, they have experience, and they have been educated for at least 10 years. If 16-ers are old enough to have a job, and have sex, they are certainly old enough to control their life, according to the International Debate and Education Association. There are just as many people out there who are uneducated about politics as there are who are educated. Let's think about it this way: if you are uneducated about politics, that means you don't care. And if you don't care; why should you vote? You see, people, according to the New York Times, many kids who don't know enough about what they are voting on actually don't vote. This means that there is less of a chance of the uneducated people voting. I'm going to remind everyone of my arguments: I. This is taxation without representation. One of the same things the Revolutionary War was fought over. This is a democratic country: it includes 16 year olds because they pay taxes and they have jobs. II. Younger people are well-informed. However, there are some that are not well-informed. If we lower the voting age, then it will give them a reason to become well-informed. III. 16-ers are not 13 year-olds. They are mature and have control over their life. If we can trust them to handle a job, we can trust them to withstand pressure and make the right decision. IV. Most uneducated people don't care and therefore don't vote. Guys, these are mature teenagers with control over their life and their job. They pay taxes. They have sex. They can make the right decision. Thank you, and please vote for the Proposition.

the voting age should be lowered to 16. thank you to whomever accepts this debate. the legislation that lawmakers enact affects everyone, including those that are under age 18. if the purpose of democratic voting is to maximize government representation, then why should we not take into account the wants and needs of young people? for instance, the government makes a lot of education decisions which affect, you guessed it, young people. more importantly, the government spends the tax dollars of young people, though the young people have no say (no taxation without representation!). for instance, i've worked since i was 15 and yet i had absolutely no say via voting in how my tax dollars were spent for 3 full years. while i'm aware that we do not live in a direct democracy, we're at least allowed to vote in politicians who represent our views, though minors can't. statistics show that 80% of high school students work before graduation. http://www.youthrights.org... i believe that young people are just as capable of having an educated opinion as older people. if you look around this site, some of the most intelligent members are minors and they have more logical and intelligent opinions than many who are of age. one doesn't magically become aware of what's going on in the world once they become 18. in high school, one begins to learn about government and politics. in many cases, most adults cannot even remember what they learned in school whereas high school students are in the midst of learning about it themselves. one only needs to consider the show "are you smarter than a fifth grader" to consider my point. students who took the comprehensive We the People ("WTP") constitutional law program scored BETTER than adults 18-80 in knowledge of government and politics. additionally, students today are more intelligent than in the past. now unknowledgeable adults are not kept from voting, so why should knowledgeable young people? "Studied conducted by Professor James Flynn have shown that IQ scores grew by 17 points during the period 1947 through 2001, with the increase accelerating to 0.36 points per year in the 1990's.4 In other words, a child scoring in the top 25% in an IQ test today, would score in the top 3% of an IQ test in 1932.5 Experts have suggested an explanation to this trend: the explosion of new media, television and particularly the internet, which challenge youth's cognitive senses and problem solving abilities." http://www.youthrights.org... another point to consider is that youth voting will increase adult voting. also, the idea that the votes of young people will be "manipulated" by their parents or other adults is insufficient. people at age 16 have their own political opinions that are often different from their parents (for instance, young people care more about issues like gay rights and environment protection), and it's unfair to say that other adults won't or can't be manipulated just as easily. one theory is that conservatives are the reason young people cannot vote. because young people tend to be more "liberal" in thought and care about things that are more liberal, conservatives do not want to give young people the opportunity to have a say even though young people have to abide by the laws, and are often punished as adults for breaking those laws (because the law decides when it's convenient to consider you "mature" enough to make a decision). for instance, young people are considered a more liberal demographic, and would probably vote for more liberal policies. http://www.nytimes.com... studies and polls show that teenagers WANT to vote and there is no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. the constitution says that we cannot prohibit a law abiding citizen over the age of 18 to vote, but says nothing about prohibiting those under 18 to vote. the right to vote should be extended to minors, at least to those 16 and older. even if it's only to working kids 16 and older, it's still lowering the voting age which i think is important. and that's all for now, so thank you to whomever accepts.

Lowering the voting age Hello Jane. And hello guys. In December 19th in 2008, we have presidential election. In election, if people are over 19, our country give us a voting quality. I think we have to lower the voting age. According to Dr. Sam, people always said if we give university student a voting quality, they will pick wrong president because they are stupid and they have short thinking, plus because they have low ages. Well, it's wrong. I mean it could be in old days, because they are poor so they can;t study well so they don't know how to pick a great president. But now a days, it's different everyone. Now a days, there is less that student can't study. So they can be smart then in old days students so they can choose a great president. So we can lower the voting age. In 2008, we have many president candidates. And they come out with many reduction. But, can we believe it? I think that lower ages student can't pick great president is no just they are stupid, short thinking or they have low ages. It's because president candidates said lie in they're reduction. So we need to lower a voting age. According to homepage kuro5shin, lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout. For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life. Kids Voting is a program in which children participate in a mock vote and accompany their parents to the polls on Election Day. Reports show that even this modest gesture to including youth increased the interest in voting of their whole family. Parents were more likely to discuss politics with their kids and thus an estimated 600,000 adult voters were more likely to vote because of it. Lowering the voting age will strengthen this democracy for all of us.

The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds My position today is simple - that 18 is not a justifiable boundry. I originally typed this up in a word document so appologies if this comes out in a weird format because that sometimes happens with these things. EngagementThe reason why youth are often scapegoated as apathetic and disengaged delinquients with no sense of responsibility is because the're excluded from all of these processes. Why care about who to vote for if you can't even vote? Why learn about government when the government won't learn about you? Why should you have a responsibility to listen to the law when the law isn't responsive to anything you say? These concerns that youth have are legitimate. Excluding youth from politics has naturally created political apathy, and more dangerously, political resistance. That is why youth are often behind cybercriminal activities - they are searching for a meaningful form of political expression. Why? Because over at the government, a bunch of grandparents are making decisions about them without them. 15 years is old enough to work. It's old enough to pay taxes. It's old enough to drive, be a millionaire, and in many countries, to leave school or get married.The harm of political disengagement is threefold. First, it's a harm to society, who miss out on this very valuable subpopulation's opinions. The strength of democracy lies in the diversity of the voices it represents, creating incentives to improve life for all the voters. The harm is that young people cannot vote, and are thus usually excluded from that discussion. This is particularly pernicious when that discussion concerns what to do with young people and their problems, because youth have a whole set of political issues that almost exclusively affect them. Second, it's a harm to the disengaged students, who will usually carry forward that apathy or resistance to their adult years. Translation: higher crime, poorer voting, undemocratic society. And thirdly, it's a harm to the responsibility of society. Responsibility is learned, not earned with age. Schools are very good at teaching teenagers to be responsibile, but do not provide any incentives to. In fact, this kind of political disengagement is a strong disincentive. I don't think I need to justify to anybody that when we don't practice things as we learn them, we're not so good at them afterwards.EducationFor the same reason that business students are best placed to talk about business, or science students best placed to talk about science, so too are politics students best placed to talk about politics. 15 year olds are politics students. Put two and two together, and the point is that youth have the potential to be the most switched-on voters of them all. Youth are a huge group - my quick calculations show that this would increase the size of the voting population by about 10% in my country, and it's probably more in others. They have the potential to significantly affect the outcome of any given election. The net impact is, obviously, that better qualified candidates get elected, provided my premise holds true that youth are better qualified voters. In the long run, education is usually harder to forget if practiced both immediately and regularly thereafter. If nothing else, the fact that not only their social and economic future but also their educational future is at stake would provide greater incentives for them to actually use the resources that are available to them, which given the nature of the educational environment they are immersed in are much more objective and informative. In wider society, this more intelligent discourse brought about by young people can only improve the outcomes of the election.On the other hand, despite the already impressive ability for young people to be politically active, giving them the vote would create incentives to learn more. Being engaged at school is generally hard when half the subjects one is taught bear no relevance to a young person's real life. By contrast, giving them the vote makes everything relevant and important to their immediate life.ChangeAs people grow older, they become more conservative. This is a natural progression because people get used to existing social orders very easily given time. This is why so many old people were upset when they discovered in the early 90s (with the more widespread adoption of the internet and so on) that young people actually had political opinions. But the opinions of young people are quite different, because they reject these social orders and strive to create better ones. This has been happening for thousands of years, and as a result, the social orders have excluded the young from their ranks.This is bad because our society is not perfect, and we want to improve it. Conserving the status quo won't change a thing, but it's what older voters are naturally biased to. That's why we need people who will make change happen. Usually, youth tend to be the most progressive of all demographics (not necessarily in the liberal sense of that word), which is good because it helps our society improve faster and breaks down the social barriers to political discourse, building democracy. Young people also have the greatest incentives to make positive change, given that they ConclusionI'd like to have a serious chat to whoever came up with the age of 18 for voting. It's completely arbritrary. It's conferring no social benefit. It's disenfranchising the young and harming the whole electoral process.

The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 The voting age in the U.S. should be lowered to fourteen years of age. The rationale behind this is that the working age in the U.S. is fourteen. Now, if one is working a pay-check job, then the government is charging taxes on that pay-check. And if one is being taxed by the government and they do not have the right to vote, then that is taxation without representation. Taxation without representation is one of the reasons why the U.S. broke away from British rule in the first place, so it is ironic and somewhat ridiculous that the U.S. now imposes taxation without representation on anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 who is working a pay-check job. There are basically three logical arguments that I can think of that are on "my side of the fence", so to speak: 1. Total Agreement. "The voting age should definitely be lowered to 14." 2. Compromise. "The voting age should be lowered, but not to 14; it should be lowered to 15, 16, or 17." 3. Alternative solution. "Voting rights should be based on something other than age, such as credit score, employment, level of education, or some other basis." You may agree with one of the above opinions, or you may have your own opinion. I hope that I see lots of original positions, different from the ones listed above. Thank you for joining or commenting on this debate.

Should the voting age be lowered The voting age should be lowered for many reasons: 1) People think that kids would make horrible choices with the power to vote, but adults make horrible choices too. like for instance look at who is in office right now. Us teenagers did not. 2) The government can control our choices, so we should have a say in the government. 3) We are at least somewhat mature (i would say mature but some are not and are probably going to stay that way through adulthood anyway)

Lowering the voting age to 16 People below the age of eighteen are less biased, while people over eighteen are bribed. That is why it would better American politics.

Lowering the voting age to 16 "People below the age of eighteen are less biased, while people over eighteen are bribed. That is why it would better American politics."This is unfounded and absurd.

The voting age should be lowered to 16 The younger generation is arguably affected the most by many of the votes that take place across this world, yet they do not get a say in what happens. I believe they should, hence why the voting age should be lowered to 16.

Lowering the voting age to 16 Adults have forever messed up the country, so what would be the harm in allowing sixteen and seventeen year olds to also vote? Under the law of eighteen and older that we currently have, minors who are intelligent enough to monitor an election and unbiasedly elect a canidate are forced under the leadership of the biased and politically uneducated voting of adults. This is not fair. Lowering the voting age to sixteen would allow teens a fair chance at really deciding their future.

It would get younger people interested in politics I agree that younger people need to be interested in politics. However, to give them the vote before they are educated and experienced enough to make truly informed decisions would be a disaster. (Speaking mainly from a U.S. standpoint): Many young people do not even know the history of their own country, let alone the history of other countries. They do not understand the different systems of government in the world and the history of those governments, some of which led to the deaths of millions of people! I hear many young people say history is "irrelevant and meaningless", but nothing could be further from the truth! To paraphrase, "Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it" could well apply to many young people today, as well as some older people, who have not bothered to learn history, or learn the Constitution, or learn about particular issues. People, these things CAN be a matter of life and death - the difference between being free or being a slave, between living under a freely elected leader or dying in a camp under a dictator! If young people want to get involved in politics, they should start at a local level as a volunteer. In the meantime, get educated and experienced before taking the important step of voting!

Lowering the voting age Hi everyone. It' s very nice to see you guys again. Well, Jane I am enjoying this debate too. Before going to my arguments, I would like to answer the question that Jane ask to me. 1.Yes I think so. As many people said our children such as high students or universities, are becoming smarter and smarter. Of course 50 years old business man keep more experience than 18years old students but I don't think that experience and voting has no relationship. 2.Sorry, Jane I remember that I didn't said that over 18 is a adults.:) 3.Even though they didn't experience, I heard in school, teacher tell them how to choose good president for our county. Plus, they have voting a president is their classroom, right? And they can experience many times to choose good president of Korea. Well, now I'm going to move to my arguments. Well, I'm going to give you guys a example of Americans just like all other Americans, young Americans pay taxes. In fact, they pay a lot of taxes. According to the IRS, teens pay an estimated $9.7 Billion dollars in sales taxes alone, not to mention many millions of taxes on income. "You may be a teen, you may not even have a permanent job, but you have to pay taxes on the money you earn." Youth pay billions in taxes to state, local, and federal governments yet they have absolutely no say over how much is taken. This is what the American Revolution was fought over; this is taxation without representation. In addition to being affected by taxes, young people are affected by every other law that Americans live under. As fellow citizens in this society, every action or inaction taken by lawmakers affects youth directly, yet they have no say in the matter. According to a study conducted by Dr. Frank Smearing of the University of Chicago, he found that "Between 1992 and 1995, forty American states relaxed the requirements for transferring an accused under the maximum age of jurisdiction into criminal court," and "In Colorado, for example, defendants under the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction may nonetheless be charged by direct filing in criminal court if they are over 14 years of age and are charged with one of a legislative list of violent crimes." What kind of message do we send when we tell youth they are judged as mature, responsible adults when they commit murder, but silly, brainless kids when they want to vote? This is a double standard, no different than during the Vietnam War. War isn't a dead issue now either, leaders who youth can't vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Lowering the voting age is the fair and correct way to set things straight. Thirdly, today¢&;ç&castle;s politicians represent various constituencies. As of today, young people are no one's constituency. Why should politicians care about the needs and wishes of youth when they have no ability to vote for or against them? Politicians have no motivation whatsoever. Lowering the voting age will give politicians a real reason to respect the desires of young people. The words spoken before the Senate Judicatory Committee supporting lowering the voting age in 1971 are as true then as they are now, "The anachronistic voting-age limitation tends to alienate them [the youth] from systematic political processes and to drive them to into a search for an alternative, sometimes violent, means to express their frustrations over the gap between the nation's deals and actions. Lowering the voting age will provide them with a direct, constructive and democratic channel for making their views felt and for giving them a responsible stake in the future of the nation." In conclusion, every person in the United States is born with the individual responsibility to be active in the political process. Without allowing youth to vote, we can¢&;ç&castle;t expect teenagers to care for the political process. Thank you..

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.

The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered.

Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Lowering the voting age to 16 will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, have an appreciation for local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those just two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings, school, parents, and stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote. Lower the voting age, and youth will vote.

The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered My opinion is that the voting age limit should be lowered to 16 as that is in the very center of the passage from childhood to adulthood. Many responsibilities are given to people at the age of 16 and I believe that voting for president should be one of them.

The voting age should be reduced to 14. Originally you had to be 21 to vote in the United States. The voting age was lowered to 18 because young men were being drafted to the Vietnam war before they were old enough to vote. The government changed the voting age because the lives of young people were being directly impacted by government policy, and they believed young people should have a say. https://en.wikipedia.org... Policy affects everyone including children. Small kids are not smart or informed enough to vote, but older students are exposed to things in school that make them more knowledgeable. In fact school is a great place to talk about politics. Adults are discouraged from talking about politics in public which is considered impolite. But in school, students have the opportunity to learn and discuss things. http://www.amazon.com... In most states you can begin working at 14 years old. Teens are working and paying income taxes. They are also paying sales tax on their purchases. By not allowing them to vote, it is taxation without representation. https://www.dol.gov... Con says kids are too young or stupid to vote, but that could be said about many adults as well. We don't have a screening process that makes sure people are intelligent enough to vote. Many 14 and 15 year olds are smarter than 18 and 19 year olds, or even 48 and 49 year olds. Age does not determine intelligence or maturity.

The voting age should be lowered to 14 The reason why 14 years olds aren't allowed to vote is that many don't understand the issues, or don't care. Most 14 years olds don't have a job, or have a household to run, like an adult does. Adults understand the issues way more than a 14 year old does.

Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Voting Age Should not be LoweredThere are three main reasons why voting age should not be lowered, these are: 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, they do not yet have enough experience or are as aware of the world around them and the way it will effect their lives and that 16 and 17 year olds and their lack of understanding on the responsibility of casting a voteFirstly, are 16 and 17 year olds mature enough to handle a vote? No, they are not. If they are not yet considered mature enough to be in the army, protecting and making decisions for their country, they are definitely not mature enough to decide the future of themselves and others. Most 16 and 17 year olds do not pay taxes, so therefore none of their money will go towards the way their government is running the country. If 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country. As well as this your brain is still not fully developed until you turn 30.16 and 17 year olds have not got enough experience of the world to vote. They will not have had a long term job or the responsibility of running their own lives but the proposition would hand the way the country is run to a 16 year old? If you would not trust an average 16 year old with your life why would you give them our country. We do not have 16 or17 year old politicians so why have voters that age? They will both do the same, decide the future of the country.Could a 16 or 17 year old handle the responsibility of voting? You are only allowed to be part of a jury when you are 18 and older, making the decision that could change someone's life forever. This shows they could not handle the responsibility of deciding the future of millions of the other people in their country. So no, they could not handle this responsibility.So as I have shown 16 and year olds should not get a vote, if you disagree please accept my challenge!

That the voting age should be lowered to 15 EngagementMy opponent does not actually have a rebuttal to this, so he simply refers to his old slippery slope fallacy. I've maintained throughout the debate that at the point where you have a reason to be engaged with politics, you should be allowed to vote, without going too early (before you have a reason) because of the disenfranchisement. Maybe we're all just really dumb in New Zealand, but basic social studies units on politics are taught at age 13-14, upon completion of which they should be able to vote under my model (age 15). The reason why this is a reasonable compromise is because that's when we grant them the necessary rights and responsibilities to be a politically active member of society at that age, and social studies exists to prepare them for that fact. Of course, I've already conceded that in a minority of countries where teenagers are extra-smart and thus taught politics at an earlier age, they should be allowed to vote earlier as well. The harms of a disengaged society are sweeping, as I've pointed out in much greater detail in my first round and my opponent does not respond to. Ultimately, the choice is whether age 15 or 30 is a better estimate for when people become politically engaged. I've presented evidence throughout the debate that youth after around age 15 do think politically, and my opponent has presented none to the contrary. The point stands. EducationMy degree is in business, and one of my finals papers was on this very topic (and I went to the most prestigious, top-ranked business school in the country). Business is not an independent discipline. Mathematics, for example, is crucial for business, even though it (in and of itself) has nothing to do with it. Same with science, or engineering, the basis of all the major disruptive technologies. Ethics overlays strongly with business, as does history. Simply because one is not exclusively a business student (something that I think quite irrational, since business always in some way or another depends on other disciplines) does not mean one does not pursue business studiously. And the same goes with politics. The reason why 15 year olds don't pay attention is because, as I've already explained in great depth in my disengagement point, they are given strong incentives to not pay any attention. People used to wonder why women didn't care much for certain disciplines (for example, law or accounting). People put it down to all kinds of silly, apparently "scientific" explanations about female brains. All of them have now been completely debunked. Turns out that the reason they didn't care is because they had no chances of getting a career in those fields, since there were no other workers of their gender there. A few affirmative action programs later, and now women outnumber men in these fields in many countries. Similarly, give youth the vote, and they'll start paying attention more. I'm glad my opponent concedes that the "advanced" students at age 15 don't even need to do this. Much of this point has gone unanswered by my opponent as well, such as how I talked in round two about creating incentives to learn more about politics and learn more generally, or about how youth have access to better resources, or about how basic learning theory shows that youth are best placed to make political judgements, or about how youth can be a catalyst for political discourse in the general population. The point is that 15 year olds generally have all the right educational advantages to qualify them to make a more informed decision. ChangeMy point was that youth do not accept social orders and seek to break them down. My opponent mostly concedes this argument, but claims that youth will just follow their parents and that these social orders are moral. The latter claim can be easily dismissed as there's no evidence for that. Denying blacks civil rights was a social order, and most people would agree breaking that was morally good. One of the most pernicious social orders today is ageism itself, which needs to stop. In any event, the bias towards conservatism in political discourse is unsettling because it isn't representative. The former claim is empirically not true. Many children would rebel, and my guess is many more would if the cycle of apathy is broken as under my model. But even if the difference would not be made by every person who is now given the vote, it would be a change for the better, since all the remainder would only be reflective of the rest of society. Slippery slopeHistory is not political studies. For everything else, see my engagement point. No stakeCon's 25% figure comes from a blog, which cites an article, which cites some computer model projections, where the computer's most pessimistic prediction was that youth WOULD only have 1/4 employment. It's not a statistic, it's a model. And the article then goes on to describe how this model's prediction is extraordinarily low. And that's just summer jobs - what about all the other forms of employment a teen might have? Nevertheless it's not relevant, because con has never justified why:1) voting is an economic decision or has primarily economic impacts2) teenagers cannot make decisions on behalf of others they care about3) we should not care about those teenagers that do work, and4) teenagers cannot think about their futureCon does say that paying taxes gives you the right to vote. Which is incredibly strange, given that he thinks older people are better voters. Pensions are in fact huge drains on tax funds, especially in our aging society - and that's not to mention the massive costs to society of dole bludging, or worse, tax dodging. The fact is that you do not "buy" a right to vote with your money, and any suggestion that taxes are for that purpose would be to completely undermine democracy. Irrational/immatureRather than rebut my argument, con chooses to rebut two random sentences of my argument. As to his claim that the science is on his side, his first article agrees with me that teens are quite capable of making good decisions, the second agrees teens make rational decisions (both in the last paragraphs), and the other two are blogs by professional writers. It's an attempt to ignore all my substantive analysis and examples to the contrary (EYP, MUNA etc). For the other claim, that raising the voting age is a "cheap and reasonable equivalent" of barring stupid voters, that depends on who gets to define stupid. I for one don't want to live in a state where people are segregated based on perceived intelligence. The point is democracy is to hear all voices - even those you think are stupid. Was David Yuval, the kid who campaigned against landmines, stupid? Malala Yousafzai, the girl who campaigned tirelessly for girls' education? Hamza Ali al-Khateeb, the greatest martyr of the Arab Spring? It took a lot of guts for adults to take these young people seriously, and they changed the world for the better. Stupid just because they're young? I don't think so. These kids went after the causes and they got the effects. Independent reasoningTo be a valid argument, pro still needs to show why independent reasoning is a valid excuse for not allowing voting. None of his sources explains how entirely independent reasoning is even possible, and they certainly don't explain why they are a necessary standard for voting. The point of my 40% figure is that the difference in independent voting (as opposed to reasoning) is very small between youth and adults. The difference is no surprise, given that there is disengagement, and it has nothing to do with independence of thinking. It's simply a sign of an apathetic attitude. I hate it too, but the difference is that con wants to reinforce it - I want it eliminated. I have a vision that we can live in a society where every voice is heard and respected. That's what I'm standing for in this debate. The resolution is affirmed.

Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages There is a notable difference between how young people and the elderly are treated. Giving the vote to teenagers would force politicians to take them seriously. Policies on education (e.g. student loans) would have to take their views and interests into account for the first time. 16 year olds today are well-educated and media-savvy, so they can express informed opinions. But at the moment young people’s views are easily ignored by those in power because they don’t have the vote. The vote for 16-18 year olds would help redress the growing age imbalance which is occurring as a result of aging. In the rich world by 2050 one in three will be a pensioner and one in ten over 80.[1] These voters will clearly be looking after their benefits at the expense of the young. [1] The Economist, ‘A slow-burning fuse’, 25 June 2009

the voting age should be lowered to 16. That being said I will offer up my refute as follows. In terms of education their is already the existence of student councils definition: "The student council helps share students' ideas, interests, and concerns with teachers and school principals. They often also help raise funds for school-wide activities, including social events, community projects and school reform. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus students can enact their ideas in a fair manner, for example my own school recently got their hat policy removed due to efforts from student government. However, I'd like to point out that not all students know what is best for their school. Many children for example would argue that they would like less homework, because it is a hassle. Further more teenagers many times have their own inner emotions developing and thus their priorities can differ between what they believe is right and what ultimately is right. Further more students are able to influence the vote toward let's say a super-attendant who is the one who ultimately sets up school policies (outside of the department of education but this is picked by the president and not in an open election). Students should not be able to gain this power because they are still minors and under the authority of their legal guardians. Thus parents are the ones who have the right to decide what is just and un-just for their child. In terms of tax payers I will be brief; each school system spends a lot of money in terms of the education and upbringing of kids from Pre-K to the time they walk out of the public school system. I believe no matter how many taxes kids may pay their is no way it is equivalent to the amount of money total spent by the government on the kids education; including school discounts, scholarships, health services, food discounts etc. Thus to be honest your tax dollars really are only being put to benefit you. I absolutely agree that youth are "capable" of having an educated opinion. However, does that mean the majority of kids are able to make rational decisions while ignoring outside influences? Obama had a lot of support from the "gangster" community as many rappers openly promoted Obama. Thus kids can easily be influenced by their own idols, I believe many kids will openly admit they have somebody who they look up too. During a survey conducted; "Analyzing the results of a test administered to a sample of high-school juniors of different races, sexes, income levels and geographic regions," "Three quarters of the students did not know when Abraham Lincoln was president; three of every ten could not place the Civil War in the proper half-century. More than a third could not place the writing of the Constitution in the proper half-century. Map questions revealed only the most elementary knowledge of American or European geography; many girls, black and Hispanic students had trouble locating Great Britain. For the most part what information or misinformation students had about world events and great works of literature seem to come from movies and television rather than from school. " . http://www.aim.org... Thus we see that not only are kids not aware of even some of the most basic facts of American know-how; but further more they are easily influenced from outside sources rather than the school system. I would like to ask my opponent to provide the number of people who took this program and further information on it (WTP); obviously if I go into a top Honors course where they have been teaching U. S. policy all day it is quite clear this group would be able to answer questions correctly. Further more just because a person know how U. S. government works doesn't necessarily mean they know all the current issues. A government major can still be ignorant of current affairs plaguing the country. Regarding IQ tests I would like to point out that one may be "smart" without being knowledgeable in politics. Their are many very-well educated people in their fields who are unaware of some of the most basic facts about politics; things such as who is Obama's vice-president, who I personally recall asking my fellow peers and many of which could not answer. My opponent has no proof that youth voting will increase adult voting; I would like to point out that many young kids elect to help out at local campaign groups to help their candidate win. Thus a kid does not need to vote to go out to influence people to vote for their cause. I would like to also point out again that kids can easily be influenced by their own idols or by peer pressure, a major thing that teens deal with. I'm not even going to spend my time on the idea that the "evil conservatives" are stopping the "innocent liberals" from voting because they are afraid that all young people will vote liberal. I would like to point out to my opponent that when you are born in the U. S. you get a birth certificate claiming citizenship; essentially as a citizen you are required to follow the laws set by the government. I myself do not like Obama but that does not mean I can ignore the laws set by the government because I do not like him. Further more we have junior courts to specifically punish young people without imposing long-last implications except in the most severe courses. Their is a difference between tried as a minor and tried as an adult. Adults are allowed to punish minors just like adults can punish other adults. A minor is meant to be in a growing stage and thus it is up to his guardians to instill good values in him; further more a minor is still allowed their rights and if he is done an injustice he is allowed to bring a complaint against it and his guardians are allowed to file a suit. You can't smack a child in school for example without the risk of being sued for physical harm. I would like my opponent to provide proof of all these studies and polls that prove teenagers want to vote, further more even if they want to vote; I assume also many would like to have the ability to drink. I assume many would like to be able to take only single-subject courses and not be subjected to have to take multiple subject courses. Further more what substantial change would be warranted by lowering the age to 16 or older? Minors are denied so many liberties already that are not permitted until reaching the age of 18, so the idea that lowering the voting age would affect them more directly is not necessarily true. The main thing is also that they are under the guardianship of a higher authority parent who has the right to decide what is right for their own child. The government by allowing votes by young people is essentially taking the rights away from parents to decide what is right for their individual child. "The ages from 15 to 18 are an exciting time of life. But these years can be challenging for teens and their parents. Emotions can change quickly as teens learn to deal with school, their friends, and adult expectations. " "Even though they have a certain amount of empathy and can understand that others have different ideas, they often strongly believe that their own ideas are the most true. " "Much of teens' emotional and social growth is about finding their place in the world. They are trying to figure out "Who am I? " and "How do I fit in? " So it is normal for their emotions to change from day to day. " . http://health.yahoo.com... By utilizing these quotes above we can see that for multiple reasons teenagers are still not at the level of maturity that they can be considered well-minded enough to be able to vote for a general good.

The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds "Most youths at 15 years old most likely have much more pressing things to worry about than politics and voting."Like what? I cannot respond unless you can provide examples and I am sure that they can't be too busy to decide who will govern their country for the next 4 years (UK). I personally cannot think of any normal activity a 15 year old would have that voting could get in the way of. Yes, exams are important but there is no point in doing well in exams if you cannot afford to go to university. "many youths will most likely just flip a coin and make a random choice because they do not care. "Now, I'm sure that both me and you know that this is a stereotype without any evidence that argument is easily refuted. "15 year olds should be worrying about grades, college, homework, and possibly driving." Adult have work that they actually get paid for and they seem to manage. It is also incredibly beneficial because they get a say in the education department of voting. Adults wont necessarily focus in on that as much as children may want them to. They are no longer a child so it does not effect them as much it would effect a child voting. As I have said in my first rebuttal, deciding who governs your country for the next 4 years is not an insignificant thing and most 15 year olds will acknowledge this."They should not be worrying about politics." Politics is extremely important for when they grow up. In my school they made me study politics until I was done with my GSCE (15 years old). When you leave school you are new and unfamiliar with the world. You cannot walk into modern society and not know the difference between left wing and right wing; labor or conservative - that wouldn't be right. Assuming you get a job with no relation to politics (because not everyone does) how are you going to learn the difference between the two. How are you going to know what each party stands for? " Other ones will not take it seriously! " How do you know? You haven't provided any evidence to support this claim, have you?

Should the voting age be lowered Rebuttals:1) Just because teenagers did not support the historic and monunmental election of God Emperor Donald J. Trump, that does not mean they do not make terrible choices. Moreover, by so many metics, teenagers make poorer decisions than adults. Teenage brains are still developing and, as a consequence, teenagers are more likely to do the following: seek excitement and engage in risk-taking behaviour make choices on impulse focus on short-term gains fail to anticipate consequences of their choices [1] Just last week they were eating tide pods for the love of Thatcher! We should demand more of our voters.2) Adolescents have far less at stake in the political system than adults. If the economy were to tank because of public mismanagement, it would not impact a teenage nearly as much as it would an adult who works fulltime to survive, owns a home, and has capital investments. Moreover, they pay few taxes and cannot be drafted.3) See point 1.Sources:[1] https://tinyurl.com...

The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered The voting age limit should be lowered from 18 (17 in some states) to 16 at most. My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? many people are sophisticated enough to vote even under the age of 16! Format for debate: Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Final statement

Lowering the voting age to 15 It would be dangerous to give young people the vote. They might use it in foolish ways. For example they might vote for celebrities or make their decision on which party had the best image. They might put extremists into power or vote without thinking on single issues (e.g. making drugs legal, free university places, cheap beer!).

Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Introduction Hello, Con! I am excited to debate this issue for many reasons: my primary one, however, is because I have not debated in a long time and this looks like a good debate to get myself back in gear. It is an interesting idea, and you make some pretty interesting points. However, I feel I can counter them, and provide a few good reasons of my own for why the voting age should be lowers, or, at least, why eighteen year olds are no more responsible or mature than a sixteen or seventeen year old. I know that this will fulfill my burden of proof, but it will at least, hopefully, show why your arguments are not quite as good as you may believe them to be, in my opinion. That being said, let's start with rebuttals! Rebuttal 1: Maturity My primary issues with this point are that you have not provided statistical support for your claim, and you are begging the question. You are basing your reasoning behind why you believe eighteen year olds are more mature than sixteen year olds on things such as military age. However, this conclusion is under the assumption that eighteen year olds are mature enough to join the military, or that sixteen year olds are not mature enough to. The primary reason why the age to join the military is eighteen and not sixteen is because most sixteen year olds are in high school. This is not a problem of maturity, but a problem of circumstance. Of course, I can also turn this argument around and say that, because sixteen year olds are mature enough to own and drive a car, they should be allowed to vote. I am sure you disagree with this reasoning: but why? It is the same reasoning you are using with why they should not; I'm only turning it on its head. In fact, you made this point for me! “If 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country.” I would hardly say that the amount of teenagers paying taxes is low: “At any given time approximately 45% of 16-17 year olds will be working and up to 80% of all teens will have a job before they graduate from high school. ” (1) If you have a job, even as a teenager, you pay taxes. That does not even take into account the fact that teens overall spent an estimated 9.7 billion in sales taxes alone! (2) Our brain is not fully developed until we hit thirty. Indeed. Are you arguing that we should increase the voting system, then, to 30? Rebuttal 2: Experience Why would you not trust a sixteen year old with your life? What about a sixteen year old makes them more untrustworthy than an eighteen year old? Furthermore, sixteen year olds cannot run for office. This is true. However, neither can an eighteen year old. Can you guess what the youngest age you can be to run for any political office in the United States of America? 25. (3) Are you arguing that we should raise the age to 25? But they are not fully developed themselves; so, 30? Yes, most 16 or 17 year olds have not had a long-term job or have run their own lives. But neither will an 18 year old: in fact, most people will not have this responsibility until they leave college, which is usually around 22 (given that post people finish college with a bachelor's degree). This is not even mentioning the fact that, whoever is on the ballot, adults will vote for at the same percentage as children. If children can vote bad, than adults can vote bad as well. There is no objectively wrong vote, though; one's opinion is their own. Your basic argument regarding the whole untrustworthy children when it comes to making decisions is one that can be applied to any adult. After all, I wouldn't trust just any adult with my life. Sixteen year olds would have the same options as adults. Rebuttal 3: Responsibility That logic is just silly. You must prove that a sixteen year old cannot fulfill the role of a juryman. The primary reason they are not is, once again, a problem of circumstance: being on jury requires that you miss school. Furthermore, juryman are decided based on voting registrars; you have to vote to be a part of a jury! So, this begs the question: 16 or 17 year olds cannot vote because they cannot be juryman because they cannot vote. This is circular logic. Point 1: No taxation without representation It is what the founding fathers fought for: teenagers pay quite a bit in taxes, as I have already pointed out in rebuttal one. As such, they deserve the same level of representation as others who pay taxes. Indeed, they may not pay the same amount in taxes as everybody else, but circumstances have always been a factor in what taxes are given to what people. After all, 47% of people do not pay income tax, because of age or socioeconomic standing (most are elderly or poor, or both). Point 2: Stability Sixteen and seventeen are good times to vote, stability-wise. Eighteen is one of the worst times, in fact. Sixteen and seventeen year olds are stationary; they attend school and have a regular social life. They have no real major changes that affect their lives. However, eighteen year olds are generally transitioning to colleges, attempting to find stable employment, and sometimes trying to find a place to live. This is also a time of economic instability: after all, college is significantly more expensive than anything you'll need to pay for in high school, and those who do not go to college still need to find a way to sustain themselves outside of their parent's homes. They are still trying to settle down. Point 3: Voter Turnout Voter turnout will increase if you lower the voting age. Studies such as Merrill's study of five states that had implemented a program called Kids Voting USA, which gives children information on voting and politics, and five states that did not implement the program. He found that parent turnout increased three percent, due to parents being inspired to vote due to their kid's enthusiasm to voting. The number was as high as nine percent in some states! (4) It would be logical, therefore, that voter turnout would increase in both children and adults if the voting age was lowered. Point 4: Unique point of view Voters will, obviously, vote based on their circumstances in life. As teenagers have a different point of view as, say, a mentally senile seventy-three year old man (who has just as much right to vote as a mentally stable thirty year old), they will provide a unique point of view to the election. Along with that, their views will be heard and considered by politicians when they make political decisions that affect things such as education and raising or lowing minimum wage, as just a few examples. Conclusion I eagerly await my opinion's response. This was a lot of fun! Best of luck to my opponent; his opinions are interesting, but I am curious of his actual position: is he in favor of keeping the minimum age of voting at eighteen? Or is he in favor of increasing the voting age? Based on what he said, it seems like the latter. If that is the case, this should be a very interesting debate indeed. Sources:(1) www.oshainfo.gatech.edu/teen-techguide1.pdf (WARNING: This is a PDF file. You'll need some form of reader to access it.)(2) http://www.youthrights.org...; second point(3)http://www.earlyamerica.com...(4)http://www.uvm.edu...

It would help distinguish between levels of elections The number of different elections can be confusing; almost everyone has three, European, National, and local, and some have others added in such as Mayoral, or regional elections. As such there is much to be gained from helping to differentiate elections by not being concerned about being allowed to vote for them all at the same age. Having elections for the European Parliament at the age of 16 would clearly distinguish the elections from all the other elections within the country (with the exception of Austria). For the European Union this would be an opportunity to show that it cares for the youth vote and has their issues at heart as it is a chance to get teenagers involved in Europe before they can be involved in their own national elections. For the teenagers it provides a chance to engage with one election, and one electoral system, before all the others helping to keep things simple.

We should change the voting age to 15. Heck no. The 1961 Bobo Doll experiment, conducted by Stanford professor Albert Bandura, demonstrated that children will interact with others in the precise manner that was modeled for them by adults. Given this responsibility, many parents try to instruct their children and impart their views, perhaps hoping their kids become carbon copies of themselves, or become the people they wish they were themselves. Parents can get the advantage of their children's voting right and manipulate them to their political view. Then they will vote without having any experience in politics. When your 18, your brain is more developed and choice become more independent. Also, it will cost a lot more if we lowered the voting age to 15, bringing taxes up. The 2016 Election cost 6.8 BILLION dollars, imagine how much more it would cost if there were a whole bunch more people. Plus, most teenagers probably wouldn't care or they don't know who to decide so they don't vote. In 2010, only 21% of 18-24-year-olds voted.

Young people would be more likely to misuse their vote Young people are not the only ones who vote for extremists, the elderly are also more likely to vote for far right parties.[1] It is important in a democracy to include as wide a range of opinion as possible; a tendency to vote for more radical ideas should not be a reason for disenfranchising someone, or even more so disenfranchising a whole group. There are however also reasons to believe that 16 to 18 year olds could potentially use their votes more wisely than their elders. When looking at Austria it was found that those in education paid more attention to political news than those in work. 30% of people working followed political news less than once a week compared to only 15% of those in education.[2] As students are therefore better informed it would seem to be likely they would use their votes more wisely. [1] Arzheimer, Kai, and Carter, Elizabeth, ‘Political Opportunity Structures and Right-Wing Extremist Party Success’, European Journal of Political Research, 2006, p.4 [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.10

Lower the Voting Age Teenagers are affected by politics, and therefore should have a say in it. Many issues that are voted on directly affect primarily teenagers. One big example being education. Issues that tend to effect teenagers more than adults: voucher system Educational funding homeschooling Minimum wage Collage pricing Teenagers are held accountable to the law. If someone is to be held to the law, they should also have some kind of say in it. All States allow juveniles to be tried as adults. Even if sentencing was always reduced or changed for minors, they still had no way for their opinion to count in any fashion. . https://www.ncjrs.gov...Teenagers are not likely to vote worse than adults.55.7% of the U. S. voting-age population cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election. That is just the presidential election, of which tends to get voted in most. If nearly half the current voting age adults won't vote, having teenagers involved won't hurt. According to my other sources poll, only "36% of Americans could name all three branches of the government"This shows that most people wouldn't be voting if quality of vote was important. . http://www.pewresearch.org...http://www.businessinsider.com...Thank

The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. I apologize to my opponent and the audience for not posting up my source. Here it is: http://debatewise.org... Before I begin my refutation, is any vote really wrong? We cannot say that a teenager will vote for someone because they are misinformed, and that it is the wrong vote. An 18 year old, can be misinformed about politics. A citizen of any age can be misinformed. So why, is it to fall upon the 16 year olds, that they cannot vote because they are misinformed? No vote, is the wrong vote. Now, I'd like to continue with refuting all my opponents points. In my opponent's first point, he stated that "16 year olds are not mature enough to vote". IF they are not mature enough to vote, then how is it they are mature enough to pay taxes, get married, and leave home? All of these things require more maturity than voting. In his second contention, he stated that not everybody needs to vote. Of course not everybody needs to vote, yet THIS debate is about 16 year olds. He then listed examples of toddlers voting. I'd like to remind him that this debate is about 16 year olds, and not toddlers. Therefore his point is irrelevant and has no further use. In his third contention, he stated that more maturity develops when you're 16-18. He then stated the things that develop the maturity, such as a driver's license, or the ability to go to college. How does this develop the maturity required for voting? After all, no vote is the wrong vote. Gaining a driver's license is not going to have a critical effect, on the person's political party and who they want to vote for. Obviously, my opponents point has no meaning. Now, onto my points. Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right? Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. 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. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. 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. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. 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. I await my opponents response.

Rights should be gained progressively 16 year olds already have other rights. For example, in many countries they have the right to leave school and leave home, and the rights to have sex, marry and have children, they can rent accommodation and consent to surgery[1]. It is not reasonable to have different ages for different rights. It makes sense for the right to vote to be at a younger age precisely because the individual has fewer changes to deal with at a younger age, they will therefore find it easier to learn to vote.[2] If young people are considered old enough to make important choices about their own future, why can’t they have a say in deciding the future of their country? [1] Thesite.org, ‘What age can I?’, 5 May 2013 [2] Franklin, Mark N., at al., ‘The Generational Basis of Turnout Decline in Established Democracies’, Acta Politica, March 2004, pp.8-9

The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Welcome to DDO (debate.org)! Yes, the Proposition is a classmate of mine and I return his excitement. I hope that this will be a fun debate for both of us. As the CON side, I will be arguing that the voting age should not be lowered to 16. And without further ado, I would like to begin this debate. Refutations "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." 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. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... "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." 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 [1][2]. Plagiarism. Same source as above. "Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system... there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others." You have provided no evidence for any of your arguments. Your former argument about passion, energy, enthusiasm, and responsibility have absolutely no true cases in which 16 year olds would have possessed such feelings. Anyways, the evidence will be provided in my arguments. Argument is plagiarized. http://debatewise.org... "In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum." Please explain this entire paragraph and put it in your OWN words. Further plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... "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." 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. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... Proposition, I ask that you provide real, hard-core evidence and facts rather than state opinions that you have plagiarised from Debatewise. Arguments 1. 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote The large majority still lives at home and goes to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18, they have finished high school and have legally completed all their educational requirements for their life, they have become much more independent, and they are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents' opinions or adopt silly ideas for the sake of rebellion. Worse, they may be uninformed and vote for the candidate not for his or her policies but the candidate's give-aways A research team headed by The Chief of Brain Imaging at the National Institute of Mental Health, found that in teenager brains, the part of the brain in teenagers where long-term consequences spring to consciousness is not fully mature [3]. 2. Not everyone needs to vote. Governments do things which affect every age group but that does not mean everyone deserves the vote. Should 12 year olds get the vote because school policies affect them? Should toddlers get the vote because health services affect them? No - we trust parents to cast votes after thinking about the interests of their families. And there are other ways for young people to have a say - they can write to elected representatives and newspapers, sign petitions, speak at public meetings, and join youth parliaments. It's not like we're shutting these kids out of the political world forever. Come 2 years time, they'll get to vote. 3. 18 is the best age to have as a minimum for people to vote When you're 18, a lot of things happen to you. First, you officially become a U.S. citizen. This is also the age when you get your driver's license officially, are allowed to take any job you want, and have finished all required education by the U.S. government and can go to college. Now, what about 16 and 17 year olds? Well, they can practice driving under a licensed supervisor, can practice having a job as long as it isn't one of the 55 job types not permitted by the Federal Youth Employment Laws, and they can practice taking college exams or practice completing school. Obviously, in those 2 years gap between 18 year olds and 16 year olds, much maturity and experience is put upon the teenagers, which without, they would be too irresponsible to vote or do most of the things that we legally allow 18 year olds to do. Due to the fact that I have run out of space, I will add 2 more points the next round. I await my opponent's response. Sources: 1. http://wiki.answers.com... 2. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com... 3. http://www.nimh.nih.gov...

Lowering the voting age to 15 Just because 15 year olds have the right to do some things, it doesn’t mean that they should use them. If all 16 year olds left home at 15 and started families it would be considered a disaster. And not all rights are given at 15 - most countries have a higher age for important things such as drinking alcohol, serving on a jury, joining the military, etc. It makes sense for different rights to be gained at different times as young people mature and get used to more responsibility. Because voting is so important, it should be one of the last rights to be gained.

voting age should be lowered kids have read about the government and now the difference between good and bad, they know about government corruption. They have studied history and i argue that they do know who to vote, having a younger age group would help us because they are still is school which would make the votes better for school.

The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered _____________________________________________________________________ In 2012, only 51% of citizens 18-29 years old, let me repeat that, 18 THROUGH 29 years old, voted in the election. If so many 18-29 year old citizens already ignore their right to vote, what difference would it be to give 16-17 year old citizens the same right? "My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? " - 1davey29 Just because 16 year old people have the right to do some things, doesn't mean that they have the right to do everything. If all 16 year olds, for example, had the right to drink alcohol or serve on a jury, or even start their own families, let's face it: for most 16 year olds, it would be a disaster. However, if those rights were staggered to different age levels, they would become more mature and have more of a sense of responsibility. Some choices are just more complex then others, and in that case they must be given at a later level, so they get used to responsibility on a smaller scale before making big decisions. "If 16-year-olds cannot vote, our president, who represents our country, will not accurately represent the people's opinion. " - 1davey29 It is incorrect to say that people vote according to their age, as many grandchildren and children vote according to their grandparent's and parent's views. The government does things that affect people of all age groups, but that doesn't mean, for example, a 12 year old should have the right to vote because new school policies affect them. Should toddlers have the right to vote because the government affects them too? No, because most parents can be trusted to make the best decision for the children. Young people are also a lot more likely to misuse their vote, and use it in a foolish way. The youth would be more likely to vote for the president according to the celebrities that support the candidate, and not the candidate's actual views. While this is not true for all youth, you can be sure that there will be many young people abusing their vote. _____________________________________________________________________ Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for the debate. Source(s): . http://idebate.org...

Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Before I launch into my arguments, I think it reasonable to provide some context to our Democratic Republic and the purpose of voting. This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people. ”(1)At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U. S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Our Congress and our president are subject to our approval given via voting. Contrary to the tyrannical governments of history, the United States, “we the people,” are intended to have the sovereignty and power to govern ourselves. As indicated, one fundamental way that we exercise our sovereignty is through voting. In the history of the United States, the sovereignty of the people has been reinforced as the vote has been expanded to groups that initially could not vote. For example, consider the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments. It is time that the liberty and sovereignty embodied by capacity to vote for President be extended to 17 year olds. For what reason could be given to restrict the liberty of 17 year olds. John Locke argued that The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free"(1) The question of this debate is therefore, do 17 year olds possess the capability of reason. I submit that clearly, 17 year olds are as capable as those 18 years old. The difference between the two ages is negligible at best. The law of the land in most respects acknowledges this. Consider 17 year olds pay taxes (2), drive vehicles, be tried as adults for crimes, and can even die for their country serving in the military. (3) It seems arbitrary to submit 17 year olds to all the responsibility of 18 year olds without the power or sovereignty to vote. Until 17 year olds are granted the right to vote, they are victims of tyranny. Paying taxes without representation, being tried as an adult, and being able to enlist in the military, but being unrepresented in the government to which they are subjected to is tyrannical. My opponent must provide reasoning that demonstrates why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. As I have shown, the difference in age between the two is negligible and thus those who have reached the age of 17 ought to be able to vote for the president that will represent them the next four years. This is why the voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17. Oppose tyranny, support liberty and vote Pro! Sources (1) . http://www.constitution.org... (2) . https://www.irs.gov... (3) . https://en.wikipedia.org...

Would complicate elections Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made.  Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting.[1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots. [1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf, p.3

That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Con would now like to remind readers of the purpose of this debate. The resolution states that we should lower the legal voting age to 15. For Pro to uphold this resolution they must first and foremost explain why this is beneficial. Pro makes many seemingly convincing arguments for why this would be beneficial to 15-17 year olds but fails to show why it would be beneficial to the country. Also Con has made convincing arguments that this would be detrimental to a democratic society and has backed up these arguments with scientific evidence. Con will now attempt to summarize the arguments made by Pro and show a) none of the claims are substantiated rather are all hypothesized reasoning and b) Con has refuted many of the claims made by Pro with scientific evidence. Engagement/Education: Pro argues that 15-17 year olds become disenfranchised due to not being allowed to vote and that this creates an apathetic view towards voting which may result in them continuing not to vote once they do reach legal voting age. Con's main argument against this is admittedly partially of an appeal to the absurd which is why Pro characterizes this argument as being a “slippery slope” argument. Furthermore Pro states that in New Zealand students are not taught politics until the age of 13/14 thus 15 is a good age. This is not a slippery slope argument and while Con does make the argument absurd by going as low as 5 years old, Con does not feel it is absurd to consider 12, 13, or 14 year olds when Pro is making the claim that 15 is the “correct” minimum voting age. Furthermore, anyone familiar with US primary education will note that Government/Economics is generally a senior level course (17/18 years old) and thus would rule out 15 being the minimum age by Pro's own arguments for education. This is one of many instances where Pro makes a claim but offers nothing but anecdotal evidence or hypothetical arguments. If Pro's claim is that it is generally normal for children to learn politics as early as the age of 13/14, then Pro should have presented evidence to back up that claim. Without evidence, we are left with either New Zealand's educational curriculum or the United States'. This does not help to clarify this argument. Change: Pro makes the argument that older generations are more stuck in their ways, making them more likely to promote the status quo as opposed to teens who are more likely to adopt new, novel ways of thinking and thus better policies. Con presented polling data showing that, in fact, teens are more likely to merely vote however their parents do. In Con's rebuttal, they attempt to shift the BoP: “To be a valid argument, pro still needs to show why independent reasoning is a valid excuse for not allowing voting. ” Actually Pro's argument, that teens are independent and novel thinkers, has the BoP. Once again, they fail to present such evidence while Con has provided evidence that this is not the case. Pro's one piece of evidence to support this claim is a poll showing that European youth support gay rights at a much higher rate than their older counterparts (. http://www.eyp.org... ) --which they did not even present as evidence for this particular argument. First this claim presupposes that indeed gay rights are a good thing. While Con agrees, this is not objective reasoning and thus does not support the argument that change is a good thing. Next lets look at Pro's rebuttals of evidence that Con presented showing that teens do not make for very good voters. No Stake: First Pro attempts to attack Con's source which states that only 25% of teens in the US have summer jobs [8]. Pro's major problem with this source is that the number is a model not a statistic. I do not know where Pro gets this idea from or how this refutes the source. Even if we go with the historical high of 60%, this still means a large portion of teens do not work (much higher than for normal adult unemployment of <10% and even underemployment of around 20%). “From the 1950s through the 1990s, between 45 and 60 percent of teenagers had summer jobs” [8] Furthermore, following a link from this article shows that this is from US Census Data [9]. Even so, Pro makes the claim that this is irrelevant: “Nevertheless it's not relevant, because con has never justified why:1) voting is an economic decision or has primarily economic impacts2) teenagers cannot make decisions on behalf of others they care about3) we should not care about those teenagers that do work, and4) teenagers cannot think about their future” First, Con has shown points 2) and 4) to be the case with scientific evidence [1, 2, 3, 4]. I ask readers, what evidence has Pro presented showing these to be true? Furthermore, Con never made the argument 1). Instead Con stated that taxpayers have a right to decide where their money goes—this is not directly related to economic decisions. As for point 3), Con has stated that while some teens do work, the majority (or at the least a large portion), do not. Irrational/Immature: This argument comes down to evidence. Con has made the claim that teen brains are still developing and that studies have shown that they primarily use their amygdala as opposed to their frontal cortex when making decisions. This hinders them from making correct cause-effect decisions. This means teens are not likely to understand the ramifications of their political decisions. Pro's only rebuttal to this evidence is to present hypotheticals intended to refute sound scientific evidence. I don't think comparing Early 20th century “neuroscience” with modern neuroscience research is a valid argument (i. e. saying people argued women's/African Americans' brains were inferior—they merely stated this fact, there was no scientific evidence to back it up as I have presented for teen brains). I think the evidence vs. non-evidence speaks for itself. Con has presented numerous sources—what sources has Pro offered to support their arguments? In conclusion, this debate comes down to evidence. Pro has made elegant pleas as to why teens should be allowed to vote. However, all of Pro's arguments hinge on one single assumption: teens will make good voters. Con has presented overwhelming evidence to support the idea that a) teens are irrational and thus cannot make good political decisions and b) teens are likely to just vote the same as their parents anyway. I will end with a quote from one of my sources which I think hammers home the idea that 15-17 year olds, living at home with their parents, are not likely to make independent decisions. “By the end of the high school years, there’s a “high point of agreement” between parents and children, he said. But during the college years, children who no longer live with their parents are “pretty malleable,” subject to influence from peers, the media and current events and issues, Franklin said. ” [6] Sources:[1] . http://www.aacap.org...[2] . http://brainconnection.positscience.com...[3] . http://www.tesh.com...[4] . http://www.cnn.com... [5] . http://articles.mcall.com...[6] . http://gazettextra.com...[7] . http://www.gallup.com... [8] . http://www.slate.com... [9] . http://online.wsj.com...

Lowering the voting age to 16 Why should other rights still be granted to those who are 18+ and voting should be an exception? The idea that there is recession right now is a matter of controversy among pundits in the academic subject economics. The idea that getting into the wars was negative is certainly an opinion. Therefore, it is your opinion that America has been "messed up." "So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?" the opponent asks. The "why not?" approach isn't an argument for the opponent's position. The opponent has a burden of proof. Why would doing this better American politics?

Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK. ï¿½ The right to vote is one of the most important human rights. It gives men and women the chance to have a say in the way they are governed. It allows them to get rid of bad governments and makes sure that any government listens to its people, for fear of being thrown out at the next election. It is one of the most important ways in which other rights (e.g. free speech, the right to a fair trial) are protected. Not every country in the world is a democracy, with free elections giving citizens a fair political choice. But the right to vote is spreading and outright dictatorships are increasingly few on every continent. Yet what should that right to vote mean? A century or so ago almost no countries allowed women to vote, and it took decades of struggle for them to win political rights.

They deserve to have a say. If they are now in a responsible stage of their life, they deserve a say on who will decide how their schools will be run through elections! Yes Because If a sixteen year old can join the Arm forces, then the right to vote should be allowed. If the voting age is lowered to 16, then politics could become a GCSE course, meaning they will be fully prepared at an early date, ready for an election if they are 16 for example.

Immature Choices If the voting age is lowered to 16, chavs will be voting. They'll vote for what they think is 'cool' and may vote for BNP or a party like that, without knowing what they are doing or letting pass through in an election for example.

The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered How can the president accurately represent us if high schoolers, the very soon to be future of our country cannot vote and give their opinion? If 16-year-olds cannot vote, our president, who represents our country, will not accurately represent the people's opinion.

Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 This is turning out to be quite the intriguing debate! I hope it lasts. I was also unaware that you were a member of the UK. I will try to structure my arguments accordingly, then. Rebuttal 1: MaturityI believe that your link works against you, Pro. Yes, it is true the brain is not developed (usually) until one's mid-20s. However, you do not seem to see the glaringly obvious problem with this argument: mainly, that 18 year olds do not fit this bracket either. As such, you seem to be arguing that 18 year olds are mature enough to handle voting, but use arguments against how 16 year olds should not be allowed to vote that negatively effect 18 year olds as well. Regarding schools, you seem to ignore two pretty obvious holes in this idea that 16 or 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they are still in school: firstly, you state later that whether or not they are in school is irrelevant, because they can leave school at age 16. As such, they must have the maturity to handle not being in school, by your own logic, correct? Secondly, 18 year olds oftentimes (especially in the UK) attend universities. As such, an 18 year old is bound by the same problem: they are still learning. Yes, they cannot join the army at age 16, but they are mature enough to pledge to enroll and take JROTC courses that train them in the same things they would be trained in as 18 year olds enrolling for the army. 16 year olds cannot walk into a bar, it is true. However, in the United States, neither can an 18 year old. This is different from someone from the United Kingdom, where the legal drinking age is 18 (and lower if in a household). Does that mean that the age of maturity differs between countries? Seems doubtful. It is a good point to say that teenagers are taught to drive. However, teenagers are taught to vote, as well. Not in a technical way, but they are taught political issues, the opinions of these issues, the outcome of many political ideas, and how the government and voting system works. We are taught this in the form of Civics classes and Government classes in schools. In fact, you learn Civics and Government more than you learn how to drive! You cannot use a lack of being taught as an argument, because it is simply not true. Rebuttal 2: ExperienceMost 18 year olds do not hold a stable job. Hell, most 25 year olds hold a stable job. Many people cannot hold a stable career until after college, which can last as long as four years time. You have not provided a reason why a 16 year old's lack of experience is any different from an 18 year old's lack of it. Teens are given experience in the adult world: as pointed out before, 80% of American teenagers have had a job and pay taxes before their graduations. Is having a job not experience? If not, how does an 18 year old who is has not left is parent's house, is going to college, and lacks a job have any more experience than the average 16 year old? Most do not sustain for themselves. Colleges provide cafeterias (which means they don't cook for themselves) and many parents provide their children with enough income to survive being outside of the house; as such, they do not need to get a job. On top of this, most colleges have roommate systems, meaning they are not living on their own. Rebuttal 3: ResponsibilityYes, their prefrontal cortex is not developed at that age. But, once again, the glaring hole appears: neither have the 18 year old's prefrontal cortex. Furthermore, peer pressure is a common human experience: it does not suddenly stop when you hit 18. Counter-Rebuttal 1: Taxation without representationIf they receive no representation in the form of democracy, than why tax them? That is all I am saying. I would also repeat that the same problem arises for an 18 year old, but I think you got the point by now. If a teenager is taxed, than they should have a say; it is why, for instance, a third of American colonists attempted to secede from Great Britain, as they were not given parliamentary representation despite paying off most of Britain's war debts. If they are not mentally developed enough to vote, what makes them mentally developed enough to be taxed? Or to have a job, for that matter? Counter-Rebuttal 2: StabilityYes, teens have no money pressures, live in shelter, and have few worries. As in, they have time and energy to sit down and reflect on their political opinions, and who is the right people to run the nation. This is opposed to an eighteen year old who is so worried about so many major changes going on in his or her life that they cannot simply sit down and reflect on who they think will be better, and will likely make worse decisions as a result. Indeed, people vote in the way that benefits them and for those who share their political beliefs. However, people who have an unstable life have no time to actually give this any thought. Counter-Rebuttal 3: Voter turnoutI was not so much saying that more teenagers would come out if they were allowed in earlier as I was that more parents would be inspired to vote, as the study suggested. I would disagree in saying that we are talking about adolescents: after all, my point is to lower the voting age. I can propose any lower age I feel is arguably sound. However, I am not mentally deficient: I would say 16 would be the lowest I would be willing to go. The program includes adolescents, and there is proof that more parents turn out when children (and adolescents) are excited or participating. As such, voter turnout would still increase. Counter-Rebuttal 4: Unique point of viewThey would provide the unique point of view of someone a part of the education system. They can provide a view on how to improve their education quality, for instance. As for money and finances, teens oftentimes have jobs as I have pointed out. They would provide the perspective of a youth just beginning in the workforce. Etc. Conclusion:I eagerly await your response!

The voting age should be reduced to 16 The large majority of teenagers who would be voting would at least do some research though. Many adults vote solely based on political party. The fact still remains that 16 year olds are being taxed without representation which is unconstitutional. In order for 16 year olds to be taxed, they need to be able to vote for representatives that represent their interests and they currently cannot do that.

Young people would be more likely to misuse their vote It would be dangerous to give young people the vote. They might use it in foolish ways. For example they will be more likely to make their decision on which party had the best image; so will vote for parties that put up celebrities. They are also more likely to vote for extremists into power or vote without thinking on single issues (e.g. making drugs legal, free university places, cheap beer!). It is notable that in late 1990’s Russia 80% of the Communist party’s members were under 30, and a far right nationalist party, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, has called to lower the voting age to 16.[1] A study from the University of Nijmegen found that younger people are over represented in voters for extreme right wing parties,[2] and the same goes the other way with younger people more likely to support left wing populist measures at the expense of democracy, rights, and freedoms.[3] [1] ‘Extremists push for young voters’, Times Higher Education, 7 December 1998 [2] Lubbers, Marcel et al., ‘Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 41, 2002, pp345-378, p.364 [3] Seligson, Mitchell, A., ‘The Rise of Populism and the Left in Latin America’, Journal of Democracy, Vol.18 No.3, July 2007, pp.81-95, p.91

Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. 1. Parents have the correct amount of control on their kids lives, parents have to raise their children so they decide on what is best for them. 2. Okay? You study social studies, big deal so do a lot of other people, but just because you study it does not give you the qualifications to vote. 3. Just because you learn from the past doesn't mean you will make better decisions. 4. Also never once did I say you were uninformed. 5. I'm sure that there are more adults then teens that know about politics, the house of reps. the cabinet, their rights, and the amendments. 6. Also your 14th amendment rights aren't being violated this is the 14th amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Sure people are equal under the law but teens are too young. 7. So what? Lowering the voting age isn't an international norm, and sure she supports lowering the age of voters, but that's one person. PRO dropped so many arguments, don't consider any of their arguments. We should not lower the voting age.

Representation Not all 30-year-olds have extensive knowledge of politics. As a 16-year-old I knew an extensive amount about each of the parties and their policies; I even knew a few hundred politicians and knew what they stood for. I will not respect any law if nobody in government will represent me whilst making it. If 16 year olds can work and pay taxes they should be allowed to choose who governs and spends their tax money on their behalf.

Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK. Pro doesnt give a single coherent reason of why the voting age should be lowered. However there are quite a few reasons why the voting age of the UK should not be lowered.1) Young people dont care about politics, and numbers show this2) Young people know far less about the politics involved than older voters3) There really isnt a dire need to expand the voting rights4) Lets face it, who knows what they can do to the UK. .. - 1 - Why should the voting age be lowered if young people dont even vote? . http://www.theticker.org...http://voices.yahoo.com...http://trace.tennessee.edu...http://mypolitikal.com...Point is, young people dont give a damn about voting, and the younger they are the more apathetic they are. - 2 - Young people naturally are more misinformed about politics and politicians. http://www.policymic.com...http://www.appeal-democrat.com...Simply put one of the reasons why young people dont vote is that they dont know anything about the politics or politicians. - 3 - There is no dire need to expand the number of potential voters in UK. UK Voter turnout is still at 76% while the US is still below 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org...Point is, UK doesnt need a larger voting population because the number of registered voters in the UK who actually vote is rather impressive - 4 - this one is really my own opinion, and I know that there are some intelligent 16 year old UK political nuts on this site right now, but a majority of UK 16 year olds are,How do I put this. .. . Would you trust this person to decide who serves in government? . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I'd sh*t my pants tooTo summarize my argument, the voting age should not be lowered in the UK because the UK already has a stunning voter turnout, young people dont want to vote, young people dont know much about politics or politicians they are voting for, and trusting all 16 year olds to vote scares the sh*t out of some people.

The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 "The same way the average voter is informed...through the media; television, newspapers, magazines and the internet. Schools are doing a better job of making young people aware of current political events as well. Many even hold mock voting on Election Day for the kids to participate in." The average voter has a job, children, is married, owns a home and a car, and makes monthly payments. Also, the majority of voters are out of school. Schools may be doing a better job, but these 16 year olds do not own a home and therefore do not relate to the candidate's economical view, and therefore do not really have an opinion because they are not active in a job that needs to support him/her, gas prices, the housing market, etc. If you are not involved in it, you do not need to vote. It would be the same thing as me voting for the driving age to be lowered in Alaska. Many voters for this year's election are more concerned with the economy than the war. "A job, house, children and car are not prerequisites for voting. There are many Americans past the age 18 who live at home with their parents and do not own cars yet vote. Also those few who do work have to pay taxes too so should have a vote on tax issues." No, they are not required for voting, but are a key in the economy. Although not all 18 year olds have a car or own a house, many more do than 16 year olds. Also, they are probably in college or getting ready to, and therefore don't depend on their parents as much. 18 year olds are also more grown up and mature. How many 16 year olds do you know that own a home or pay taxes or need the job to buy groceries and make payments. Not many. Many states are about to change the driving age to 17 years of age, in hopes of cutting down on accidents. If 16 year olds are barely able to have driving rights, do we really need to give them rights to who is in charge of our country? "If they pick their president the same way they choose their music and movies, I seriously doubt that they are going to automatically vote like their parents." Presidential candidates are not music. In some way, the child will probably be influenced by their parent's choices whether for or against it. In some way, their will be biased. Therefore, you will get a majority of votes that are due to the 16 year olds' parent's opinions and choices. "So if a 6th grade education is adequate for voting purposes, certainly the high school education most 16 year-olds possess would be more than enough to produce an informed voter." Then why is it illegal? They may have the intelligence, but not the experience. In order to really connect or relate to what the candidates focus on, you need to be involved in the things, and have experience. Most 16 year olds are not mature enough to make such a huge decision. They are too young, too immature, and not experienced enough. I am certainly not talking about each individual, but as a whole, this is a good description of the age group.

Lowering the voting age to 16 I am not saying that every single right granted at eighteen should be lowered to sixteen, but just voting. It shouldn't be any lower because sixteen is just the right age to get into politics. Adults messing up America isn't my opinion, but a fact. Every decision made that led to this recession was made by adults. The decision to get into wars were that of adults. So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?

Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 As for interest in politics, those not interested may not vote either, and the same case is for most adults. I know a person who spins a dice to choose who he votes for. He is about 45. Children are also very active on social media and would know about the current events from there. No candidate has try asserting the claim for no homework, for otherwise college students would have voted for him. Moreover, by the age of 15 we all know deleting homework is irrational, and we know we can't trust any politician. Lastly, detentions are useless as the child is required to sit idle for hours, rather than studying during that time. I support the removal of detention. As for corruption, children are harder to buy as they have a sense of justice which is not yet corrupted by the harsh world. Also, tattletales would report such incidents to the police, while adults usually fear the reciprocation after reporting. Even adults are not doing responsible voting, especially when I got to know Trump won in a few states. Children voting would have had a different outcome. Furthermore, 15 to 16 is relatively not a young age and are intelligent enough to make a wise vote.

The voting age should be lowered Teenage years are a time when individuals are figuring out who they are, what they want to do, and what they believe. Because of their lack of experience they are likely to be manipulated by others. At 16 and 17, teens are just getting access to the car, but they are still not trusted to do things like gamble, consume tobacco, and drink alcohol. Plus, they"re just under 10 years from being allowed to rent a vehicle in many places. It puts into question whether they are developmentally prepared to help make important decisions about the country"s future. Teens lack real world experience and do not have a good understanding of how certain decisions may affect a nation over time. High school students would be just learning about how the government functions as they received the right to participate in the election process. Additionally, teenagers tend not to pay too much attention to current events.

The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16 In the US 16-year-olds are considered legally competent to drive a car. Driving requires both impulse control and good judgement. We trust 16-year-olds with the lives and safety of both passengers and others on the road. Since we deem them responsible enough to the make life and death decisions that come with driving a car, Why don"t trust them to make informed choices in the voting booth?

People Should Be Able to vote at 16 years old Greetings to my opponent and the audience! I look forward to a great debate :). "Currently, in the United States of America the legal voting age is 18 years old. Now, I'm sure the government has this because when you're at 18 years old you're technically an adult. I think that this is not fair at all because the government is pretty much saying that only adults can decide who rules our country." Yes, you're technically an adult when you're 18 in the United States. Of course adults rule this country: where do you see a teenager running for politician? Where do you see teenagers managing businesses and working at jobs? "But, many people actually believe that 18 is the worst age to start voting because so many steps are being made in the person's life, going to college, getting a job, possibly starting a family/relationship." On the contrary, this is the very REASON that the voting limit should stay where it is. At this stage in a person's life, they're learning responsibility. The 18+ year old has most likely already COMPLETED a government class and is at least competently-versed in political affairs. I'd like to note that many of those steps my opponent suggested do not happen contemporarily. "Studies also show that the sooner you start voting the more confident and consistent voter you'll turn out to be. Many Americans never vote and if this is put in their mind at an earlier age, I believe that the nation could actually get more voters and everyone's voice can be heard. In fact, in the 2000 election people over the age of 50 had twice as many voters than people in the age group of 18-24." I'd like to see the actual statistics of those studies. Also, the good ol' quote "quality over quantity" applies here. Just because I can buy an expensive car, should I? Just because I can doesn't mean I should. Same with voting. You think a teenager that is in high school and going through the whole "teenager stage" is going to care about politics? Granted, there are exceptions, however the majority of early teenagers are not well-versed in politics. "Another argument I'll make is that kids are still in school at the age of 16 unless drop out or early graduation. Usually at this age, kids are taking some type of government class which can actually make them smarter voters. Voting is not necessarily something you get good at since its your stand point. That's why I believe that if we incorporate voting at an earlier age such as 16, we'll have more voters in the future and people will think about it a little more." Simply because teenagers would have the ability to vote does not guarantee that they'll actually put thought into this vote. Have you seen a high school? I'm sure you have. They would incorporate race, ethnicity, how the person looks, the way they are, et cetera. Right, it's your standpoint. 16 year olds have a standpoint in politics? Do you honestly think that we should expand the ability to decide our nation's future for the next 4 years to teenagers? They may not even be well-versed in what presidential candidate wants what and they'll just vote for whomever seems superficially appealing. I also hope for a wonderful debate. Good luck, Pro.

Lowering the voting age to 15 Most adults are way to uninformed to vote and most kids are way more informed because we are forced to learn about it. And I know tons of teen who are WAY more mature then some adults.

Parents are guardians and should be trusted to vote in their children’s interests Governments do things which affect every age group but that does not mean everyone deserves the vote. Should 12 year olds get the vote because school policies affect them? Should toddlers get the vote because health services affect them? No - we trust parents to cast votes after thinking about the interests of their families. And there are other ways for young people to have a say - they can write to elected representatives and newspapers, sign petitions, speak at public meetings, join youth parliaments, etc. It is notable that sixteen year olds themselves are divided on whether they should have the vote,[1] if many of them trust their parents to vote for them should not the government? [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004

Lowering the voting age to 16 The concept that the country has been "messed up" is strictly an opinion of the opponent. When you turn 18, you are considered an adult in the United States. Not only do you acquire the right to vote also the right to make a will, to make certain decisions (e.g., obtaining medical care) without parental consent, and even to donate organs. [1] I some states, it is the age used to get married and to buy cigarettes, such as my home state, New York. Why would the opponent like to change it to sixteen? Why not fifteen? Or ten? Or two? By lowering it to sixteen, we will be blocking fifteen-year-old people from voting; would we need to adjust it so that they could vote, too? The opponent's claims are unclear and unfounded. [1] http://opi.mt.gov...

Turnout This would not be the case, as 16 and 17 year-olds are more likely to be in, or to have recently been in, an environment where politics can be discussed. This means they will have a developed interest in the subject and will be more likely to vote. Even if reducing the voting age were to reduce the turnout, it is preposterous that we should limit the franchise to avoid producing an embarrassing statistic. There would be more people eligible to vote and hence the actual voting numbers would presumably increase, even if percentage turnout didn’t. "Some people are concerned that lowering the voting age would lead to a lower turnout in elections, the theory being that a larger voting population made up of younger voters, who are currently less likely to vote, would reduce the overall turnout. However, analysis by the Electoral Reform Society shows that if 16-18 year olds turned out in the same proportion as the 18-24 age group, there would be virtually no effect on turnout. Even if not one 16-18 year old voted, overall turnout would drop by only 2%. Women are less likely to vote than men, poor people less likely than the more affluent and people from minority ethnic groups less than white people. Nobody suggests that these lower turnout groups should have their voting rights removed. No one should suggest that some 16 and 17 year olds not voting is a good enough reason to deny the many that do want to vote." - Electoral Reform Society

Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 There's a bunch of reasons why the voting age shouldn't be lowered The average 16 year old would be completely uninterested in politics and wouldn't even know the importance of voting. There are only a small minority of 15-16 who are interested in politics and want to help change their country. If the voting age was lowered to 15-16 then the kids would vote which one is "the cool one", also candidates could easily the vote from a child by promising to destroy homework or by making detentions illegal while on the other side that same candidate is about to make bad decisions for the country. Con states that "Children would be harder to buy" which is false. You could pay a child almost any amount to do something especially if it was just voting, the child would see that as writing on a piece of paper. Children are easily corrupted especially at a young age, this is why we shouldn't lower the voting age.

The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 :) "Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered. " Not necessarily. Actually, I would go against this. How are they informed? Most may have a job, but not one that they have to depend on for money in order to live. They do not own a house, have children, or maybe not even have a car! They do not understand how the "real world" works and therefore do not have the right to vote. Most are not concerned or involved in taxes and house mortgage and this is what most of the candidates focus on. Teenagers' brains are still developing. I will also mention how many stupid decisions 16 year olds make. I am certainly not saying all, but many do. Should these children who are still living with their parents, who do not own a house, are not involved much in the economy, and are just learning to drive really need to have a say in the government? The voting age now is certainly not causing anybody harm and is working our just fine. Also, I will mention how most of the 16 year olds would be biased due to their parents' opinions.

The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 *Neither citations you used to confirm your statement that more 14-18-year-olds are involved and concerned with politics today used 14-18-year-olds as a reference, BOTH of the citations you cited quite clearly said the sample was between the ages of 18 and 36. Thus the new basis for your argument is invalid. It should be noted that I think the law is less in place because teenagers are "ignorant" (I was one not very long ago however and can attest: they are), but because they lack experience and, perhaps most importantly, a fully-developed ability to make rational decisions. I mean this scientifically - it has been observed that teenagers don't have very active frontal lobes (this is the rational thought center of the brain) when making decisions, and rely more on their brain's limbic system (more emotional / reactive basically). (1) This is why, for example, teenagers are so stereotypically prone to peer pressure, and stupid decisions. Anecdotal, but back when I was starting college I used to give high school kids stick-n-poke tattoos on the side for cash, and, believe me, this tendency was on full display. Plus, while Trump is, frankly, rather irrelevant in this argument, it isn't as if teens ubiquitously hate Trump, thus proving their rationality. (2) (1) http://brainconnection.brainhq.com... (2) https://newrepublic.com... Side note: Not bad, but do know that it's generally not good debate form to change the basis of your argument in the final round, when we should both be drawing our conclusions. You should have still attempted to find some way to counter my point. You could have, for example, argued that ANY tax payer should be afforded the right to vote, regardless of age, and possibly argued that the large percentage of teens in the age bracket who DON'T pay taxes don't invalidate the ones that may still DO. You could have further argued that enough legislation occurs regarding teenagers without their consent - concerning their education, their employment, even their sex lives - that not giving them the right to vote essentially makes them second class citizens to be acted on by government but without a voice, etc.

Lowering the voting age to 15 15 year old's are not mature enough. The large majority still live at home and go to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18 they have become much more independent and are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents opinions or adopt silly ideas for the sake of rebellion.

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.

The lowering of the voting age>>> Until the age twenty-five, the human brain is not at its full potential and the human being has not yet developed foresight, or an ability to see consequences in advance, however some develop quicker than others, by far the majority do not. What I am trying to say, is that humans can't predict how their choices will affect their own- and others- lives until the age of twenty-five. By lowering the age limit on how old someone can be to be able to vote would be the suicide of this nation (the United States).

You shouldn't raise the voting age to 21 Though it is not a problem per say, the idea of 16-year-olds being given the right to vote isn't actually a bad idea. Also, yes, children do look forward to being able to hold power and vote on something - so why not give them that power at a younger age? After all, by then, we do have adult responsibilities so it would be incorrect to say that we are 'too young' to vote at that stage. Furthermore, if we had more 16-year-olds (and, as I assume, 17-year-olds) with this right, the results of our future votes would differentiate and become a lot less conservative. As a result of this, we would be welcoming a much more open and diverse array of people in our society - with higher levels of LGBTQ+ acceptance being an example of a positive impact a lower voting age could give.

The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds Most youths at 15 years old most likely have much more pressing things to worry about than politics and voting. Also, many youths will most likely just flip a coin and make a random choice because they do not care. 15 year olds should be worrying about grades, college, homework, and possibly driving. They should not be worrying about politics. Some 15 year olds will be too young to understand! Other ones will not take it seriously! 15 years old is simply too young of a age to start voting. I apologize that my agrument is extremely short-- but it gets all my ideas across well.

the voting age should be lowered to 16. My opponent has not refuted any of my points and thus their entire case can be considered null and void as of now because they have not responded to my refute. Hopefully, they will post in the next round...

Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 If we were to lower the voting age to 15-16 then governments (of some countries) would force kids to vote like they do for adults and it'd be pointless because majority of all the children voting wouldn't know the importance of voting. My opponent then states that children are very active on social media and would know about the current events from there which is useless. Children on social media don't even pay attention to the news, especially if it was concerning politics. Pro keeps stating that Children are harder to buy because they have this "Sense of justice", children are already becoming corrupted because of social media. Any kid would be willing to sign a piece of paper for $10 or less, why? because to them, it's something meaningless. This is why we shouldn't lower the voting age, you wouldn't want ignorant children choosing the future for your country.

An opportunity for civic studies There would be clear advantages in having elections while young people are still in school as school could help prepare them for the elections. Schools would be able to teach their students in advance what the ballot is like, about the process of voting, and most importantly about the European Union and the function of the European Parliament. One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that voters don’t understand what it does. To take a couple of basics from a Eurobarometer poll in 2011, 42% of European citizens did not know MEPs were directly elected and 57% did not know that they sit in the Parliament according to ideology not nationality.[1] This shows how necessary education about the European Parliament is. Having elections at 16 provides an ideal opportunity as it means that most will participate in a European election while they are at school. Teaching about why voting matters would also help to improve turnout. When Austria reduced its voting age to 16 it was found that turnout from 16-17 year olds was significantly higher than turnout for 18-19 year olds when both groups are first time voters.[2] This suggests that 18 may simply be the wrong time to introduce people to voting for the first time. Since voting or not voting tends to be habit forming lowering the voting age could slowly increase turnout across the board. [1] EP/Eurobarometer - Public Opinion Surveys , ‘Media recall and knowledge of the EP’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom, http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/Food_for_Thought/Eurobarometer.html [2] Zeglovitis, Eva, ‘Votes at 16: Turnout of the Youngest Voters – Evidence from Austria’, ÖGPW Tagung “Tag der Politikwissenschaft”, Salzburg, 2 December 2011, http://www.oegpw.at/tagung2011/papers/1C_Zeglovits.pdf  p.13

Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Thanks for your great responseMaturity:I would argue that a though it is true an 18 year old's brain is developing, there is a difference between the development of a 16 and 18 year old's brains, and obviously the 18 year old will be more cognitively developed. You suggest that because both of their brains are still developing that they should both get a vote. This is not the case. One could also argue that a 14 year old should vote as their brain is still developing. So really this is an irrelevant point, yes they are both still developing but there is a large gap between the stages of development. In counter to your argument on schools and universities you are suggesting that because 18 year olds are in university they should not vote. I would like to remind you that there is a very obvious difference between schools and university: you are in school 6-7 hours a day, 5 days a week. You are in university 4 hours a week (if studying medicine for example) 5 days a week. The rest of that week you would spend working or independently studying. The big difference is independence. No longer being supervised, advised or guided 24 hours a day. You experience life for yourself and to me, this is what sets apart 16 and 18 year olds. I also think you counter your own argument abut leaving school when you want because as you said earlier, this is the minority. And, being part of democracies, majority wins. As well as is I would like to clarify that you never stop leaning and in high school you study a wide more rounded course. In university you study specifics. I fail to see how Chemical Engineering is going to help a voter learn about voting learn about this in high school for a reason, so you can take it and apply it after you leave school, there is no point doing an exam half way through a course, so there is no point voting when you are still studying politics. I think you make a good point about enrolling for the army at 16, but you fail to notice that they can not fight till you are 18. Just like you can apply to learn to drive, but drive until you are 17 1/2 (in Britain). Experience:I have provided a reason for a 16 year old having less experience than an 18 year old. This is that: Many 16 year olds still live with their parents, are looked after by their parents, are supported by their parents, are financially funded by their parents, are cooked for by their parents, are guided by their parents, are instructed by their parents etc. As well as this you argue that 80% of teens have jobs, then why do 'many parents provide their children with enough income to survive being outside of the house'? And if a 16 year old is still in school and they get a job (like 80% of 16 year olds) why do they 'not need to get a job'? I would also like to clarify that by living on their own I mean without their parents. Though I do not see the relevance of a roommate as they certainly would not be providing for, looking after, caring for their roommate. Responsibility:As I said before there is a very big difference in a 16 year old's brain and an 18 year old's brain. Just as their is a 14 year old and a 16 year old, or should the 14 year old be voting too, because their brain is also still developing? Taxation:Why tax them? Because the governments money is paying for their edcation, the up keep of their towns, their protection, their leisure and so on. Stability:What I do not think you are seeing is the fact that if someone has money pressures, or does not live in shelter they would have a reason to vote. To vote for policies that would give students more money, or provide shelter for those who have none. It gives a reason to vote. If you have money troubles you will know it and you will think to vote for someone who can help you. It is as simple as that. Why vote if you have no worries or pressures? Voter Turn out:Of course the voting turn out would increase, there would be more people who are allowed to vote! Simple as that, but would it be sensible to allow a 16/17 year old to work? For the benefit of the country, not just voting turn outs.

The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Thank you for the response, yet I am boggled. It seemed as if you completely ignored my refutation of your arguments, restated your arguments as if they were unrefuted and solid, and only focused on my arguments. Nevertheless, I will begin. Refutations "IF they are not mature enough to vote, then how is it they are mature enough to pay taxes, get married, and leave home? All of these things require more maturity than voting." This argument of 16 year olds being mature enough was refuted in the first round. Please do not ignore it this time. "In his second contention, he stated that not everybody needs to vote. Of course not everybody needs to vote, yet THIS debate is about 16 year olds. He then listed examples of toddlers voting. I'd like to remind him that this debate is about 16 year olds, and not toddlers. Therefore his point is irrelevant and has no further use." 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. "In his third contention, he stated that more maturity develops when you're 16-18. He then stated the things that develop the maturity, such as a driver's license, or the ability to go to college. How does this develop the maturity required for voting? After all, no vote is the wrong vote. Gaining a driver's license is not going to have a critical effect, on the person's political party and who they want to vote for. Obviously, my opponents point has no meaning." 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. Seeing as my points are brought back into play, I will continue on to talk about my opponent's arguments. "Now, onto my points." My opponent has listed his source for all of his arguments in the beginning of his speech and I infer that he no longer thinks he is plagiarizing. However, the key word in this short sentence is "my." Plagiarism is defined as, "a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work [1]." The word "my" means that it is his and therefore, is plagiarized. For this, my opponent should lose in the conduct stage. It's actually a funny thing, seeing as my opponent basically restated, word for word, all the arguments posted in the 1st Round, except for the concept of "Citizenship" and "key stages," which was asked to be explained. Apparently, my opponent must have drawn back such a response, which means he does not understand his own arguments which were simply plagiarized from Debatewise. Until the Proposition actually does bring his point back into play and counter-refutes my refutation, these points are negated, as well as the resolution. Arguments To tack on to my unrefuted points, I have one new argument to present. 1. Having a broad range of opinion at elections has to be balanced against having responsible voters. If we allow 16 year olds to vote, there's obviously going to be an increase in turnout. However, that can also be a two-sided sword, and in this case, allowing 16 year olds to cast votes will clearly harm our country. This is because these children are not old enough to be able to develop their own political views about the world. Most of their votes will be cast without reason and will therefore harm the good of the country. According to a study conducted by Cato.org, out of 2400 teenagers aged 14-16, over 97% of these children had the same political views as their parents. Of these, sadly, 43% didn't even know the first thing about the party that their parents, and they, represented. These are children, what else would you expect? Keep in mind that 3 other arguments are still up and running. 16 year olds are immature, they don't need to vote, and 18 is the best minimum age to allow people to vote. I await my opponent's response for the final round. Sources: 1. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Lower the Voting Age I think you are very focused on the idea that a percentage of people don't live long enough to vote. It is sad that people die young but we can't change laws because of that. 4-year-olds die of cancer, we wouldn't lower the voting age to 4 to accommodate them. "However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time." Not being able to vote does not mean you don't have rights over yourself. it means you need to wait till you are older. Actually less than a fourth of teens have their own opinion...but, even if you don't buy the influence argument, teens still are not ready to vote. Children do have free will but they are not mature enough to vote. As I said before: "Studies have proven that full brain development usually occurs by the age of 25. Teenagers are known to be more emotional and impulsive than adults. Their voting is likely to be immature and also not very well-informed." "Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference." This is very problematic. Instead of just adding more uninformed voters to the pool, we need to educate the ones we already have! You can't just say, well our voters are already ignorant so who cares if we add more ignorant voters? That is not how elections should be, elections based on misinformation and ignorance are not true elections! I wish you wouldn't compare women's suffrage and civil rights to teenagers not being allowed to vote. They are not the same, teenagers are not being oppressed the way women and African-Americans were. In conclusion, teenagers should not vote because they are not mature enough and to allow them to vote would lead to more problems and questions: 1. In that case, should non-citizens get to vote? 2. What about 10-year-olds? 3. Now we have more misinformed voters who will vote based off emotion instead of logic and facts

Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Yes it should be reduced as most adults are ill-informed and teenagers are still in school so they at least get bits and pieces of politics in history and other subjects. I don't see why I need to be 18 to cast a foolish vote.

The voting age should be reduced to 14. This resolution will be about the United States. I believe you should be allowed to vote once you turn 14. Another stipulation is that you must also be enrolled in high school or high school equivalence (if home schooled). I will begin my arguments in the next round.

The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 I will try to reply to some of your arguments briefly. "How are they informed? " The same way the average voter is informed. .. through the media; television, newspapers, magazines and the internet. Schools are doing a better job of making young people aware of current political events as well. Many even hold mock voting on election day for the kids to participate in. "Most may have a job, but not one that they have to depend on for money in order to live. They do not own a house, have children, or maybe not even have a car! " A job, house, children and car are not perequisites for voting. There are many Americans past the age 18 who live at home with their parents and do not own cars yet vote. Also those few who do work have to pay taxes too so should have a vote on tax issues. "Teenagers' brains are still developing. I will also mention how many stupid decisions 16 year olds make. " People over the age of 16 make stupid mistakes every day. As far as teenagers' brains still developing, there are alot of us who have brains that are deteriorating yet they still let us vote. "Also, I will mention how most of the 16 year olds would be biased due to their parents' opinions. " If they pick their president the same way they choose their music and movies, I seriously doubt that they are going to automatically vote like their parents. The federal Voting Rights Acts of 1965 (42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 1971(c)) states that: "any person who has not been adjudged an incompetent and who has completed the sixth grade in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where instruction is carried on predominantly in the English language, possesses sufficient literacy, comprehension, and intelligence to vote in any election. So if a 6th grade education is adequate for voting purposes, certainly the high school education most 16 year-olds possess would be more than enough to produce an informed voter.

The voting age should be reduced to 14. Ignorant, immature, and we can now add irrational. He has made no case for why children should vote. To the contrary, they would simply whine for free goodies, like x-boxes.

The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered I accept. Voting is the process in which we choose the officials that will represent us, and requires a lot of thought. Through voting, we elect citizens into government offices and put our trust into them, and hope they will represent us correctly. Because this is such an important decision, I believe that the voting age should remain at 18 and not reduced to 17 or 16.

That the voting age should be lowered to 15 My opponent seemed to believe that this resolution was undebatable. I'm here first of all to prove him wrong, and second of all to show why I've long thought that the voting age restriction should definitely be lowered. Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance. The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, given that most reasonably western societies are quite multicultural. The vote we're talking about specifically is any general vote to determine legislative and/or executive office, as the case may be in that jurisdiction, in a national election format (so local body elections could be excluded etc).

Increase turnout The youngest age group has always provided the lowest turnout at elections. Reducing the voting age will further reduce the national average turnout for elections. This matters because we don't want to look bad to other contries.

The voting age should be lowered to 14 At 14, you are mature enough to vote.

The voting age should be lowered I believe that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to vote for many reasons. Why does hitting 18 make you responsible? Would being 17 and 11 months make you irresponsible compared to an 18 year old? Many 18 year olds are still as irresponsible as 16 year olds but why does that make the 18 year old better at choosing who should run the government or choosing to leave or to stay in the EU? Being 18 is just an age, it is what the mind is like that counts.

Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. That is a biased and ageism view point. We want to be engaged and change the world for the better. Teens can think differently than their parents. All teens think differently than their parents, (I do it all the time). We all are created equal! Is it fair that we don't have a say in what Happens with our taxes or our education. Also a republic is a type of democracy. You are using the same points as the oppressors of allowing African Americans and women the right to vote. We have social studies classes for a reason, so we can be better citizens and humans, and learn from the past. Your argument is unrealistic,that we can say that adults who have no idea about government and the political system but not The youth of America who are have classes about and care. Plus if we lower it we increase voter turnout!

The voting age should be lowered to 14 "The reason why 14 years olds aren't allowed to vote is that many don't understand the issues, or don't care." There are also many 14 year olds who do understand the issues. I did when I was 14. Those who don't care probably won't vote anyway. But we should allow those 14 year olds who care to vote. Cognitive development peaks at 14 so they can understand the issues. "Most 14 years olds don't have a job, or have a household to run, like an adult does." Most 18 year olds don't run households, but are still allowed to vote. Just because you don't have a household doesn't mean issues don't affect you. 14 year olds are affected by things related to medicaid, education/ schools, etc. and should have say in these matters. Some 14 year olds have a job and pay taxes, so they should decide how their money will be spent.

An opportunity for civic studies While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their democratic rights and duties. What each democratic body does would seem to clearly be information that every student should learn as regardless of voting age it is going to be a civic duty for most of their lives.

The voting age should be lowered to 14 Although at 14 your brain is not fully developed, it's developed enough to cast an independently made decision (outside of influence) because you can independently judge at 14 and at 14 you should be able to understand the long term impact of complex policies (I was able to understand such things at 14). Also things like healthcare affect 14 year olds and they should have say in the government.

The age that people have the right to vote should be lowered to 16 and not stay at 18 On average a 16 year old are worrying about a lot of different things like their school dance and what not. Most average teenagers might be able to handle a paying job and taking care of their cars, helping their families and worrying about their school work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would be able to handle voting with all the older part of society. When we are younger we have different things running through our heads and might think we know what is important but in reality we don't have any idea. Most 16 year old lack the competence or the required skills or knowledge one most know before approaching the ballet box. Most of the time we have to know to research and know what we are talking about before we said anything about it. Yes at 16 they are driving, working and helping their families make due with food and money. But voting is a totally different thing. When you are voting you have to know who you are reading about and what they can bring to the table you have to understand what they are talking about. You have to be well informed about the topics and the people that getting talked about. We may never know what is what. As said by Former President Kennedy The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. One single vote could make the economy worse then it was to begin with. Henry David Thoreau also stated that All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong. i now turn it over to my oppent

The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. 18 gives youngsters more time to gain experience of the world outside of school which is important. School is biased towards Socialist/left wing policies and the effect of this on your rationality at age 16 is important. When people enter the working world they became more aware of how taxes are spent and how much they are having to spend. It would be better to raise it to 25 or maybe 30 in my opinion because of how much your opinions change over time as you are exposed to more of the world. You can't learn so much from school and teachers, there is a saying "those who can do and those who cant teach"

voting age should be lowered If you read that article I attached, in a survey only 46 percent of kids knew who controlled the house and only 57 percent controlled the senate. Only 15 percent knew one of their states senators and 27 percent knew the districts congressmen. Very disturbingly, only 18 percent where aware that the US was 16 trillion dollars in debt. At this point it's 17 trillion. The vast majority of kids have little interest in the political system and will only serve to increase the amount of barely knowledgeable voters. You have claimed that kids can make wise votes because they know whats good and bad. Well isn't it the job of politicians to make things look good. Both sides are firmly convinces of their positions inherit "goodness." In just this year, we have seen both parties try to out do each other at being anti authoritarian. Rand Paul and his libertarian buddies decried the snooping and peeping of the NSA and Rand even made allusions to libertarians being the modern sons of liberty. Dems played the little guy card over and over again calling for minimum wage hikes some as high as 15 dollars. How is a kid supposed to know whats correct? When did he take economics? Pros alternative to kids actually informing themselves is that kids will get all their voter training in history class. In a non biased text book kids shouldn't be receiving political training. Most history books have a brief section on the politics of the early republic but mostly act as a omnipotent narrator not a debater between parties. If history books do contain lots of political ideas, your pretty much giving the votes of a whole age group to textbook writers. Why shouldn't they vote for someone who's ideas were positively talked about in a school book? Until kids grow up they have no business deciding a nations future.

Turnout Another argument against lowering the voting age is the fact that at all previous general elections, the youngest age group tends to produce the lowest turnout. Allowing 16-year-olds the vote will further reduce turnouts at UK elections.

The voting age should be reduced to 16 If you can legally work at 16 and be taxed, you should be able to vote. The fact that 16 year olds who are legally working are unable to vote is taxation without representation and is unconstitutional. Many 16 year olds would be more than capable of handling this responsibility.

Lower the Voting Age Smoke and alochol effect brain development, hence why people cannot use them until age twenty one.The voting age is eighteen, not twenty one. That alone shows a difference in reasoning.However, because of the high prevalence of addiction both, I believe they should both be restricted for everyone.http://www.education.vic.gov.au...Personally, I do think five year olds should vote, but I am exculding them from this argument. This is to follow the advice of the person whom voted on this debate:http://www.debate.org...Non Americans are not being represented by american or local decisions, as they don't belong to the country. Naturalized U.S. citizens on the other hand, can vote. Each country represents its own citizens, and is responsible for their voice being heard.https://www.washingtonlawhelp.org...The point of my statistic is to show that even if teenage voters were bad voters, that wouldn't be a good reason for exclusion.Historically women and black people were kept from voting.This was because at the time, both groups were seen as incompetent. Why are teenagers so much different then them?If even a small amount are actively following politics and know what they are talking about, they should be able to act on it, rather than be forced to accept whatever is pushed on them.Not everyone lives to age eighteen.So, as is, many people will never be able to have a say in how their county is run."An average of 16,375 teenagers 12–19 years died in the United States every year from 1999 to 2006." -https://www.cdc.gov...“Elections belong to the people. It's their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.” R13; Abraham lincoln