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 Limit Should be Lowered

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.

The voting age should be lowered to 16

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.

The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered

Heck, no! Today's kids are way too immature and ignorant to be trusted with such a privilege. We need to raise the age to 21 and make it so only male landowners can vote. Liberalism will die in one election cycle.

The voting age should be reduced to 14.

Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered.

The Voting Age Should Be Dropped 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...

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 Voting Age should be lowered to 16.

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

The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered

I believe that the voting age should be lowered. at 16 we allow kids to drive, and a car is lethal weapon so why would you think we could trust them with voting?

voting age should be lowered

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.

Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16

At 14, you are mature enough to vote.

The voting age should be lowered to 14

In my opinion, the voting age would be better off staying the same. From the amount of young people already neglecting their right to vote, to potential of misuse of the vote, it is worthless and/or potentially disruptive to the voting system. Even though 16 year old kids do have several rights, voting is important, and therefore 16 year olds must be taught some responsibilities before they have the right to vote. Therefore, the voting age should remain at 18, and I think most people agree that lowering the voting age would be a risk that isn't worth it to take. Thank you for the debate 1davey29.

The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered

My opponent has not refuted any of my points and thus I have won this debate. They have no argument and my case still stands strong.

the voting age should be lowered to 16.

I will gladly accept

voting age should be lowered

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 voting age should be lowered to 14

acceptance only, this is for voting rights for 16&17 year olds

voting age should be lowered

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 legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds

No, the voting age should not be reduced to 16. I agree with you when you said that is unconstitutional be paying taxes without representation, but this situation must be resolved since a reform of the quantity or kind of taxes that the under 16 should pay. The voting age was set pretending that people would be able to make an analytical election. A random person at age of 16 generally is starting to know how the world works and what to look for in life. Their opinion might be easily influenced by false arguments and the campings could be measured by a lack of truthful proposals.

The voting age should be reduced to 16

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).

That the voting age should be lowered to 15

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.

The voting age should be reduced to 16

Where oh where to begin... For starters, this is an insult to those who are 24 and have graduated college. Especially those who have graduated Yale, Harvard, MIT, or any other ivy-league school. I will even go as far as to say some 14 year olds have the brain capacity to vote intelligently, although I'm not saying that we should lower the voting age to 14. You are applying a small statistic to a vast number of people. Your argument is just completely illogical and it's, as I said, an insult to many of the middle-aged voters in the United States. 25 year olds are able to see the ramifications of their actions quite clearly whether it be voting, driving, or anything else.

The lowering of the voting age>>>

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 voting age should be lowered

Because of working restrictions on children under 16, dependent 14-year-olds most likely don't make enough money to have to file an income tax return, and considering, then, the incredibly low statistic of 14-year-olds with jobs in the first place - no, 14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote, based on this argument.

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.

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 reduced to 14.

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.

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).I wish my opponent very good luck and look forward to a fun and spirited discussion!R1 is acceptance and optional definitions.

I will just clarify the rules, but, as stated they seem to be correct. Pro has the BoP. Specifically, if Pro cannot prove why the voting age should be lowered, then Pro has lost the debate. It is not enough to simply argue that it doesn't matter whether or not the voting age should be lowered (i. e. lowering it has no effect)--Pro must make the case that's it's beneficial in some way or another to lower the voting age.

I would first like to say thank you for the invite. I do not believe that the voting age should be raised to 21. The main reason that I think this is that at age 18 teenagers fully mature into adults, thus giving them many responsibilities,which, in turn, makes them more responsible.

Voting Age

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)

Should the voting age be lowered

Good luck and have fun!

Per rules I waive!

Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17

I think the voting age should be raised to 21 due to young kids not fully understanding most issues that concern America. Not only raised to to 21, but college students not being allowed to vote either, due to professor guidance and pushing their agenda's on the students. They are very easily manipulated. :)

Voting Age

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?

The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16

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"

The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years.

I agree that there are adults who have little knowledge about politics, but the majority, are more analytical and have more experience to take a decisi"n. And also, there are 16 years old guys with an extraordinary political sense, but those are the minority. But, you can not determine case by case who is able to make an intelligent choice. So you have to appeal to well defined segmentations, in this case, by age, and by majorities or average.

The voting age should be reduced 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

All right. I will change my argument, then. There are about 4,200,000 fourteen-year-olds and many, many more 14-18 year-olds (http://www.marketingcharts.com...). We are currently denying about 16,000,000 Americans the right to vote. Now, some may argue that high-schoolers are too young and ignorant to understand the politics of the U.S., but this is simply not true. In fact, millennials are more involved and concerned with politics than any previous generation of 14-18-year-olds (http://www.usatoday.com...),(http://www.forbes.com...). So, millions of young Americans are being denied the right to vote on the basis that they're too ignorant, while millions more older Americans are voting for the likes of Trump. (Now, dear voters, I know this will bring down the hordes of Trump supporters on this website, so please try to ignore them).

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.

Lowering the voting age

Everyone would agree that there has to be a minimum voting age. Most people believe that the line should be drawn at 18 rather than 16. Although some 16 year olds may be mature enough to vote, most have not yet formed political views of their own yet. On average, young people are much more likely to be ready for the responsibility of voting at 18. There is then no reason why 16 would make a better cut off point than 18. At both ages some rights are given, at both there will be some who pay tax who are not given representation, at both some will be immature. There is no clear dividing line so there can be no clear reasoning for lowering the voting age to 16.

There needs to be a cut off

Same argument, same answer: I agree with you when you said that is unconstitutional be paying taxes without representation, but this situation must be resolved since a reform of the quantity or kind of taxes that the under 16 should pay. The average teenagers has not showed to be enough rational or knower about politics and how does the world work. If you suggest something to change the status quo you should show some objetive evidence that support your argument. And I repeat, the main point to set the age to be able to vote are not the taxes, is the maturity of people. Regards.

The voting age should be reduced to 16

On average 16 year olds are worrying about a lot of different things like their school dance and what not. Most might be able to handle a paying job and taking care of their cars, but that doesn't mean that they would be able to handle voting with all the other part of society. They aren't at that stage that they would fully understand what things would help our economy and what wouldn't.

The age that people have the right to vote should be lowered to 16 and not stay at 18

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?

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.

The voting age should be lowered 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 reduced to 14.

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.

The voting age should be lowered

"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.

Lowering the voting age to 16

16 year olds are mature enough to vote

lower the voting age to 16

Thank you for responding quickly. Allow me to refute the points at hand. Counter-Rebuttal 1: Uninformed voters I have shown empirically that voters in particular who are under the age of 18 are particularly uneducated with both cards that I used that addressed children in particular. I will quote myself: “Well, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered “proficient” in civics.” (1) High school seniors are usually between the ages of 17 and 18. This shows that high school seniors are specifically less politically savvy, as my opponent has put it, which means that this rebuttal is void, due to the fact that he has not nullified the impact of more dilution in an already weak voting base. I also have shown the fact that generally, those who are younger voters have a huge influence on the election cycle, specifically in 2016. By decreasing the voting age, we would be seeing more people who are uninformed voting. Remember, the voting rate of younger voters is usually static, but by adding more to the system, we would be seeing an increase in youth voters which will result in higher uninformed voters. Counter-Rebuttal 2: Propaganda Actually, I have proven this. The fact is, teens are more impressionable as proven by my Harvard article showing that teens are more influenced by their environment (2). Not only this, but because teens use social media more than other age demographics, we can see that they will be more influenced by social media. This is a problem since I have shown that presence on social media has effected election results, as shown by Trump (3). So no, I have proven that this would disproportionately affect teenagers at a higher rate. Counter-Rebuttal 3: Counter Plan I have proffered a counter plan that was refuted by the pro side, so allow me to respond. First, he suggests that my plan is similar to Jim Crow Laws, which is not a rebuttal, rather an opinion. At the time of Jim Crow laws, racism was rampant. This is important, because in my counter plan I have provided an alternative, which was education relating to policy and public affairs which would allow those who are disadvantaged still become politically knowledgeable enough to vote. Yet, I am confused. I asked for an observable metric to determine voter competence in the future. This could determine the general competence of certain demographics of voters to understand the general demographics for future reference for potential policy to increase said political knowledge. This was my intention of the counter plan. I did not realize the vagueness. I apologize if it seemed that I wanted to oppress groups. Counter-Rebuttal 4: Rebuttal Under the framework I provided, the purpose of government does not play in. However, let us observe he fact that if the argument that we are undermining the purpose of the government, then it would be quite apparent. Remember, we live under a social contract where people give up certain rights for protection. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, we see that the social contract theory states the following: “Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.” (4) John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both who influenced the constitution both proclaimed this (5). With this theory, we can see that some rights, such as voting, are not guaranteed. In fact, people give these rights up to live in a civil society with competent leaders put into office by knowledgeable voters. Counter-Rebuttal 5: General Observation My opponent has not offered any points under the framework I provided. Remember, we are debating the tangible effects of today’s resolution on the election process. While this may seem unfair, keep in mind we are doing this to make the election process better with less uninformed voters. Onto my opponent’s case. Rebuttal 1: “Of the people” This points toward a utilitarian framework due to the fact that we are looking for benefits for the people. I have proven that this does not happen because of the fact that we see less competent people in office with uninformed voters. Thus, this argument falls. Even if we are talking about political representation in a sense, I have offered a counter plan that, while vague, solves the problems the pro ide has brought up. Rebuttal 2: No difference between 18 and 17 year olds I have shown you through a previous statistic that 75% of high school seniors are not proficient in civics (1). Regardless of the fact that 17 year olds may be quite similar in representation due to their military conscription and other privileges given to them, this does not automatically qualify them for voting. 18 year olds have usually graduated from high school and have earned their votes. Also, weigh the points I made due to the tangible effects it would have over the abstract arguments my opponent has made, as they have no impact in this debate. Rebuttal 3: Taxation without representation My opponent claims that by not allowing 17 year olds to vote we are taxing them without representation. This may be true, but under the framework I provided, we are looking at the effects on the voting system in general. This point is then moot because it does not address the problem at hand, which is the system in which voting occurs. Remember, I have already proven that the system is bad due to the already poor voting base becoming even more diluted, which is a problem that my opponent has yet to address. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com...

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.

Lowering the voting age to 15

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.

The voting age should be reduced to 16

But without school teachers a pupil cannot gain information about the left wing parties, what is good/bad about them etc. Or if they were going to vote other than left wing they would gain knowledge of the left wings bad points. I do not agree with your statement that if anything we should raise the voting age to 25 or 30 as young people need a say in our country. At the moment it is mostly only OAP's that get attention as it is mostly them who vote- they get attention on pensions etc.

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.

You shouldn't raise the voting age to 21

I accept and will have an opening statement in round 2

Rules1. Comment before accepting the debate2. It may take me a while to respond, so be patient3. No trolling4. No kritiks5. No forfeiture6. Be courteous7. No new arguments in final focus, you may refute if you want to.Round structureR1- Pro provides caseR2- Con (me) present my case, pro refutesR3- Con refutes, pro final focusR4- Con final focus, Pro waives

Thank you for responding quickly, I shall offer the following framework since one was not provided. Framework We need to weigh the effect on the election process and results over everything else in today’s debate. Thus, if con were to show that the voting age being lowered to 17 is a net harm, then the judge should feel comfortable with voting on the negation. Contention 1: Uninformed voters Under the status quo we see that many voters are unaware of the political process. In fact, if we were to turn toward a poll from the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum shows that only 1/1000 Americans know the first 5 freedoms given by the first amendment (1). This is a problem because when people are standing at their voting booths, we see that they are not informed at all about the very basic rights given to us. We can see further in depth why voters are usually misinformed or uninformed with a startling statistic from a study conducted by the American Press Institute and the Center for Public Affairs Research, which states that 30% of Americans do not go in-depth in news stories (2). In fact, we can see this by looking at the following graphic (2). Forbes goes into more specifics by showing the fact that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party they represent (3). Why does this matter? Well, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered “proficient” in civics (4). If these are high school seniors, could you imagine the political understanding of a freshman? Well, you do not have to take my word for it, a poll of incoming freshman has determined that only 26% of them considered politics important, or kept up to date with political affairs. In other words, we would be diluting the already weak voter base so that more uninformed people would be participating in voting. We would be able to see this because generally, despite a minor decrease in the 2012 election, numbers of youth voters have remained static (5). This shows that despite a generally static trend in young voters, there is still a generally uninformed youth-voter base, which would only increase with this resolution due to allowing more people to vote. In fact, according to CIRCLE, an organization that focuses on youth in voting, has found that off the states with the most influence from the 2016 election, most of them are swing states and states where there is no general consensus on who would win. In other words, the votes from young voters could decide the election (12). This would cause problems, because without an informed base of people voting, we would see that people would be making decisions affecting many people without being necessarily informed about the magnitude, or impact of the decision. Ergo, unqualified people taking office would be the net harm under the resolution. Thus, we need to negate to prevent incompetent leaders. Contention 2: Propaganda With teen voters, we would see that propaganda would have an increased effect. In the status quo, we see that teenagers are usually more prone to impulses and their environment, as shown by the Harvard Magazine in 2008 (6). This is important because of the frequency of political advertisements and attack ads which populate the entire spectrum of media. In fact, on TV ads alone, the total spent on advertisement was $4.4 billion, which is a huge number which reaches 87% of people over the age of 18 (7). This would increase for the technology obsessed youth with increased focus on social media in recent years, as candidates are more likely to tweet, go on Facebook, or both. In fact, according to a Pew Research poll, over 70% of teens go on Facebook, and the majority of teens who use social media use more than one site (8). This is a problem due to the aforementioned political propaganda. This can be easily seen as a recent report by New Republic which found the following (9): “The prod to nudge bystanders to the voting booths was simple. It consisted of a graphic containing a link for looking up polling places, a button to click to announce that you had voted, and the profile photos of up to six Facebook friends who had indicated they’d already done the same.” What was the result? There was a .39% more of a chance that people would vote for what the friends’? preferences were. The ripple effect of friends on Facebook influencing others resulted in more than 300,000 votes for a particular candidate (9). This powerful tool could result in “digital gerrymandering,” where people abused this tactic to get people to vote for others. This would be incredibly effective against the easily-influenced minds of teenagers, who are proven to act on impulse. Thus, we would be seeing political candidates having an advantage by targeting teens at an unprecedented rate. This is happening in the status quo with Donald Trump, who uses Twitter, a social media outlet, quite often to appeal to the 90% of young adults who use the site (10). This is confirmed by the fact that the majority of young republicans actually support Donald Trump. This is not a coincidence, and with the popularity of social media and the teen’s ability to be influenced means that political candidates will take advantage with propaganda, meaning a negative vote is necessary. Thus, I urge you to negate this resolution. Counter Plan What needs to be seen is the problem and the solution. Since teenagers are not represented in politics, then we can allow them to form political clubs or PACs to further political goals. We can push for more time spent contacting state senators to make sure that youth are represented as well. Not only this, but we need to make sure that people who are voting are actually competent, thus we need to establish an observable metric that could determine the overall competence of the voter when it comes to basic rights, current events, and politics in general. However, the resolution has unreasonably harmful effects, thus a negative vote is the only vote one can imagine to be beneficial to the voting process. Conclusion One must conclude that lowering the voting age to 17 will produce harms on the electoral system and will skew the results of elections with unfair propaganda being used by future political candidates. Ergo, one must negate. 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...)

The voting age is a tender topic that at the moment, isn't exactly what many would call a problem, so why mess with that now. Many kids and others look forward for the right to vote that now at this moment in our country is a right that we shouldn't tamper with.

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 should be reduced to 14.

The voting age in the U.K should be lowered to 16 years as once you are 16, you have to pay taxes so a view of opinion starts to form on politics. At this age you will be thinking of your future; what occupation will I want to have? How much will I earn? Will I be able to afford the cost of living? All these sort of questions and more will be in a 16 year olds mind- they should have a right to vote. I do not agree with the statement; “16 year olds are not mature enough to decide the country’s democracy” as surely, if you work (part time at 16) and pay taxes you have as much right as a 36-year old who does exactly the same things- don’t you think so? Not only will this, having 16 and 17 year olds voting increase the variety in election results so the popularity turnout will increase.

Now I know what most people are thinking, kids are too immature, or ignorant to vote. But for my friends and I, we have known more about voting situations then our parents the past 2 times. Now I have a group of very intelligent friends, and believe me I know that not all 14 and 15 year old are like that. But trust me on this the teenagers who don't want to spend the time to learn about the current political situation truly don't care enough to vote or even "waist there time" thinking about it. I have only met a handful of teenagers who keep up on current events,and those are the only ones who would vote before at least 18.

Lowering the voting age to 15

*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.

The fundamental parts of driving and voting are very different. Driving is split-second decisions, But not very complicated split-second decisions. Voting is a long and hard process, In terms of the decisions that need to be made. When someone votes, They need to be up to date on the candidate's stances. The legal voting age, Coincidences with the age when most are considered old enough to live on their own (in college). Also, Many states are putting in a graduated licensing program. In Illinois, The program ends, And the driver is allowed to drive without restriction on number of people or curfew (provided they received no traffic convictions) at age 18. (1) The program has been credited with saving many lives of teen drivers. In fact, Drivers 16-17 have two times the amount of fatal crashes per mile driven than drivers 18-19. (2) (1 )http://www. Cyberdriveillinois. Com/departments/drivers/teen_driver_safety/gdl. Html (2) http://www. Iihs. Org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers

Do you think that the voting age should be lowered to age 18? If so why?

Drinking Age

Con says kids are too ignorant and immature. I did not confirm that, I said that ignorance and maturity is not determined by age. That was the last line of my previous round. It's a shame that Con does not know how to read. Perhaps Con should not be able to vote even though he is 47. If he cannot grasp basic comprehension then he should definitely not be casting a ballot. But the government does not weed out the ignorant and immature. They only weed out by age which I explained is unfair, does not make sense and is contradictory with other values (like no taxation without representation).

The voting age should be reduced to 14.

I did not say kids were too stupid, but too ignorant and immature, which you confirmed. And by limiting voting to landholders, we weed out the ignorant and immature.

The voting age should be reduced to 14.

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.

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?

Lowering the voting age to 16

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.

Should kids at age 16 be able to vote

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.

We should change the voting age to 15.

The right to vote is a injustice to just not only me, but to future generations of citizens. We are all citizens, we all live and work here, why as teens are denied the most important civil right to our democracy. Youth Suffrage or lowering the voting age to 16-17 is a issue that is sidelined by the media and the government. But I have a voice, and want to use it. Why in the home of the free, we are still being looked down as dumb uneducated teens? We are more inform than half of voters. We pay income tax when we have jobs and pay sales tax when we buy stuff at the stores. We can drive cars, that can kill us but not vote! We can be charged as adults but not vote! We, just, want our voices to be heard as equal. Why give a vote to a person who has no idea how our democracy works, but not a teen that dose? I am asking for your support and help to bring this issue to the tables across the country and the world! We are all citizens of the world!

Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age.

You are arguing that the group of 14-year-olds who are employed is too small? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov...), in 1999 roughly a quarter of 14-year-olds held non-freelance, meaning paycheck, jobs. If 25% is too small a group, then you might as well argue that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote - after all, they make up only about 13.2% of the U.S. population, according to the United States Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov...). 25% is, by no means, a negligible minority.

The voting age in the United States should be eliminated for several reasons. First, this country was founded on 'no taxation without representation'. Despite this, in the 2008 presidential debate, over SEVENTY MILLION citizens, a majority of whom did pay taxes, were denied the basic democratic right to vote merely for having been born in the wrong year. Second, it's discriminatory. We've had laws in the past that arbitrarily denied the right to vote (laws against women or black people voting), but we have found such laws to be unfair. Furthermore, if a law against people over a certain age existed, it, too, would quickly be found unfair and discriminatory. It's time to extend the same respect to those under eighteen. Finally, the fourteenth amendment clearly forbids refusing people rights due to their belonging to a certain class of people. In the case of today's voting age, that class is those people who are under eighteen years of age. For these reasons, I urge the nation to eliminate the minimum voting age.

The voting age in the United States should be eliminated

Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages

lower the voting age to 16

There needs to be a cut off

lower the voting age to 16

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.

Lowering the voting age to 15

16-year-olds should be allowed to vote in the US. Prior to the 26th amendment being passed, you had to be 21 to vote. The 26th amendment lowered the age to 18. Lowering the age has already been successful once, why not do it again? About 10% of 16-year-olds work. Many complain that these numbers are dropping, which they are, but giving 16-year-olds the right to vote would make them feel more like adults, possibly bringing up the employment rate.

You should be able to vote at the age of 16 in the US

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

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.

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.

Lowering the voting age to 15

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...

The Voting Age should be lowered to 16.

Voting at a lower age would increase participation

lower the voting age to 16

First of all, I find an apparent lack of definitions in your opening statement. Are you talking about the voting age in the United States, or some other country? Also, what kind of voting are you talking about, local, state, national? Also, what problem does changing the current voting age even solve? Personally, I'm just fine with the voting age where it is, thank you very much. Why fix what ain't broke? How do propose to go about doing this, how are you going to pass the laws necessary? Finally, why do you think that (even if it could be accomplished) it would necessarily have a good outcome? Younger teens tend to be less informed than older teens, and uninformed people is what lead to this crazy election. There's just no argument to even be had here. You didn't defend your resolution at all, and if you can't do that, what's the point?

The voting age should be lowered to 16

It's been shown that an average voter couldn't pass a basic economics course. Why then, should we put more barely knowledgeable voters into the mix. Most kids would probably just vote for who their parents voted for. Unless they've been watching the news or doing some serious reading, how would they know anything about the issues of the day. Most people can't identify the speaker of the house or tell which party controls which part of congress. Assuming they are allowed to vote, they will become targets of eager politicians taking advantage of their general ignorance. To get a informed voter you have to sway them with arguments. To get a uniformed voter you have to make up some position that relies more on emotion then logic and sounds very supportable or common sense. To get a totally ignorant teenager to vote for you, you just need a good campaign add and a nice slogan. Here's a article about a survey done about some kids political knowledge. The results showed that these kids didn't know crap. What possible benefits are there to gain by allowing teens to vote? http://www.phillyburbs.com...

voting age should be lowered

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.

While it's true a 16 year old could easily be swayed, I know many adults who have little to no political and economic knowledge. There are plenty of adults who are extremely ignorant. Why should they vote and not a 16 year old?

The voting age should be reduced to 16

Thank you for responding. Con makes two contention’s and provides a counterplan. I will address each in turn. Con’s case C1: Uniformed Voter’s Con argues that uninformed voters harm the system and demonstrates that 17 year olds are likely be uninformed voters. The issue with this contention is that con does nothing to demonstrate 17 year olds any less informed than those who can vote. What con has demonstrated is the reality is many of those who can and do vote are not particularly "politically savvy." Essentially con’s contention here is against uneducated voting, not voting age. Thus, we see this contention entirely misses the mark. It seems to me that according to con’s logic here, if someone is informed they ought to be able to vote. I am certain that con would not contend the fact that there are a few politically savvy teens that are informed enough to vote. Certainly savvy enough to pass an arbitrary test to vote. C2: Propoganda As with the first contention, this argument misses the mark. It addresses the issue of misinformation and voter manipulation. This is true of the status quo and is not going to be impacted by allowing 17 year olds to vote. Worse yet, con confirm this as he presented a source indicating that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party with which they identify. Again, this contention has nothing to do with age but rather against voting in General. Con’s Counter Plan Here con makes some inconstant and startling suggestions. In my estimation the worst being the suggestion of a type of metric or test to determine if those that do vote should be allowed to. Sound like Jim Crow laws to me. Not only does con want to keep 17 year olds oppressed, it sounds like he wants to take the vote away from other groups. Summary of Con’s case Con has not addressed the issue at hand, both contentions address issues that are separate from age and thus do not negate the resolution. Con’s counter plan is likely to restrict voting from young, old, and uneducated. Rebuttal “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence) Unalienable: “impossible to take away or give up” (1) We live in a society that accepts the concept that some rights are unalienable. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” (Declaration of Independence) “Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority;” (2) We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”(Declaration of Independence) “Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law.”(2) We live in a society that dictates that the power of government come from the consent of the governed Via voting. "A man without a vote is a man without protection." Lyndon B. Johnson 36th U.S. President (3) "Voting is the most precious right of every citizen" Hillary Clinton (4) We live in a society that accepts… 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting To accept con’s argument is to reject the very purpose of our government. His plan rejects equal rights to voting, and effectively would mitigate the ability of people to give consent to the government. This is tyranny. Value liberty; uphold our Constitution and the values displayed in the Declaration of Independence. Return sovereignty to the people. Vote in favor of lower the age to vote to 17. Vote Pro. Sources (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.brainyquote.com... (4) http://www.brainyquote.com...

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.

Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK.

In my school when the elections came up they held a mock election and you voted for the party you would vote for had you been old enough we where at an age where everything was very clichy and if you didn't vote for the right party you weren't in the group, therefore think the age should be lowered to 15/16 that way people are past that point aswell it gives you more freedoms when your 16 as these days all you can do when your 16 is have sex legally and most people do it illegally anyway

It should be lowered not scrapped all together

:) "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 Should Be Dropped to 16

Per rules this is my final focus. Con case If you recall in my first argument I mentioned that to win 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. Let’s see if he has done that. 1: “Uniformed Voters” Essentially con’s contention here is against uneducated voting, not voting age. Last round he attempted to argue that he has shown that it is a larger issue for those under 18, though all he showed was that it is an issue, not a larger issue for the age group. In fact I can show this via my opponent’s own words. “High school seniors are usually between the ages of 17 and 18. ” My opponent has just affirmed that his stat reasonably applies to 17 and 18 year olds alike and thus this contention does nothing to negate lowering the voting age to 17. It is therefore off topic and ought not be weighed against the resolution. 2: “Propaganda” This contention addresses the issue of misinformation and voter manipulation. Con does claim that teens are likely easier to manipulate, though as with the last contention; this would include eighteen and nineteen year olds. Thus, we see this contention also does not really address why those that are 18 should vote and those 17 ought not. This contention is therefore not well established to be against the resolution so much as voting itself and ought not be weighed against the resolution. 3: “Counter Plan” Con’s alternative was for an observable metric to determine voter competence. I mentioned that this is reminiscent of Jim Crow Laws. It seems my reference here was misunderstood. I was saying that having some kind of intelligence test or metric to determine voter competence has been found to be easily used to oppress minorities. For example; Jim Crow laws. As Con has provided no kind of specifics, it is impossible for me to attack whatever metric he is referring to. Thus, my contention was that when such “metrics” have been used in the past, they have been used to oppress minorities. Final thoughts on Con’s Case My opponents contentions and counter plan miss the mark. We are discussing whether voting should be extended to 17 year olds. Nothing in Con’s case demonstrates support for the status quo which allows those the age of 18 to vote and not allow those 17 to vote. He has thus not justified denying the vote to 17 year olds specifically. My case I presented the simple concept that This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people. ” 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. Con claims that this claim points toward a utilitarian framework. It does, it appeals to the greatest possible good being liberty of the people to choose outweighing the so called benefits of tyranny. Con’s claims his counterplan solves the problem I brought up. I am not sure how he sees that being the case. His counter plan seems to more than likely limit liberty not oppress it. I have shown that the difference between 17 and 18 year olds is virtually nonexistent and thus no reason there to give 18 year olds the power to vote and restrict 17 year olds. Con claims that 17 year olds ability to conscript in the military does not qualify them for the vote. If con was aware of history he would see that is the main reason 18 year olds were given the vote. During Vietnam 18 year olds could be drafted but not vote. It was argued that such an arrangement that allows you to die for your country but have no representation way tyrannical. Con again cites his stat concerning high school seniors. Again I will point out this stat also includes those who have the ability currently to vote. I also briefly argued that taxation without representation was tyrannical. He concedes this but says it does not affect his framework. Apparently con feels as though his framework is the end all be all of this debate. Though, he never addressed my framework. Clearly, I argued that what ought to be valued is liberty and what ought to be avoided is tyranny. My opponent needed to provide reasoning that demonstrated why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. He has not done so. 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.

Counter-Rebuttal 1: Uninformed Voters I have shown empirically why my opponent is wrong. I have proven that 17 year olds do not have the political knowledge to vote with the statistic I have mentioned before about the fact that 75% of high school seniors are not proficient in civics. Yes, this applies to both 17 year olds and 18 year olds, but that point is irrelevant considering the fact that I have already shown that 17 year olds are not politically knowledgeable. I have shown this through the previous statistic that my opponent has already conceded effects both 18 year olds and 17 year olds. Thus, we see that my impacts are still valid. By passing this resolution to extend voting rights to 17 year olds, we would be seeing an increasingly diluted voting pool, which still stands regardless of whether 18 year olds are any more politically knowledgeable than 17 year olds due to the fact that we are still diluting the voting pool with more uninformed voters. Counter-Rebuttal 2: Propaganda First, I should clear something up. No, I do not think it is fair that those who are 18 can vote, and those who are 17 cannot. However, there are impacts that one would want to avoid in the status quo, and since not allowing 17 year olds to vote would mitigate this, one needs to vote for the con side. However, allow me to address the points made by my opponent thus far in relation to propaganda. My opponent has already claimed that my contentions are not specific enough, but this doesn’t matter as long as my impacts still occur, which I have already proven. Remember, we are allowing more people into the voting base who are uninformed, that being 17 year olds. Not only this, but these are young voters who are impressionable and on social media, which I have proven is also a way in which candidates could manipulate to get more votes. I have proven this by the statistic showing that the ripple effect from other Facebook friends resulted in .39% more of a chance that people would vote for their friends’ choice. This, as cited by the author of the previous statistic, can be easily manipulated by means of “cyber gerrymandering. ” This impact still remains unrefuted. Counter-Rebuttal 3: Counter plan My opponent still has not touched on the other factors I have mentioned in my original case such as forming PACs or pushing for more time in which teens can contact state senators, so extend those as my opponent has dropped them. Regardless, I will explain the difference between Jim Crow laws and my counter plan. I never stated that the information gathered could be used to limit voting I stated the following: “This could determine the general competence of certain demographics of voters to understand the general demographics for future reference for potential policy to increase said political knowledge. ” Unless affirmative action is the same as Jim Crow laws, then this accusation is false. This would not limit voting; this would make the process even more fair. Counter-Rebuttal 4: Opponent’s case Extend my social contract theory point as well as my point that none of my opponent’s points fall under the unrefuted framework. Regardless, I will refute. a. My opponent’s framework My opponent claims that his framework has to do with liberty. This not only does not produce tangible effects on the American people, but there are no impacts to this as the political system will continue as it does with no major problems. Not only this, but he has waited until his final focus to point this out. b. Similarity between 17 year olds and 18 year olds My opponent may have provided evidence showing that both have similar rights, but again, this has nothing to do with voting ability or political knowledge. Even so, I have proven detrimental effects on the voting system if this resolution were to be passed. c. Utilitarian framework One can’t propose both a utilitarian framework and one about liberty. Regardless, I will refute. My counter plan will work because we are still involving 17 year olds into the political system by pushing them to form PACs and generally become more politically involved. Thus, they still get the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Conclusion My opponent’s case has been completely refuted.

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...

You may go first. I am FOR lowering the voting age, and for this argument we will talk about lowering it to 16.Here are some extra rules:If either side curses, they lose right away.No new arguments may be brought into the last round, only rebuttals. This counts in conduct.Formatting counts for spelling and grammar in voting. Meaning both sides must make their argument look good and be easily readable.

Lower the Voting Age

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!).

Lowering the voting age to 15

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!

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!

Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16

1) I`m not saying we lower the age to 8, I`m saying we lower the age to like 16 or something, and the teenage brain does not get fully developed until about 25 anyway. And in the article you submitted said "If they feel pressured, stressed, or are seeking attention from their peers" and voting is none of those things http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.bbc.com... 2) more adults (according to NBC) have died than kids so your argument is invalid https://twitter.com... 3) See example one

Should the voting age 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.

voting age should be lowered

No taxation without representation

lower the voting age to 16

First, just because you went to Ivy-League college doesn't mean you know everything. Second, my argument is completely logical and is completely supported by hundreds sources and is backed up entirely by science. Third, the more educated a person is, the more mature that person will become and the can make better choices. However I understand that people are not immature until age twenty-five, but on average the human brain is not fully developed. Fourth, the more mature people are, the better off our nation will be (the United States). Its that simple. There is nothing more to it.

The lowering of the voting age>>>