Question: Should the voting age be lowered?

Title: voting age should be lowered Content: I will gladly accept

Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: 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?

Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: 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.

Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: 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.

Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: 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.

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

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

Title: the voting age should be lowered to 16. Content: 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.

Title: Voting at a lower age would increase participation Content: Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined[1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012[2], and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users,[3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box. [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004 [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012 [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010

Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: 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.

Title: the voting age should be lowered to 16. Content: 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...

Title: voting age should be lowered Content: acceptance only, this is for voting rights for 16&17 year olds

Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: 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.

Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: 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...)

Title: Should the voting age be lowered Content: 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

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

Title: There needs to be a cut off Content: This applies equally to having the cut off at 16 rather than 18. If it is questionable at both ages then since this is an issue of human rights we should err on the side of caution and give the vote to as many as possible. This would mean lowering the voting age.

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

Title: The voting age should be lowered to 14 Content: 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.

Title: Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Content: 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!

Title: Should the voting age be lowered Content: 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)

Title: The voting age should be lowered to 16 Content: 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.

Title: Lowering the voting age Content: Ladies and gentlemen, in this debate I am here to oppose the motion that the house would lower the voting age to 18. The context of this debate is that there is a low voter turnout. That is the problem that brings us to have this debate. Also this is not due to the fact that the voting age is too high, but it is due to the fact that there is voter apathy and lack of mature and politically active electorate. So, firstly, I will prove that lowering the voting age has inherent harms and should not be undertaken. And secondly, I will present an alternative that raises both voter quality, and participation rates. Moving onto my first argument, which is that it is impossible to find a reliable standard for maturity among young people. And, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, ladies and gentlemen. So, on the first level of analysis, what is the standard of maturity? We challenge the proposition to give us a clear, objective standard, and support for the idea that 18 is a reliable standard, as opposed to the legal age in Korea of 19. And second of all, in the second level of analysis, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, because young people of today are simply less mature than in the past, and are more sheltered than ever. Young people were forced to grow up quickly, and assume responsibility in society quickly in the past, ladies and gentlemen. They were forced to have jobs earlier, to marry earlier, but that is not the case today. Today, many children in Korea are being spoiled, letting their parents deal with their problems, even after they are quite old, ladies and gentlemen. And the so-called "kangaroo youth" are becoming an international problem. A prominent example of this is the Hanhwa chairman fighting for his son who was over 20 years old at the time, ladies and gentlemen. So we say that actually young people today are less mature and we see no reason what-so-ever to lower the age more than the maturity age that was in the past. For my second point, which is that young people of today are more likely to vote for style rather than substance. Not only are the young people today less mature, they are also very pop-culture oriented, easily persuaded by candidates who may be popular rather than good with high quality, which will reduce the quality of the votes overall, and distort the candidate's focus, ladies and gentlemen. And on the second level of analysis, the majority of young people today do not care about political substance. We demand that the proposition show us an uprising among young people in Korea to get the voting age lowered. Without this, how can they prove the political will among 18-year-olds? Is there a clear, measurable standard for determining the level of political participation and willingness among the youth? I say there isn't. And finally, to my third argument. The opposition brings you an alternative that can effectively solve the problem, as opposed to the harmful proposition plan. The counterplan is a compulsory voting clause in the law plus various measures to increase participation, such as voters' education, guaranteed government subsidy on candidate platforms, media broadcasted debates, "Get out the Vote" campaigns, and et cetera. What is needed is more people voting wisely, not a lowering voting age. The compulsory voting clause will bring clearly increased participation regardless of enforcement. In Thailand, this is not enforced, but even if it wasn't enforced, the voting rates rose by about 15% after the clause was established. And in Uruguay, it was enforced, and the voting rate soared from 67% to 88.2%. So it is clear that the benefits are existent whether you enforce it or not, and the government can choose enforcement. But either way, the clause plus the supplemented participation measures, such as Bush's "Get out the Vote" movement, will be successful. Because of these reasons, I ask you in this round to oppose this motion. Thank you.

Title: The lowering of the voting age>>> Content: 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.

Title: The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 Content: 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.

Title: The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds Content: Good luck and have fun!

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

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

Title: The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 Content: 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.

Title: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Content: 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.

Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: 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...

Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: 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

Title: Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Content: 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.

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

Title: Lowering the voting age to 16 Content: 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?

Title: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Content: 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...

Title: Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK. Content: 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.

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

Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: 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.

Title: voting age should be lowered Content: 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.

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

Title: Lowering the voting age to 16 Content: "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.

Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: Per rules I waive!

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

Title: lower the voting age to 16 Content: Rights should be gained progressively

Title: Lower the Voting Age Content: 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.

Title: The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. Content: 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"

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

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

Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: 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).

Title: Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. Content: 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!

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

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

Title: Lowering the voting age to 15 Content: 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.

Title: voting age should be lowered Content: 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?

Title: It should be lowered not scrapped all together Content: 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

Title: lower the voting age to 16 Content: There needs to be a cut off

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

Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: 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.

Title: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Content: I will now refute all my opponents points, and save my best points. Refutations: "Yes, this is about 16 year olds and 16 year olds are a section of everyone. This is completely relevant and was simply just an argument stating that 16 year olds do not need to vote. It seems you are confused this time. " The argument that you stated was that not everyone needed to vote. You then listed examples of toddlers voting on health. How is this relevant? Not everybody needs to vote, but shouldn't we allow those who wish to do it participate? Perhaps you misunderstood my refutation. Not everyone needing to vote has nothing to do with this debate, if someone wants to vote for their country, they should be able to do it! I'm sure if you were talking about an 18 year old, you wouldn't be saying the same thing! "A driver's license demonstrates the responsibility, safety, and caution a person has used throughout his driving test. This is a key area of maturity. The fact that they can be responsible means that they can also be responsible for their own actions as well as voting. It seems you ignored the fact of them being able to attend college and learn even more. " Why would attending college affect this debate? Of course, students can learn more about politics, but this is not necessary if they think they have a future in politics. Can you safely say, that your parents were COMPLETELY informed about politics before they voted? A driver's license has absolutely nothing to do with the maturity required to submit your opinion to a national election! How can someone not be mature enough, if they want to have their vote casted? There is no wrong vote! If they want to vote, they drive out to the voting station, and they are fully prepared to show what they think, how could they be considered immature? Obviously, there is some confusion in my opponent's mind about what real responsibility and maturity is. Saving my points: "Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. " Refutation of this point: As my opponent himself has stated, we should revert to a system where well-educated people can vote. 18 year olds are much better educated compared to 16 year olds. They are in their senior year or have even possibly finished high school. 16 year olds are still stuck in high school and do not yet understand politics and government. Refutation of this: If you don't understand sarcasm, I wouldn't be surprised. The argument clearly said "to its logical extreme". This was pointing out that the inability for uneducated people to vote was classist and was abandoned. You clearly do not understand what I was saying. 16 year olds could already have taken certain classes concerning government, and 18 year olds might not have taken them! "More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. " Refutation of my point: Does this necessarily mean that they are mature? Marrying is a huge responsibility. A responsibility that 16 year olds have not demonstrated their ability to handle. Marrying means there must have been a great bond of love between two people, love that must have distracted the 16 year old from high school work. Raising a family is usually also a party of marrying. Just because 16 year olds can have sex does not mean that they are mature. When a 16 year old drops out of high school, that must mean he or she is extremely lazy and does not wish to learn. This is not maturity. Furthermore, if a 16 year old doesn't wish to be delayed by the work of high school, why would that same person with to receive a full time job? If someone is devoted to studying, then why would he or she get a job, for that same matter? This is not a clear-cut case of maturity. Lastly, 16 year olds are not allowed to actually fight in the army. They can receive cadet training, but cannot risk their lives. Refutation of this: If anything, you are helping my point. According to this legal system, 16 year olds can marry, have sex, drop out of high school, get a job, and join the military. If they are mature enough to do all these things, why can't they simply represent their ideas in important elections? Your refutation is completely useless. Lastly, you said that 16 year olds cannot fight in the army. I am aware of this. But, they receive military training, so it is obvious that they have the maturity to fight in the army. It takes a lot of maturity, to even decide to train. Thank you for assisting me. "As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. " Refutation of this point: Just because 18 year olds are capable of making choices much like 21 year olds does not mean, in any way, that 16 year olds can cast a mature, independently-made decision. I argue that there is a transformation when a person grows from 16 to 18. At 16, a boy or girl is in his or her sophomore years, still very young and maturing in high school. However, an 18 year old is a senior in high school and is very capable of making self-decided decisions and mature enough to understand politics, government, and society. 16 year olds have not completed their full studies of the United States government. Refutation of this: If you say that there is no major difference between 18-21 year olds, how can you say there is a difference between 16-18 year olds? There is a 2 year age difference compared to a 3 year age difference. 21 is when you are 3 years into college at the most, and you are now allowed to drink (which can lead to drunk driving). Another thing, is at 16 a boy or a girl have already studied politics enough to fully understand who they want to vote for. Once again as my opponent CONTINUES TO IGNORE, is that there is no wrong vote! You cannot say that someone who wants to vote for the law or official they like, is wrong! Now to refute my opponent's main points. In my opponents first contention, he stated that 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote. Of course, the amount of 16 year olds that are not mature enough to vote, will most likely NOT vote! The 16 year olds that clearly arrive at the voting booth, and are enthusiastic about sharing their opinions will be the mature teenagers! You cannot say that 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote, because that is a complete generalization. This argument means nothing. In my opponent second contention, he said that not everyone needs to vote. Not everyone needs to vote, but that is also inferring that citizens over 18 do not need to vote! He also stated some rubbish about toddlers voting for health, I don't know what that has to do with 16 years olds, but his loss! In my opponent's 3rd and final contention, he stated that 18 is the best minimum age to vote. Yet, all the reasons he listed show absolutely no reason that there would be a maturity increase in Politics. Obviously, my opponent is confused about what is required to have real opinions. (all opinions are real) I'd like to thank my opponent for making this an excellent debate, and I'd like to quickly repeat my best point. No vote, is truly wrong. You cannot walk up to a person and say they cannot vote because they want a good candidate to win

Title: Lowering the voting age Content: 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.

Title: The voting age should be lowered Content: 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.

Title: Lowering the voting age to 15 Content: 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!).

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

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

Title: The drinking age should be lowered to 18 (redone) Content: The point I was trying to make with the voting is a matter of responsibility; an 18 year-old is able to vote in the most powerful person on the face of the planet, and will ultimately shape their own futures based on that decision and many other decisions that are normal for a young adult to make. However, despite all of that they are unable to legally consume alcohol. It seems inconsistent to entrust them with some of the responsibilities of an adult, but not all of them. To conclude, I do not think that teenagers drinking would increase with a lowering of the drinking age, and I think it would be only fair to give them this right when so many other responsibilities are already bestowed upon them.

Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: 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.

Title: The voting age should be lowered to 14 Content: 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.

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

Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: I accept and will have an opening statement in round 2

Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: 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.

Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: 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.

Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: 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).

Title: lower the voting age to 16 Content: Voting at a lower age would increase participation

Title: The voting age should be reduced to 16 Content: 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.

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

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

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

Title: The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds Content: 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.

Title: The lowering of the voting age>>> Content: I never stated that all Ivy-League college graduates know everything, but they certainly know enough to be able to vote at age 23 or 25. Secondly, you never stated any statistics or sources. The rest of your Round 2 argument confuses me and I would appreciate it if you cleared it up.

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

Title: Lowering the voting age to 15 Content: 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.

Title: lower the voting age to 16 Content: Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages

Title: The voting age should be reduced to 16 Content: 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.

Title: The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 Content: :) "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.

Title: Lowering the voting age to 15 Content: 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.

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

Title: Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Content: This was fun! It was a pretty interesting debate on both sides. This could go either way. Best of luck, Con. I'll post this debate into the voting forums once I have completed and posted these arguments.Maturity:This counter would work well against me, if it were not for the fact that I am not making this argument. I never said that maturity should be a factor: I simply said that your argument against why sixteen year olds cannot vote applies just as much to eighteen year olds. Sure, their brains would be more developed than a sixteen year old, but they are still not fully developed, which means you would need to provide a justifiable reason why you are making an exception for those who are eighteen to twenty-four, but not those under eighteen. I agree that fourteen year olds should not vote, but the reason why does not have to do with maturity. This is why I feel you fail to meet your half of the burden of proof (proving that eighteen is a proper voting age, but not sixteen).Good point, in regards to university being more independent. I concede to that. However, you would now need to provide a reason for why this is matters. Why does independence matter in the end when it comes to whether or not someone should be allowed to vote? This is why I feel this argument fails to meet the burden of proof.Kids leaving school was your point: you countered against my rebuttal that the reason kids do not have the ability to become juryman was a matter of circumstance was that children are not required to attend school, and can drop out as a result. You just refuted your own counter. As for learning, this is not true. In fact, in my driver's ed class, we were told to take the permit test the first two weeks into the course; it was a recommendation, actually. When it comes to voting, you are not taking an exam before you finish the course: in the United States, students take Civics and Economics (which teaches political problems and how the government functions) in eighth grade, which would be around age twelve. It is taking an exam several years after taking the course, after doing independent study on your own afterwards to decide your political ideology. I would call that prepared!Yes, sixteen year olds cannot fight. But this is not necessarily a maturity issue: after all, the army did not allow women in combat battalions until only a few months ago in the United States. (1) By this logic, are women not mature enough to handle combat? I doubt you believe this.Experience:Children still have all of those things from their parents, this is true. However, college students have a dependency on their parents as well. Parents send financial support so that their children can afford books, room and board, and basic essentials. As for jobs, teenagers get jobs to afford non-essentials. Games, extra-curricular activities like participating in clubs that require payments (like, ironically enough, Model UN and Youth-in-Government). They do not need to get a job because non-essentials are just that: not essential. They do not need a job; they want a job. This is an important distinction to make. Yeah, I was a tad silly in my reply to them living alone. I should have known you meant living independent of their parents. They are not financially independent, however; they are physically independent however, so point to you on that. But living independently does not mean that they are ready to vote, and not all eighteen year olds get this experience. For example, there are many eighteen year olds who do not go to university and college, and stay at home for several years. These people did not have the experience you describe. Would you deny these people the right to vote due to lack of experience? I doubt you would; as such, why is this an issue of experience, if those who lack experience would still vote?Responsibility:There is no reason to make the assumption that the difference is anything substantial in the span of just two years time. Furthermore, moral development (which includes the ability to make judgments) does not differ much after reaching the autonomous stage of morality, which usually occurs around the age of ten. (2) Therefore, the moral ideas of a sixteen year old likely would not be different from that of the same person two years later.Taxation:That logic doesn't really work for me. Firstly, the child is taxed for these things you mentioned, but the child does not have the ability to vote in support of politicians who support legislator regarding how these tax dollars are to be spent. The child's money is being used without them reaping the benefits of paying them: the right to vote for politicians who will use their tax money in the way they agree with. Secondly, this logic does not work because not all teens pay taxes. Only those who directly purchase things with their own money or those who have a job pay taxes. If these taxes are taken because they benefit the student, why are they not taxing all teens? Or all children for that matter? After all, these benefits affect small children just as much as adolescents.Stability:You vote to prevent worries or pressures. You will have a motivation to vote if you notice that one candidate will negatively effect you if they become a government official. You will vote for the person who will neutrally or positively effect you, would you not? It is the same thing. If you are a well-to-do upper-middle-class teenager, would you support a candidate that would tax your parents more, and likely cause problems for your household financially?Voter turnout:I believe it is sensible to allow sixteen or seventeen year olds to vote (I assume that is what you meant instead of “work,” but I could be mistaken). Voter turnout benefits the country, because more of the general public's opinions are being heard.Sources:(1) http://www.cbsnews.com...(2) http://psychology4a.com...

Title: The voting age should be reduced to 16 Content: 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.

Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: At this point, we need to focus on the resolution at hand. Pro has tried to shift the debate to a quite different topic: "My position today is simple - that 18 is not a justifiable boundary." and "I'd like to have a serious chat to whoever came up with the age of 18 for voting. It's completely arbitrary. "First, this debate is not over whether or not 18 is the appropriate age to allow one to vote, second, Con actually agrees with Pro that 18 is a fairly arbitrary age and, in fact, Con will show that 18 is probably too young of an age. But whether or not 18+ is an appropriate age is irrelevant to this debate. This debate is whether or not 15-17 year olds should also have the right to vote. If Con shows that no one under the age of 30 should be allowed to vote, then Con has effectively won this case (as an example). Pro does not need to defend 18+ year olds, but they must show that 15-17 year olds being allowed to debate is better than not allowing them.Due to space requirements, Con will now present a counter case as to why teenagers (15-17) should not be allowed to vote. In Round 3 Con will present refutations to arguments made by Pro in round 2 (which are mostly circular--i.e. they assume teens make for good voters which will be directly called into question in this round).I will quickly summarize the points I intend to make. Pro makes the argument that 18 is an arbitrary age--then why do they insist on 15? Why not 14 or 12 or 10 or 5? Pro gives no rationale for when they think one becomes "rational" enough to vote. Next, Pro makes most of their arguments under the presupposed assumption that 15-17 year olds are not irrational (making this argument somewhat circular). Con will make a case that shows, in fact that 15-17 year olds (and even higher ages) are actually scientifically proven to be irrational. Con reminds voters that whether or not 18+ (for instance 18-25) should be allowed to vote is irrelevant to this case, so even if Con makes arguments that 18-25 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote is irrelevant to this case (if 18-25 shouldn't vote, then clearly 15-17 shouldn't be allowed to vote either).So what would a country want out of a voter? This is the question that must be answered by Pro, first and foremost. In Con's opinion a voter should be well informed, rational thinking, and have a stake in the outcome of an election. Con will now show that teenagers (15-17) do not meet at least two of these criteria.1) Teenagers living at home with their parents have less of a stake in the outcome of elections.I think it's fairly uncontested that the vast majority of teenagers live at home with their parents and do not support themselves. This means teens do not pay taxes (other than sales taxes), do not have an independent stream of income (meaning their contribution via sales tax is actually their parents' money), and do not support themselves. As such, policy decisions about income tax, property taxes, welfare, etc. do not have direct effects on teens.2) Teens are irrational human beings and their brains are not fully developed.An ideal voter would be able to make calculated decisions about cause and effect--they would be able to see how complex policies would effect long term outcomes. Unfortunately, teen brains are still developing and this ongoing development makes it difficult for teens to make such judgment decisions.I would expect most (older) voters to assume this prima facie: that teens are irrational, impulsive, and have very little self control. However, a) this is likely unconvincing to younger voters and b) this sentiment does not make it true! So is there any evidence to support this idea? In fact there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this idea [1, 2, 3, 4]. This comes from the fact that teenagers rely mostly on their amygdala for decision making whereas adults tend to use their frontal cortex in decision making."Their[teenagers] actions are guided more by the amygdala and less by the frontal cortex." [1]"The researchers found that when processing emotions, adults have greater activity in their frontal lobes than do teenagers. Adults also have lower activity in their amygdala than teenagers. In fact, as teenagers age into adulthood, the overall focus of brain activity seems to shift from the amygdala to the frontal lobes." [2]"And she says that adults process information in the rational prefrontal cortex. But, in the teen brain, most of the heavy lifting is done by the emotion-oriented limbic center." [3]"The part of the brain that helps us make logical and rational decisions is just developing in a teen and usually it's not fully functional until the early to mid-20s. " [4]The amygdala is more associated with impulse reactions and "gut" feelings:" The frontal lobes are also thought to be the place where decisions about right and wrong, as well as cause-effect relationships are processed. In contrast, the amygdala is part of the limbic system of the brain and is involved in instinctive "gut" reactions, including "fight or flight" responses." [2]This last quote is particularly important, as it shows that the frontal lobe is where cause-effect relationships are processed. This is paramount in making political decisions! One must understand the effect that certain policies will cause. If they do not, then they are not likely to make for very good voters. As this research suggests, teenagers are not the type of people we want in determining policy through becoming voters. It's not some "arbitrary" age limit--this is scientific evidence to suggest that teenagers are not "mature" enough to make such decisions.The next problem with allowing teens to vote is that they are not independent thinkers. Teens tend to support whatever their parents support. Again, there is overwhelming evidence to support this fact."According to Boquist, "Family is the primary agent of political socialization. It's usually not purposeful and has to do with absorption."" [5] This shows that while families influence political beliefs, there does not tend to be a rational reason behind it."Research shows that children tend to share their parents’ political attitudes—at least while they’re all still living under the same roof, said UW-Madison political science professor Charles Franklin." [6]Again, notice the important caveat: "at least while they’re all still living under the same roof". This is true of virtually all teenagers from the agers of 15-17.Finally, there is empirical evidence to show that 70% of children hold the same political belief as their parents. Specifically, 70% of children would vote the same way as their parents (77% for republicans, 71% for democrats, and 61% for independents) [7].So what does this prove? It shows that allowing teens (15-17) to vote does nothing to increase democracy, rather just works to reward parents with many children and whom tend to strictly enforce their views onto their children. So this essentially has no effect, other than giving parents with children a few extra votes for their particular ideal. Teens will not make independent, well-informed decisions. 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...

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

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

Title: The voting age should be lowered to 16 Content: 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?

Title: The voting age should be reduced to 16 Content: 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?

Title: Should the voting age be lowered Content: 1) Teenagers are responsible enough to drive, have jobs, and therefore ALSO HAVE TO PAY TAXES, you would think if they had to pay taxes they should at least have some say in the government https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk... 2) Still more adults have done it so... Your argument is still invalid (it is just more teens youtubed it)(no I`m not sure if that is a word but it is now) https://twitter.com... And for the record i have been submitting VERY good evidence. (that is an opinion but still) Since this is the last round i would also like to say Thank you David for losing to me this was a very nice argument

Title: The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 Content: That is... an offensively absurd argument, no, I'm not suggesting minorites not be allowed to vote. What? The issue is that if only 25%* of 14-year-olds work, that means, for starters, SIGNIFICANTLY less than 25% of 14-year-olds would be paying taxes (keep in mind, the entire basis of your argument is on the precept that 14-year-olds should be able to vote because they pay taxes) because of working restrictions. So, let's say the actual percentage of 14-year-olds who pay taxes comes out to 2%, you are then arguing that 98% of 14-year-olds who don't pay taxes also deserve representation - therein lies the problem. It's not that 2% is too small, it's that 98% is too big and it, frankly, isn't warranted. *that statistic is from '94-'97, not '99, and is also likely outdated (though we'll never know, as there isn't a lot of officially published research on the subject).

Title: The lowering of the voting age>>> Content: http://www.bbc.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.urmc.rochester.edu... It's all pasted right there. However in your first argument you gave no facts or sources and all of your statements were opinions. That goes to show how illegitimate your "arguments" were. When you said that a fourteen-year old could have the brain capacity to vote wisely, you are wrong, a fourteen-year old would still be undergoing many changes in his or her mind. This includes synaptic or neural pruning (they are the same thing), or when a brain starts strengthening often used synapses, or pruning unused synapses. As sourced below. http://en.wikipedia.org... This goes to show how young adults (at least twenty and below) are only still developing. I also wonder are you really for the lowering of the voting age in the U.S., or are you just disagreeing with my first argument?

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

Title: A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes Content: While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy.