Question: Should the Eligibility Age for Voting be Reduced?

Voters should be mandated to pass a competency test before casting their ballots. If the voting age threshold is lowered in conjunction with a knowledge assessment, wouldn't that address the concern of insufficient voter knowledge? The rationale for setting the voting age at 18 is often attributed to a lack of knowledge, yet individuals who are uninformed about the candidates are still permitted to vote. Surely, implementing a voting test would be a logical step, allowing for a reduction in the age limit.

I don't think that making drinking legal for 18 year olds is going to eliminate any rebelliousness (in the kids that are still rebellious at that age). I would say that they are just going to drink more, because now they are able to. I would also, say this would, especially, be the case for the 18 y.o. that are rebellious, because being rebellious shows immaturity, and if they are immature, how can they be responsible drinkers. Also, if rebelliousness is part of growing up, then you could say that these kids are not yet mature enough to drink since they are still "growing up". On the other point that you make about kids at 18 being able to vote etc... I'm not really going to go into that, that is more of a political thing as far as I'm concerned. But, I will say, voting is not something that impairs your judgement, and you can't get behind the wheel of a car and possibly kill someone by voting...

In this debate, I will argue that the legal drinking age for the United States should be lowered to 18, while the Con will debate that it should state at 21. Due to problems with the previous debate, this will be a redo of the original. Round 1 will be dedicated to the acceptance of the debate, with the standard debate following that.

"I really do not think teenagers should be allowed to vote. And being honest, I think the voting age should be raised even higher."If the voting age was to be based on brain development, twenty five would be the only age to make sense. However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time." While a fifth of U.S. teens (21%) say they are "more liberal" than their parents and 7% say "more conservative," 7 in 10 teens (71%) say their social and political ideology is about the same as mom and dad's."Over a forth having their own opinions is actually quite good. Regardless, that isn't quite true. "in the NLSY sample, which looks at child-mother relationships, 51.2 percent of children misperceived or rejected their mothers’ political party identification. The results for the HLS sample, which considered child-mother and child-father relationships, were similar. In that sample, 53.5 percent of children misperceived or rejected their mothers’ political party affiliation, and 54.2 percent did so for their fathers’ identification." -http://www.asanet.org..."They would vote through their children or the children would just believe hat their parents said and vote based on that."Children have free will, and given the right to vote would make their own decisions. If that means shutting out everyone but a few opinions, what difference does that make? Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference."Also, women and black people being excluded from voting is not the same as excluding teenagers. Women and black people were still adults. " Who's to say that age is any less arbitrary to deny people on the gender or race? Both were once seen as less intelligent.I thank you for the argument, and conclude.

Hello. My name's Justin and I will be debating for the Affirmative (Pro) team. As the affirmative team in this round, I stand resolved: teens of the age of 14 years, or younger, should NOT be able to drive. I will now show you why this is the case. First let's begin with Observation 1: Inherency. (Or "the study of the status quo") Inh. Point A. In the United States, the minimum required age for driving varies by state. Some states allow 14 year olds to drive wtih a learner's permit, so long as they have completed a course on Drivers Education and are of the appropriate height/weight. https://doj.mt.gov... With this established, we will move on to Observation 2: Harms of the status quo. (Or "the flaws in our current system") Harm 1. Teens accounted for 20% of all motor accidents in 2007 Teens often have a large variety of things affecting them while they drive, this includes extra distractions (such as cell phones), hormones, and even lesser brain function (which we'll get into in a second). Studies showed back in a test done in 2007 that teens, while only making up 9% of the driver population, accounted for about 20% of all motor accidents! Harm 2. Teens are especially vulnerable to texting while driving. Texting while driving has recently recieved a lot of attention and attempt at prevention. This recent surge in combating distracted driving caused by SMS messaging is not unfounded. According to textinganddrivingsafety.com, (A website dedicated to fighting "texting while driving" activity), a crash is 23x more likely while the driver of a vehicle is texting! According to the same website, 82% of teens ages 16-17 own cell phones of some kind, and 32% admit to having texted while driving. While this figure is already scary enough, the worst part is that 70% of all teens claim they can safely text and drive! http://www.textinganddrivingsafety.com... Harm 3. Young teens' brains aren't as developed as adult (or even older teens') brains The human brain is very intricate and well-designed, allowing for quick responses and evaluations of situations (these can be especially helpful while driving). However, the teen brain is less equipped to do so than adult or older teen brains. Why? Because of the prefrontal cortex. This is a special part of your brain that has to do with weighing consequences and evaluating circumstances. But sadly, for teens, this is last part of the brain to get "upgraded" to its adult form. http://science.howstuffworks.com... IMPACT: Because of the delays in processing, teens can't realize the dangers of certain actions; nor will they react fast enough to deal with certain situations while driving. With these harms evident, we will now take a course of action in Observation 3: The plan. The affirmative team promotes the following course of action. Teens under the age of 15, in the U.S, will not be allowed to have licenses of any form , due to the risks it imposes on society. (This means, to those voting, if you agree that the affirmative case is solvent, topical, significant, and non-inherent, or NOT happening in the status quo, then an affirmative vote is warranted.) Finally, we posit our advantage in Observation 4: The Advantages. Advantage 1. Improved safety on the roads. With the affirmative plan in action, roadways will become much safer. Why? Because teens are naturally at a disadvantage while driving (especially those we prohibit from doing so). Even the most responsible and mature teen is at greater risk than an adult or older teen driver, simply because of the way they are made. If we can reduce the number of accidents occurring, we can prevent the loss of life. So, in conclusion, I've tried to show you the reasons why teen driving, especially younger teens, is unsafe and why it is currently illegal to an extent. This plan just ensures that teens must at least be of the age of 15 years old before they can acquire a learner's permit, or whatever their state chooses to grant teens of their respective age groups. Yes, teens have places to be, too. But there are other methods of transport available to them. Also, the plan mentioned only partially bans teen driving, just so that the MOST dangerous teens are kept off the roads. It's not their fault they're a risk, but it's a risk we just can't take anyways. For these reasons, I'd strongly urge an affirmative ballot.

I would first of all like to state that I hereby completely disagree with the statement that you should be allowed to be married at the age of 15. I shall be making several points on why it is wrong, immoral and should not be allowed to happen in this first round of three. The first point that I would like to make is the point that the current age of consent for marriage, both in the United Kingdom and in many American States , is 16 years old. Even then you must have parental and judicial approval before you can legally be married. Also it is important to note that the majority of teenagers have never been in a relationship for more than 4 years maximum. So, would it really be worthwhile lowering the age of which a person can get married? Another very important point that I wish to make is the fact that the age before a child can have sex is 16. It is very important to realise that sex is a large factor in any relationship. Sex is a subject that must be discussed in any relationship, long before the prospect of marriage is even considered. My biggest fear is that lower the age limit for marriage will promote more young people to have sex at an age when they are not ready too. I also fear that it will cause children to make rushed decisions about marriage, and not only end up regretting it but also end up in divorce. Another point that I would like to make is one of deep concern. In my honourable opponents first point, he says "they should be able to because when they have a baby they can not care for it if they are not married." This statement makes me worry severely that children as young as 15 are having children. If a woman under the legal age of consent has sex with her boyfriend, even if he is also under age and has consented, he will be charged in a court of law. The boyfriend could be charged with statutory rape which would mean his name going onto the sex offenders register. There it is also always the possibility that the boyfriend would have to serve a sentence in a jail. It is also deeply concerning that my opponent thinks that marriage means that adequate care can be provided. Just because two people decide to marry each other does NOT mean underage circumstances that they will be able to provide for a child. Never mind that, a 15 year old should never be in a position where she is pregnant, not only because it is illegal but also because it is wrong. Nor is marriage something that as many people think about in this current economic depression that we are, slowly but surely recovering from. It is imperative that the age in which marriage is allowed stays at the age of 16. If anything I believe that the age that someone can get married is raised to a more suitable age such as 18. Then you are not a child, under the eyes of the law, and would not require any consent from parents or a judge.

Thanks to Wylted for taking me up on this important debate! The outcome of the voting reform process could have a variety of wide-ranging impacts on the health, direction, and tenor of DDO's politics and community affairs, and so it is important that this topic is discussed in our community. In this debate I will examine the problems of the current voting system that necessitate change, and then I will discuss how my proposal effectively and efficiently addresses those problems. I will also discuss the BOP before I launch into those arguments. With that, let's launch into the debate!BOPSince Wylted has agreed to split the BOP, judges should approach this debate keeping in mind the question of "which system is better?" Whichever system is better is the one you should vote for. There should be no presumption in favor of the status quo.PROBLEMS WITH THE STATUS QUOThere are five big issues that I see in the current voting system: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote, (4) that users are often bombarded with unwanted communications from the candidates during the campaign process, and (5) that voters who have already voted are often pressured by various campaign teams to change their votes. I will now review each of these five points and explain why these are problems under the status quo.(1) People in the Polls are DisenfranchisedFirstly, it is important to note that just because a user spends a lot of time in the polls section that does not mean that they are not good users who are invested in the site. Two particular users come to mind: PetersSmith and Bblackkbbirdd; both of these users attempted to cast votes or wanted to cast votes in the last election, but were barred from doing so because they did not meet the voting eligibility requirements. By all accounts these users were invested in the site, promoted exemplary polls, exhibited good conduct, and were all around benefits to the DDO community. (2/3) Users who are barely part of the community are able to vote/Users with no interactions in the forums can voteI just want to point out that 2 and 3 are different insofar as a user can be invested in the community without spending much time in the forums, but for the sake of saving valuable character space, I will be addressing these points together. The investment comments have more to do with (2), and the latter have more to do with (3), but I think they're all interrelated to some extent.Let me construct a hypothetical to demonstrate my point. Let's say that user X has received a PM asking him to vote. User X has done 3, 1-round debates. Each of his rounds in all of his debates was one or two brief sentences. He has never posted in the forums, never created a poll, and has been on the site for a few weeks (let's specify and say 21 days). This user is eligible to vote. There are several problems with this. Firstly, this user has not demonstrated any investment in the site. There are many temporary users of DDO, who flit in, do a few debates, and leave. They are not long-term users, and so have no stake in casting a wise, prudent vote for the site's long-term investment. This means that they will likely not care as much about casting a good vote if they choose to vote. Alternatively, they may stick around for awhile, but only be on the site in short bursts and leave for months on end. Here again, their frequent absence diminishes the stake they have in ensuring the best outcome. To me, the impacts of this are that they are more likely to vote for whoever asks them to vote (regardless of the quality of their positions), are more likely to not get informed about the issues before voting, and are thus more likely to cast careless or bad votes.Secondly, even if this voter is invested for some reason, they are likely not well informed. This most recent election cycle, big issues that the candidates discussed included forum reorganization and revitalization, reducing flamewars in the forums, trials, and other issues outside of the debate section of the website. These are things that users who spend little or no time in the forums are not going to be informed about, so it will be hard for them to truly assess the importance of these issues to the welfare of the site as a whole. In fact, it is quite possible that they do not even know many areas of concern in their own section of the website due to the lack of effort they put into it. Finally, it is also possible that they do not even know what they are voting for. Of the voters I talked to when I campaigned, those who were not involved in the forums seemed more likely than other groups to conflate the position of mod and president. It does not seem fair that two users who are aware of community issues should be denied the right to vote in the community's Presidential Elections simply because they frequent the polls section more than other sections of the site. In fact, the polls section as added to DDO after the eligibility requirements were created, so it seems logical to update those requirements to reflect such changes to the site.Thirdly, it seems that X could very easily be a multi-account created in anticipation of the election. With voting requirements that are easy to meet, it also becomes easy to craft alts with the specific purpose in mind of casting illicit votes.(4) Users are often bombarded with unwanted communications from the candidates during the campaign processI experienced this problem firsthand when I was campaigning this election cycle. Several users clearly did not want to receive messages, and were irked that they would often find their inboxes filled to the brim with notifications and PMs from multiple people on both sides of the race. One user in particular, Beastt, noted that he was fed up of receiving these messages. Clearly, this can feel harassing to some users, which is not what DDO wants its users to be feeling.(5) Voters who have already voted are often pressured by various campaign teams to change their votesThis issue sparked several debates in the forums, particularly after Mikal posted his thread accusing campaigners of harassing people to change their votes [http://www.debate.org...]. Wylted himself has admitted this is a problem--and it clearly is a threat to the integrity of DDO's electoral process (voter intimidation), but also to DDO's values and positive community atmosphere.HOW MY PROPOSAL SOLVES(1) My proposal solves for the disenfranchisement of poll-usersUnder my system, Bblackkbbirdd would have been eligible to vote per the fourth bullet, having at least 200 posts and 50 polls, and could thus have cast ballots. PetersSmith would have been very close to being eligible (less than 40 comments away, which could have easily been made up before voting began). Another disqualified voter, Zyloarchy, would have been much closer to qualifying too. Ultimately, my system makes it much easier for these types of users to become qualified voters.(2/3) My proposal solves for community involvement and forum useBy raising the bar on eligibility requirements, we can cut down on some of the members who are merely transient being able to vote. We can also make it harder to create alts simply to garner more votes. Moreover, by ensuring that everyone has to have at least 100 posts to vote, we ensure that voters have some exposure to the heart of the community and increase the chances of their being informed about other site issues.(4/5) My proposal solves for harassmentMy proposal mandates that if someone asks not to be PM'd further, campaigners must stop PMing them. A no-contact list could even be created to this end. Furthermore, my proposal explicitly bans contacting voters after they vote to lobby them to alter their votes.Prefer my System. Over to Con...

Definitional Debate _________________________________________________________________________________________________ At the end of the day, the act does not prohibit drinking between the ages of 18-21. And, unfortunately for my opponent, if something isn't prohibited, is IS allowed, although not encouraged. There is no reason to debate this anymore, I feel like it is clear enough. Even if not, let's move on. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Burden of Proof _________________________________________________________________________________________________ We have come to consensus on this issue. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Refutations _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Old enough to die for your country; old enough to drink My "amusing" argument is rather serious. My opponent takes the position that we have the highest drinking age in the world, and should reduce it to match that of others. By that standard, there is no reason to deny that we have an army that can easily reduce its minimum age to match that of others. And even if 13 is too low, as by Ugandan standards, there are countries that conscript from age 14-17. Since my opponent wishes to match the drinking age to the age at which 1) we are old enough to die, and 2) we are the same as other countries, the two are equivalent reasonings pushing for the same factor. Thus, we should also have the same "old enough to die" age as other countries, which in turn would reduce our drinking age. My opponent basically concedes this argument anyways, by saying "I do, however, believe that if Uganda continues this deplorable practice that they have "no rational basis" to deny these child soldiers the right to drink alcohol. " 2. Students into criminals The argument is that the problem will be very inadequately solved. Drinking occurs at a very high rate in high-school age teens, and, matter of fact, over 40% of students have had "more than just a few sips of alcohol" by 8th grade! [1] The argument also necessitates that we lower the drinking age to 13, just like argument (1. ). These arguments are all tied together, and calling them "amusing" does not invalidate them. 3. Diverts Police Attention The source says "Ibid", which is why it is invalid. That isn't really a source I can look at, or click. 4. No rational basis I am not okay with any drinking; I am a Muslim. But with looking at it strictly through Western standards, I've already discussed why purchasing should remain up to adults. See the argument regarding brain development. 5. States' rights Your quote is not cited, and seems to be evident that you made it up. Moreover, my opponent has not fulfilled the burden of proof in this argument. I. e. he shows no analysis as to why the status quo should be changed, provides no clear violation of states' rights, and doesn't provide the explicit link between alcohol consumption and states' rights. He gives no reasoning as to why this ought be a State right, not a National power; I could claim it is National by the status quo or through the elastic clause of the Constitution. But I need not go into detail; again, it is up to my opponent to do the arguing. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Since we are now at round 4, an ideal debate would dictate that no new arguments be added; just summaries and voting issues be mentioned, and possibly a final reiteration of a refutation of some sort. If my opponent does in fact argue, that gives me the right to argue in the last round as well. I wish my opponent the best of luck. ________ Source(s) ________ [1] . http://www.sadd.org...

In this debate, I will go against the notion that a person's credibility, knowledge, ad logic should be judged at least in part by age. For example, Albert Einstein was only ten and was solving algebra. Most ten-year-olds are not as smart as Einstein was. Judging a person's logic and knowledge based even in part be age is a ridiculous argument. http://www.sparknotes.com...

a very common argument in favor of lowering it, is that if you are old enough to serve in the military you should be old enough to drink. i can see the logic that the two should go together, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the age should be lowered. more like, the age to enlist should be raised. many if not most who join the military are being taken advantage of due to their youthful naivette and lack of options. if they required the age be later, maturity would deter many. (among other committments they make, sure). also, at that age, ddeaths and harm is extremely common due to these folks. as the age raises w maturity, the problems decrease. basically, at the age of 18 most kids are mature enough.

Already, we can see that my opponent has eloquently pointed out an inherent flaw in my argument, in that I am confusing voters with a paradox. Wonderfully done, Emmo. Wonderfully done. I rest my case. I readily accept my defeat on this basis, but I would like to push it farther to really drive the point home that I am losing terribly.Unlike my civil and courteous opponent, I am going to take the low road and resort to personal attacks that make no sense. Emmo, you're jerk. I bet you mistreat women and do drugs [1]. That's why I'm going to insert a non-sequitur conclusion here: I like steak [2]. But hey, I sourced my comment. Does that put me in the lead? Polls show that no, irrelevant things don't really make a difference [3]. Hence, voters should become confused and question my integrity, further enforcing the sad but true fact that I am getting my a** handed to me. 95% of all Americans agree on this fact that I totally didn't pull out of thin air [4]. This further proves that I am on the losing end of this debate, by a lot.One might argue that by losing, I am in fact winning, but let me make this clear for you: YOUR RONG BECAUSE I SED SO AND TERES NOTING U CAN DO BOUT IT. Are we clear? Fantastic. And believe me, if we were doing this face to face, I would obnoxiously interrupt every statement my opponent makes. PLEASE VOTE TO MAKE ME LOSE, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, I BEG OF YOU!!! If I had a lot of money, I would even bribe you with it. But because I don't, this will have to suffice: I HOPE YOU ALL DIE IN A FIRE[1] BECARSE I SAID SO[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.korea-dpr.com...[4] Your'e checking sources now? Well F**** YOU!!


Question: Should the Eligibility Age for Voting be Decreased?

The Argument for Lowering the Voting Age to 14 in the United States is Flawed
Given that children under the age of 16 face employment restrictions, it's unlikely that many 14-year-olds earn enough to require filing an income tax return. Considering the very low percentage of 14-year-olds who actually have jobs, this argument against allowing them to vote holds true.

I hereby state that the opinions stated below and the arguments presented do not necessarily dictate my personal opinions.As commonly proposed, democracy is of the people, for the people, and by the people. The basis of democracy depends on the effectiveness of the state to grant its citizens with the right to vote and the citizens to respect that right. Democracy exists on the notion that all the eligible citizens vote for a future that they would like to see. However, in many democracies, today, a decrease in this number of eligible citizens at the voting booths has been witnessed. This is why I call for voting to be compulsory in all effective democracies. I will first present a mechanism that will address the issues at hand. Then, I will refute the arguments presented by Con as I go through my first two arguments and get to any points of rebuttal left at the end. Mechanism: All registered voters will be asked to compulsorily cast a vote during the elections. However, for those who do not have a chosen candidate or do not wish to vote on the particular election, there will be an option to not vote which would say something on the lines of “I wish to abstain from voting”. Those citizens who are registered, but do not place a vote, will be withdrawn from the list of registered voters, until they register again. On the second time of registration, they will be fined a decently hefty amount. So, we are looking into a system where a onetime registered person will be expected to vote each election year. There will be an additional law added which will ask all employers to give a day off for each one of their employees such that workload does not become an issue of low turnout.Argument 1: A better distinction between the citizens. People who are registered voters have an interest in voting for the country. By mandating them to vote each year, we are keeping our responsible eligible voters active. The turnout rate has gone very low with unequal turnout also a big issue. However, what the status quo does not tell us is the real reason behind this low turnout. Once this distinction is made, the state will be more aware of their political institutions. This will then help them see if attention should be paid to improve the campaigning systems and the procedure of political election. If many people vote to abstain, then the state will have to make sure that the political leaders express themselves better and also will have to see that a diversity of principles are presented by the leading parties. Con argued that the registered voters not voting is mainly due to reason that they are “not particularly excited by any candidates, or because they are disenchanted by their favored political Party”. The best way to confirm this will be by asking these voters to show up at the polling stations and pick the option that says they would like to abstain. This practice will help us distinguish between the people who see the political parties of the particular year to be not legit from those who just do not want to make the effort to vote. There are many other reasons for which one may not like to vote. One, being diversion from the workload and other being laziness. To make sure that these reasons do not rule the low turnout, the proposed mechanism should be adopted. The lazy people will be ousted from the registered voters list and would have to pay a penalty if they want to vote the next time. However, some of these smart lazy people will be able to see that they could save a fine and the time spent on the process of registering by going to the polling station. And if they are just going there, why not have at least some information about the parties. This will increase the effectiveness of a democracy, which will be addressed in Argument 3. Argument 2: Unfairness abolished It is important to notice that politicians place a lot of focus on making sure that their supporters go to the polling stations and place their votes, without regards to those who would probably not vote. However, if the proposed mechanism is adopted and voting is made compulsory for all registered voters, politicians will now have to make sure that most of the registered voters vote for them. They will also have to focus on the hard labor workers who could sometimes not make it to the polling stations and those people who did believe that the parties were not any good this election period. Con argued that “the duties and rights of citizens are importantly different from those of their representatives, because the latter have powers and responsibilities that the former do not...Citizens do not owe their government electoral support or legitimacy.” This claim supports a system where democracy can never work effectively. Not only democracy, any institution cannot work without a mutual share of duties of the powerful and the ruled. The citizens do have a responsibility to vote, which in our system, could also be a vote of abstention. How can citizens expect to take advantage of a democratic institution without fulfilling their own job of placing a vote? Except those who have researched and did not get fascinated by a candidate, all the other citizens have a duty to keep tuned with the political parties and then make a decision. Secondly, Con emphasized that compulsory voting takes away the right of people to have a choice, which Con suggested was “the point of democracy”. I would like to also emphasize that in the proposed mechanism this choice of the people will be respected. They will be given a choice to vote or not and for whom to vote. The proposed mechanism will both support the rights of the people and ask them to perform their duties.Argument 3: Democratic Ideals promotedThis argument will be presented in the next round.Remaining rebuttals to Con’s case:Con was worried about the fines that will follow after people will not vote. Con was right to say that this would negatively affect the poor and may increase the number of criminals who owe fine debt. However, the mechanism clearly states that a fine will only have to be paid if one wishes to register again. This will work as an incentive for registered voters to not skip a voting period. And if for some reason they do, they will not have to worry about a fine until the next elections and will only have to worry if they wish to vote next time.None of the Con’s arguments so far have shown a downfall to the proposed mechanism for the motion at hand. The mechanism works really well to make a distinction between the citizens and find out the weaknesses of the political institutions of a state and also abolishes unfairness on many grounds. This is why I urge a strong Proposition vote.

"Well we should be able to change the constitution because it is out dated" Just because a law is old does not mean it has to change. The 10 commandments had the commandment, "Thou shall not steal". This is an old law. Should it be replaced? No. Laws should not be judged on the basis of their age."Still back to the topic I was talking about, would you like it if a bunch of people were protesting right in front of your house at midnight" With very few exceptions, this does not happen. If protestors happen to march by your house, they won't just stay there. They will march forward, unless your unlucky enough to live near the white house."Would you like a bunch of boycotters in a library" What's wrong with Boycotting? Boycotting simply means that you don't buy the product or service of a company because you don't like their product. An example is with Chick Fill A. Mny people boycotted Chick Fill A stuff because they didn't like the views of the owner. While I aggree wit the owner's views on that issue, opponents should have the right to not buy Chick Fill A products because of this.While there should be limitations for protesting such as no rioting, vandalism, or violent behavior, people should be allowed to boycott on private property, people can protest any hour of the day that they want, if it's at night, then nearby residents probably wouldn't hear it due to them being asleep, and even then, it would just be a temporary noise that residents would tolterate and then they would enjoy the sleep afterwards. People shouldn't protest for things that already have, but they nonetheless still should have the right to. People also have right to protest about things that don't make sense. You shouldn't need permission from the government to protest peacefully.

Definitional Debate _________________________________________________________________________________________________ At the end of the day, the act does not prohibit drinking between the ages of 18-21. And, unfortunately for my opponent, if something isn't prohibited, is IS allowed, although not encouraged. There is no reason to debate this anymore, I feel like it is clear enough. Even if not, let's move on. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Burden of Proof _________________________________________________________________________________________________ We have come to consensus on this issue. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Refutations _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Old enough to die for your country; old enough to drink My "amusing" argument is rather serious. My opponent takes the position that we have the highest drinking age in the world, and should reduce it to match that of others. By that standard, there is no reason to deny that we have an army that can easily reduce its minimum age to match that of others. And even if 13 is too low, as by Ugandan standards, there are countries that conscript from age 14-17. Since my opponent wishes to match the drinking age to the age at which 1) we are old enough to die, and 2) we are the same as other countries, the two are equivalent reasonings pushing for the same factor. Thus, we should also have the same "old enough to die" age as other countries, which in turn would reduce our drinking age. My opponent basically concedes this argument anyways, by saying "I do, however, believe that if Uganda continues this deplorable practice that they have "no rational basis" to deny these child soldiers the right to drink alcohol. " 2. Students into criminals The argument is that the problem will be very inadequately solved. Drinking occurs at a very high rate in high-school age teens, and, matter of fact, over 40% of students have had "more than just a few sips of alcohol" by 8th grade! [1] The argument also necessitates that we lower the drinking age to 13, just like argument (1. ). These arguments are all tied together, and calling them "amusing" does not invalidate them. 3. Diverts Police Attention The source says "Ibid", which is why it is invalid. That isn't really a source I can look at, or click. 4. No rational basis I am not okay with any drinking; I am a Muslim. But with looking at it strictly through Western standards, I've already discussed why purchasing should remain up to adults. See the argument regarding brain development. 5. States' rights Your quote is not cited, and seems to be evident that you made it up. Moreover, my opponent has not fulfilled the burden of proof in this argument. I. e. he shows no analysis as to why the status quo should be changed, provides no clear violation of states' rights, and doesn't provide the explicit link between alcohol consumption and states' rights. He gives no reasoning as to why this ought be a State right, not a National power; I could claim it is National by the status quo or through the elastic clause of the Constitution. But I need not go into detail; again, it is up to my opponent to do the arguing. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Since we are now at round 4, an ideal debate would dictate that no new arguments be added; just summaries and voting issues be mentioned, and possibly a final reiteration of a refutation of some sort. If my opponent does in fact argue, that gives me the right to argue in the last round as well. I wish my opponent the best of luck. ________ Source(s) ________ [1] . http://www.sadd.org...

My argument is that any eligible voter's vote should count for the same amount.Before we begin, I have a brief question:See as both me and my opponent are from the United States, would I be correct in assuming that we will keep the debate limited to United States?

I hope we will be able to have a very entertaining three round debate. First off, my opponent has given neither no definitions nor contentions. This makes this first round a bit difficult as my opponent failed to define Specialized Government Test. Now my opponent wants the US/State Gov't to create a specialized test that voters must pass every election cycle I assume in order to be able to vote. Now this test will essentially "test your political knowledge" according to my opponent. But I must first ask what is political knowledge in this case? To simply say political knowledge is the wide spectrum that is politics is a huge mistake. Is my opponent talking current events, 1700-1900's, Magna Carta days? My opponent also failed to state what kind of questions will be put on such a test. My opponent also fails to see the logic that they are intelligent racists out there who can pass such tests and still vote for McCain because Obama is half black. This solves nothing except making very busy and poor people unable to vote. My opponent also wants fifteen year olds have the right to vote, which is essentially another debate in itself. Now I will begin to point out the many flaws in my opponent proposal: 1. ) Everyone 18 or above should have the right to vote in this country. Just because Person A may be more intelligent then Person B does not mean that Person B should not be able to vote. Millions of women and minorities fought for years to get the 15th and 19th amendment. The 15th amendment: . http://en.wikipedia.org... The 19th amendment: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. ) Someone who is fifteen does not usually have the correct experience in order to vote. What my opponent is proposing here is highly flawed. Fifteen year olds should have the right to vote? When I was 15, I thought I was knowledgeable in politics but things have changed greatly from the age of fifteen to my current age of seventeen/almost eighteen. Not only that, but voting is a sign of being an adult in society and a sign that you have the right as a citizen to decide who in your opinion should run the country. Many if not most fifteen year olds also would just vote along with their parents. 3. ) My opponent does not obviously know the government. After watching the government screw up highly important thing after thing for years, my opponent now wants to put my right to vote in the government hands? I think the government response to Hurricane Katrina alone should put the scare of keeping your right to vote out of the government hands. 4. ) This leads me to my next point, abuse and corruption. Corruption and Abuse especially in election season is highly known through things like voter fraud. Making such tests would open the door for a political party or certain people abuse the system in order to disenfranchise millions of voters. For example, you took the test but the government never received it or it was incorrectly graded. Then what? Then you can't vote because of the government. 5. ) This leads me to my next point, human error. Who will correct such tests? This goes along with abuse and corruption. Not only that but if someone marks your paper wrong incorrectly and you can't vote because of them? There are no such machines to do such a thing my opponent is proposing. Human error is a reality, and will occur if such a plan is implemented. 6. ) Once again, my opponent did not even define "political knowledge. " What does a President Do? What does a Vice President Do? Who is the current President? If you make test questions like that, why bother making tests in the first place? People who watch the news or pick up a newspaper know such things. Now what if my opponent makes the questions even tougher. Say your put into a room when you take your SATs and your asked who was the 25th president and what was his middle name? Things like that? My opponent has failed to see the many flaws in his plans. 7. ) One other thing that bothered me with my opponent case. This line right here: "For example, a 42 year old may not pay attention to presidential debates, but feels since Obama is african-american that he will vote for John McCain. This man would simply not be allowed to vote (assuming he does not pass the exam due to his lack of political knowledge. )" The Presidential debates? You learn NOTHING new from the debates as they are basically a forum where the candidates can put their stump speeches into condensed forms. The debates also happen much later into the election cycle. By then, as long as you watch the TV (as the election coverage is 24/7 now) or pick up a newspaper then you know who is for what. I wouldn't want someone to vote for race as much as anyone but as a American that person has the right to make his vote against Obama because he is half black. Final Points: My opponent made no definitions or contentions. My opponent failed to define what such a test would include questions wise along with the definition of "political knowledge. " I have refuted all of my opponent points and pointed out the many flaws in his plan. . http://www.youtube.com... Watch the first video; the man speaking is John Lewis of Georgia who was a leader during the civil rights movement of the 1960's. John is speaking about the right to vote. This is more in depth information on the first video. . http://johnlewis.house.gov... The second video is Rep Rahm Emanuel of Chicago Illinois talking about the same thing. . http://www.youtube.com... What my opponent proposes is also a modern day literary test but in voter political knowledge that will disenfranchise many non-whites and the poor as I stated above. In closing, I just want to make it clear I am not trying to deflect from the objective of this debate by posting these videos or calling my opponent racist. I am not, I am just pointing out how the right to vote is one of the most precious things of all. Let us keep it that way and let us not pass this flawed plan. I'd like to thank everyone for taking the time to read my argument and hope you enjoyed reading it. Along with that, I strongly urge you to vote CON. Thank You

My opponent starts off by contradicting himself/herself by stating a relationship at such a young age may be disastrous. My opponent argues that some people mature faster than others, which is true; however, the frontal lobe of the brain, the part of the brain whose function involves the ability to project future consequences resulting from current actions, the choice between good and bad actions (or better and best), the override and suppression of socially unacceptable responses, and the determination of similarities and differences between things or events, isn't fully matured until the late 20's. With that said, many will argue that the legal age of marriage should be set at past 18. http://biology.about.com...

Thanks to Pro for his counter-rebuttals. Note that Pro has not objected to my interpretation of the resolution; this means that infants, toddlers, and small children ARE included in "people younger than 18". NEG CASEPro: "Turns out many of those who can and do vote are not particularly 'politically savvy'. .. If we were to exclude the less politically savvy adults from voting it would be argued that we have taken away their unalienable right to vote. Therefore it is not reasonable to restrict one from voting due to intelligence. .. It would be a hard case to prove that the average voter in the U. S. A. is not 'subject to ideological indoctrination due to their lack of intellectual maturity. '"First of all, I would like to point out that this is not about "intelligence" or "political awareness", as my opponent seems to be implying; it is about a *lack of independence*. It is about possessing the mental faculties to independently make decisions. Even if an adult is what we might consider "dumb", they still possess the faculty of independent thinking, being able to make their voting decisions based on their own prior knowledge and information gathered from political campaigns. However, a child can do no such thing. It is simply a matter of neurological development; a child is much, much more susceptible to indoctrination (i. e. blindly accepting whatever is told to them) due to a lack of intellectual maturity. Parents would practically be casting the ballot for them (literally so, in the case of very small children & infants), which, by the logic presented last round, is unfair to those without children and violates a core tenet of democracy. Pro: "The same was argued about giving women the right to vote, giving their husbands two votes instead of one. As it turns out many women do vote with their husbands and many do not. "That was based on a misconception of the past. However, we now know that gender has no effect on a person's independent decision-making capacity. This is not the case regarding age, as explained earlier, rendering this point to be nothing more than a false comparison. Pro: "My Opponent just admitted that there do exists in our society citizens [politically savvy teens] who are deprived the right to vote due to age despite them being capable of their own beliefs, interests, and prefrences. "This is true, but that is simply the nature of democracy: majority rules. If the majority approves of a law that the minority does not, then the minority still has to live under the majority's law. In the same way, since the majority of people under the age of eighteen are not capable of independent thinking (thus warranting the existence of age restrictions), then the tiny minority of "politically savvy teenagers" has no choice but to cope with the age restrictions. Pro: "As far as if it would be fair to give individuals with children the ability to double or quadruple their say in government, does not an adult with three kids under the current set up only have one vote to represent four peoples interests? That in not fair either. "This is, by far, Pro's most compelling objection to my case. However, it is ultimately based in rhetoric. .. Pro claims that allowing parents to vote for their children allows one person to represent the interests of four people. But looking at it from a more objective perspective, we see that the other three people, due to their lack of participation in the process, aren't really having their interests represented, anymore. It is much more logical (and respectful to their personal sovereignty) to just *wait* for the three people to gain the intellectual capacity to vote independently before allowing them to vote; that way, they will actually be representing themselves when they vote. This is what the implementation of an age restriction accomplishes. AFF CASEAll but one of Pro's contentions here were refuted via cross-application of the neg case, so really, the only contention of his left that I must refute is his one regarding taxation without representation. Pro concedes that taxation without representation is not disallowed by the Constitution, instead attempting to prove that it is commonly viewed as tyranny by the American population by citing a Wikipedia article which lists some instances of people protesting against it. However, he has failed to address my example of non-citizens being taxed without representation, which involves far more people than in any of the examples in the Wikipedia article, yet is not at all protested against by the American populace. It is clear that taxation alone is not grounds for representation; thus, Pro's contention fails. In addition, Pro brings up what seems to be a new argument: "Considering that many citizens who have the right to vote do not vote, it is a shame that we keep some citizens who would like to vote from voting just due to age. "But this is easily refuted by the rebuttal made earlier about majority rule in democracy: because most people under age eighteen are not capable of voting, the few minors who are capable and do wish to vote are still bound by the age restrictions. CONCLUSIONS-- Removing the voting age restriction allows for individuals with children to have more say in government than those without children, which violates a core tenet of democracy (equal say)-- In a democracy, majority rules. The existence of a small population of politically savvy teens does not warrant removing the age restriction-- Parents cannot properly represent the interests of their children, as Pro claims, because *they aren't their children*. It is better to wait for them to grow up and *actually* represent themselves, in accordance with the age restriction. -- Taxation alone is not a sufficient basis for representation, so one cannot use that as a reason for minors to be allowed voting rightsThe resolution is negated.

a very common argument in favor of lowering it, is that if you are old enough to serve in the military you should be old enough to drink. i can see the logic that the two should go together, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the age should be lowered. more like, the age to enlist should be raised. many if not most who join the military are being taken advantage of due to their youthful naivette and lack of options. if they required the age be later, maturity would deter many. (among other committments they make, sure). also, at that age, ddeaths and harm is extremely common due to these folks. as the age raises w maturity, the problems decrease. basically, at the age of 18 most kids are mature enough.

Greetings and warmest regards to my opponent. Human society has come to realize, time and time again, that a person's individual aspects override their classification in terms of what they can do, how well they can do it and, by extension, whether or not they should have the right to do it. We began with landowners of a particular race and gender; we then expanded to include all races, and then both genders. The time has come for society to embrace these precedents and take a long look at inherent equivalency of age. I present the following premises in support of this position:1. Experience is qualitative as well as quantitative. It is obviously concedable that the longer one has been alive, the more experience they have. That is the defining characteristic of age, and its only universal truth (by universal truth, I simply mean there are no exceptions; this contrasts sharply with, say, the argument that physiological changes are a reliable sign of aging, since a number of conditions exist in which people experience physical changes more rapidly, more slowly, or not at all). However, simple quantity is given too great a weight in society. If Person A has spent six years studying the art of playing the piano, and Person B has never touched one in their lives, then which person should be called upon to perform in a concerto? Person A is obviously the superior choice, and this remains true if Person A is ten years old and Person B is fifty. This truth is also without exception; name any task within the purview of the human experience, and there exists a young savant whose capability exceeds that of their elders. 2. Age-based policies are inherently inaccurate. Take, for example, the concept of a mandatory retirement age. The primary purposes of such a policy are often to infuse a company with new ideas and remove someone whose capacity to perform their duties has become diminished. Used as the benchmark to accomplish these goals, age is a poor determinor; there is no guarantee that a person of any specific age is diminished in capacity, and there is certainly no guarantee that someone who is chronologically younger is automatically in possession of new ideas and insights. It is quite easy to propose a reasonable scenario in which neither fact would survive scrutiny, and thus the application of the age based policy is naught but an oppressive semantic applied for its own sake. On the other side of the spectrum, a minimum driving age makes the assumption that those who have not yet attained it are inherently incapable of accepting the rights and responsibilities associated with being a licensed driver. This, too, is not necessarily accurate; studies show that younger drivers are more accident prone, certainly, but I would assert that the more accurate representation of that dynamic would be "drivers with less than X years experience are more accident prone"; such rates among people who have attained their licenses later in life match the same curve as their younger peers. Therefore, if one presumes 3 years as the amount of experience needed to be a less dangerous driver, then if the driving age were lowered to 12 tomorrow, the 16-18 category would suddenly rank as consistent in safety with their 35-40 counterparts. This is, of course, consistent with my first premise.3. Age-based policies are often redundant and self-defeating.There is no better example of this than the minimum working age in the United States. Initially proposed in the early 20th century, the minimum age was established as a response to very real dangers faced by children in the workforce. Unsafe conditions led to horrible accidents in mines and factories, and youth were often exploited for their willingness to work for next to no salary. Recently politically empowered mothers put forth the plea that their childrens' safety was at stake, and legislation was passed to remove them from harm's way. As wonderful as that sounds, conceptually, it ignored the realities that such problems were problems for ALL Americans, not just children. Eventually this was realized, and dealt with through legislation which established a minimum wage for the worker and a minimum requirement of safety in the workplace, with mandatory inspections of all facilities and very rigid standards. These regulations accomplish everything that chlid labor laws set out to do, making them no longer necessary. Their continued existence now requires those children who want or need to work to do so discretely - which often means doing so for lower than minimum wage, in facilities which do not meet those rigid safety standards. That the restrictions are now causing the conditions they were meant to protect against is an irony that should be lost on no one.4. Age-based restrictions contribute to low self-esteem.There is an inherent attack in dismissing one's contributions solely based on their age; for youth, it means internalizing the idea that they are somehow less valid or valuable, and for elders, it means internalizing the idea that any value they had is now irrevocably gone. Both are tragic, but particularly in youth, this can lead to a lifelong pattern of belief in their own inherent inferiority, because society most certain never formally gets around to undoing such perceptions when its citizenry crosses the magic age line. Indeed, most governments arguably prefer a docile citizenry, so such perceptions serve them well. 5. A free society has an obligation to lean towards the permissive in all grey areas.There is a counterargument to be made that would frequently contain the words "more often than not". It would sound something like this: "Perhaps some seventy year olds could continue to function well in their jobs, but more often than not, they are, in fact, too diminished to be as effective." "There may be some twelve year olds who can handle alcohol responsibly, but more often than not, people under twenty-one are too irresponsible to be drinking."While I would cede these both as true statements, the simple fact remains that their corrolaries are also truisms, and therefore any blanket policy which does not take individual variance into account is needlessly oppressive. There is no minimum population at which unjustly discriminating against them for the ease of simplicity is acceptable behavior for a civilized, free society. ConclusionThese five premises strike me as adequate support for the conclusion that people of all ages should be considered inherently equal. Continuing to use age as a standard by which we permit or deny things on a massive scale is as inappropriate as using hair color, race, gender, or any other irrelevant demographic. Which is to say, not at all.

I'm saying that they should have the choice if they want to get a job. When I was in 8th grade I wanted to go and get a job but there was no one who would hire


Question: Should the Minimum Voting Age be Reduced?

The United States should reduce the voting age to 14 years old. The argument for this is grounded in the fact that in the United States, the working age is 14. If a teenager is employed in a job that pays them a salary, the government deducts taxes from that salary. If an individual is taxed by the government but does not have the right to vote, this constitutes taxation without representation. This was one of the reasons that led to the United States' independence from British rule, making it both ironic and absurd that the U.S. now imposes taxation without representation on anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 who is employed. Here are three logical perspectives that I can think of in support of my argument:

1. Full Support. "The voting age should undoubtedly be reduced to 14."
2. Middle Ground. "The voting age should be lowered, but not to 14; it should be lowered to 15, 16, or 17."
3. Alternate Criterion. "Voting rights should be determined by factors other than age, such as creditworthiness, employment status, educational level, or some other criteria."

You may concur with one of these positions, or you may have your own unique perspective. I look forward to reading a variety of original viewpoints, distinct from those listed above. Thank you for participating in or commenting on this discussion.

Children Shouldn't have rights. Children like to get in trouble and stuff. They hardly even know what rights are. How can they use what they dont know. Say kids do have rights. That means they have rights like an adult. So that means the age of consent to have sex lowers since they have rights. And this kid that was entered in the army had the right to say "no" but his arents made him do it. It's like Wen parents ship their children to military school, or boarding school. We can sai "I don't want to go" but it's about Authority. They can make us do it because it in their power. If a teacher sends you to the principles office than you have to go. You have no rights for that.

I as Con shall prove to the audience that in a matter of fact it’s worse for the drinking age to be lowered to 18. Because of the fact Pro did not provide any definitions pertaining to the debate—I shall provide it for you in the later segment of my debate. To make things fair I will provide one argument—as Pro only provided one DEFINITIONS Here are the definitions based off of www. dictionary. com Drinking: Addicted to or indulging excessively in alcohol . http://dictionary.reference.com... Age: A period of human life, measured by years by birth . http://dictionary.reference.com... Should: Must, ought . http://dictionary.reference.com... Lowered: To cause to descend . http://dictionary.reference.com... REBUTTALS I begin with the part where Pro says “iyes because 18 is wen your almost grown up n out the house” I do not understand what Pro has stated, so I can not rebuttal to anything he said. I urge Pro to clarify on what he said. Arguments DANGER I begin with the fact that statistics proved that restraining alcohol from people 18-20 showed a significant decrease in highway fatalities by 13%. Federal Highway statistics showed that there were at least 25,000 less fatalities on the highway when the drinking age was 21. Also a number of sexual assaults, and campus crimes are attributed to drinking—which means having the drinking age be lowered will just increase the chances of this happening. In conclusion the drinking age should not be lower or what I have said earlier will happen. . http://www.buzzle.com...

Okay people know I'll just start by saying that in fact I YES ME am a teenager and I live in Scotland. and I have been noticing more and more that people seem to think that teenage violence is happening alot and under age drinking is happening more and more. But people use are all forgetting that when you are young you wont to try new thinks and that YOU also would prob be put in this sort of part of society if you where my age. Yes something happen that may hurt use or scare people but its all part of growing up to see how for your limits are and how far you can go before you have to stop. I know I'm putting a VERY fine point on it but I'm just interested on what other people think and what they would do if they were in control of all of us. (I AM EITHER AGAINST OR FOR THIS I'M JUST INTERESTED)

Going back to the point on maturity for a moment, I will concede that there are a number of adolescents that are not mature. Then again, there is also a good number of adults that are not mature, and probably never will be. It will be worthwhile to keep in mind that we are talking about the majority of individuals in a group. We have all heard stories about the immaturity of adolescents, and the negative impact that those decision have on themselves and others. However, just because we have heard these types of stories before does not mean that these specific individuals accurately represent the entire age group. Just something to keep in mind moving forward. A point I would like to elaborate on is the fact that this might actually lower the number of teenagers that drink while they're underage. Lowering it to 18 would effectively squander the rebellious attitude that they have concerning alcohol consumption. Teenagers usually don't drink alcohol just because they like to drink, there can be a myriad of reasons why they would. One of which is to defy their parents, the law, and basically the rest of the world. Lowering the drinking age would take this out of the equation.

Definitional Debate: 1. Most of my arguments stem directly from my opponent's definition of NMDAA: that people under 21 may not purchase alcohol or drink it in a public place (a nightclub, bar, dorm common area, etc). As a result of NMDAA, it is also illegal for a minor to be drunk in public (DIP), even if they are not currently consuming alcohol. 2. My opponent is just being silly: the age of consumption in the U.S. is not 18. According to the International Center for Alcohol Policies, both the alcohol purchase age and alcohol consumption age are 21 in the United States. I can personally attest to this fact. A few states allow 18 year olds to drink in a private residence (and usually only if their parents bought the alcohol for them), but if they step outside the premises they can be cited for "Drunk in Public" (under NMDAA). It's not a very useful exception for college students. 3. Unlike what my opponent claims, the text of the act never says: "states must allow 18 year olds to drink alcohol, just not to purchase it." "Not prohibiting" something is not the same as allowing it. This is the same logical fallacy as saying: "My parents never explicitly told me not to shoot up on heroin; therefore, my parents allow me to do heroin." In addition, my opponent never answers my analysis that since purchasing alcohol for a minor (under 21) is seen as trying to circumvent the purchasing clause of NMDAA, states have all made it illegal to provide alcohol to a minor. So a minor can drink in a private residence only if the alcohol magically materializes out of thin air. This "you may not purchase and provide alcohol to a person under 21" law has resulted from NMDAA and has effectively made the "consumption age" in the United States 21. I don't really want to argue about whether a definition can be brought up later in the debate round because it's irrelevant to this particular debate. The name of the act is the "Minimum Drinking Age Act" and it sets a minimum purchase age and sets a minimum age for drinking in public. The act itself acts as my definition of "drinking age." I honestly don't know why I'm pushing my definitions so much, since my opponent's definition is actually a reason to vote for me. If it were currently legal for 18 year olds to drink in the United States, then there really would be "no rational basis" for not letting them purchase alcohol as well. That 3-year gap would make no sense at all. Burden of Proof: My opponent says he doesn't need to offer a case. I'm fine with that – it makes it easier for me to win. All I need to prove is that there are harms to having a drinking age of 21 and that some of these harms would be mitigated by lowering the age to 18. Defending my case: 1. Old enough to die (for your country); old enough to drink My opponent's argument about Uganda is highly amusing. I think he, however, misunderstands my argument: if a country deems someone mature enough to sign their life away to the army, then that country should also deem that person old enough to drink alcohol. The same applies to many other things: old enough to decide who should be president, old enough to decide to start smoking, old enough to consent to sex with anyone, and old enough to decide to get married. All of these are major decisions that 18 year-olds are deemed old enough to make (in this country). The United States DOES NOT deem a 13 year-old "old enough" to enter the army. In fact, all Western news organizations deplore Uganda's practice of conscripting child soldiers and are not afraid to say as much. I do, however, believe that if Uganda continues this deplorable practice that they have "no rational basis" to deny these child soldiers the right to drink alcohol. 2. Students into criminals I'm not sure what my opponent's argument is here. He seems to be suggesting that the problem of underage drinking is "insignificant" but then he cites statistics showing that the problem is widespread. And he leaves most of my arguments here untouched, meaning he has conceded them: NMDAA's purchasing clause and prohibition about drinking in public places (bars, clubs, etc) force college students and other minors (under 21) to: a) seek out more dangerous sources of alcohol When girls drink from sources of alcohol that they do not directly control, they are increasing their chance of getting rufied (date raped) b) engage in riskier drinking behavior Unsupervised drinking results in riskier drinking behavior, like downing multiple shots in a row. For this reason, some campuses, like Stanford, purposely subvert the law and sponsor underage parties so that RA's (residential advisors) can oversee the drinking. This practice should be legalized. In addition, when minors (under 21) are "going out" to parties, they often pre-drink, which involves downing multiple drinks immediately before "going out," in case alcohol is not readily available at the next venue. A purchase age of 21 would make this practice unnecessary. c) fear calling for help Since providing alcohol to a minor (under 21) is illegal under NMDAA, people are afraid to call an ambulance when someone under 21 drinks too much alcohol and gets alcohol poisoning (because the over 21 alcohol provider might "get in trouble"). Making the drinking age 21 would mean people like Gordie Bailey would still be alive (60 Minutes). 3. Diverts police attention My opponent is not very specific on why my source from the police chief that the law is effectively unenforceable is not a valid source, so I'm not sure how to defend it. My point here is simple: diverting police resources on college campuses from more serious crimes (like murder, rape, burglary and theft) to bust "underage drinking" makes little sense, is a waste of money and resources, and is dangerous since these more serious crimes need to be addressed first. USC police ignore underage drinking to go after more serious crimes; however, this is not true of all campus police, such as those at UC Berkeley. If the law is effectively unenforceable, and college students are going to drink anyway (whether or not it is "legal"), then why divert so many police resources to trying to enforce this particular law? 4. No rational basis If my opponent is okay with 18 year olds drinking (since he thinks the drinking age is 18), then what is the rational basis for denying purchasing? The courts would overturn the law if it had no rational basis. 5. States' rights States should be able to pass state laws based on local values and cultural norms. The 10th Amendment guarantees this power: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Telling states: "We, of the United States Congress, know many of you have passed laws to make the drinking age 18, but anti-alcohol lobbyists in Washington D.C. convinced us that these laws are ‘wrong,' so we're going to let your highways fall into disrepair unless you change these laws" – that is my definition of an "abuse" of federal highway money.

I think 13 is an appropriate age to start using this site,because it is the age kids usually start forming opinions.

First, may I say i appreciate whoever challenges me in my debate. Secondly, allow my to specify on my debate topic. I speak of a specialized government test, (for the sake of time i hope my opponent will agree to call it it SgT) by this I mean a test created by the us government or state government, that simply tests your politcal knowledge. All people who try to register to vote must take this exam. For example, a 42 year old may not pay attention to presidential debates, but feels since Obama is african-american that he will vote for John McCain. This man would simply not be allowed to vote (assuming he does not pass the exam due to his lack of political knowledge.) However, lets suppose a 15 year-old tries to keep up-to-date with presidential debates. He would take the standardized exam, and assuming he passes, would be able to vote regardless of his age. To sum up my opening argument, i will simply state that, a citizen of the United States of America of any age may vote as long as they pass a "SgT" provided by the United States Government. I wish my opponent luck, and i apologize, for i have not debated in a long while!!! Thank you!

Rights and Responsibilities The legal age of adulthood in the United States is 18. That is when citizens can vote, serve on a jury, buy cigarettes, be tried as adults, and enlist in the military as Pro pointed out. Is Pro suggesting that 18 is too young for any and all of these things?Intelligence and the capacity of self restraint are not determined by age. However it's reasonable to assume that if a citizen is considered eligible to make profound life and legal decisions in some areas, then they should be afforded the same rights and responsibilities across the board. Either we consider 18 year olds mature enough to be tried as their adult peers, and as such hold them accountable for their actions, or we universally apply a distinction between those who are 18 and those who are older and acknowledge a disparity in presumed maturity. In other words, the government (society) ought to be more consistent in terms of applying accountability and legal eligibility. The government should also consider the fact that drinking alcohol does not automatically violate the rights of anyone, and it's immoral to punish someone for simply consuming a beverage unless they specifically cause harm or danger to others. It's also worth noting that 45 of the 50 states allow for under age drinking with certain restrictions, such as being permissible with parental consent, allowing for the consumption of alcohol for religious purposes, or drinking on private premises as some examples. This once again presents an inconsistent moral and legal standard which proves the current drinking age is based on flimsy logic. SafetyAllowing people under 21 to drink alcohol openly would decrease unsafe drinking activities. Prohibiting them from drinking openly in bars, resturants, and other public places forces them to drink in unsupervised locations where they may be prone to engage in more risky behavior (such as binge drinking). Instead of alcohol consumption being a regular part of daily life, it becomes this overly glorified taboo that puts drunkenness on a socially desireable pedestal. In Europe, young people aren't as excited (and risky) about drinking because it's not as exclusive to them. Traffic accidents and fatalities are most common among newly legal drinkers [1]. Any increase in traffic accidents or fatalities in 18- to 20-year-olds would be offset by a decrease for those 21 and older [2]. Moreover, there are fewer drunk driving accidents and fatalities in many countries with a drinking age of 18 vs. 21 like the United States. In fact, drunk driving accidents have been on the decline, and research shows that it does not correlate to the legal drinking age at all. I would invite Pro to provide specific data that proves a 21 year old drinking age inhibits crimes like suicide, homicide or vandalism. On the contrary, 72% of studies found no statistically significant relationship between the two despite claims that lowering the drinking age to 18 would increase suicide and other criminal activities by adolescents [3]. Legal RepercussionsUnderage drinking accounts for almost 1/5 of consumer spending on alcohol in the US [4]. In 2006, 72.2% of twelfth graders reported drinking alcohol at some point in their lives [5]. In other words, young people are drinking anyway despite criminalization. Not only is this good for the economy, but it's worth noting that a higher drinking age does not successfully deter young people from alcohol anyway. In addition to promoting risky drinking habits, this makes young drinkers officially criminals which can have devastating effects on their livelihood should they be caught consuming alcohol. Being reprimanded in school, having legal privileges taken away, establishing a criminal record, and enduring a ton of money in fines, fees and other court costs are all detrimental legal aspects of a higher drinking age. Often times young people do not seek medical attention or other assistance in fear that they will be punished for drinking while under age. Furthermore young people are incentivized to create and purchase fake IDs, and go through other illegal avenues (like bribery) to get their hands on alcohol. Since drinking is not inherently dangerous or immoral, why create an unnecessary class of criminals who can and often are penalized for not causing any overt harm? References[1] Thomas S. Dee and William N. Evans, "Behavioral Policies and Teen Traffic Safety," American Economic Review, May 2001[2] "Alcohol Impaired Driving," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, www.nhtsa.gov, 2009[3] Alexander C. Wagenaar and Traci L. Toomey, "Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000,"Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 2002[4] Joseph Califano Jr., "The Commercial Value of Underage and Pathological Drinking to the Alcohol Industry,"National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, May 2006[5] Charlie Covey, "Drinking Age Requires Necessary and Proper Action," www.youthfacts.org, Nov. 11, 2007

I thank Benny for hosting this debate.Benny opens up by saying Teens don't have practical life exprience, but doesn't expand much further. Teens probably will pick up on the concept of paying bills, taxes and the such through simply living life, in the military or not. A major difference however is that you can leave college whenever you want (although if you are far along it is not advisable). Not so with the military, you are locked into a contract (5 or 6 years are common) and can’t get out except in very special circumstances. In college you get the major you sign up for, in the Military you MO can change without your choice.I'm not sure where you got the idea someone could 'leave' college. You would still be in debt. Nonetheless, your points don't seem to be specific to the ages of 18-21. Why 21? Why not 25? Also, is there a clear avantage to delay 18 year olds admission n the military? There really isn't. Benny brings up that the Army pays for college. Hypotheically, one could join the army at 18, leave at ~22 and have college paid for. This is not uncommon. It is irrelevant that college is less dangerous then the military, as someone will willing take that risk. To recap;Joining the military gives people an edge in Law Enforcment It also helps pay for collegeIt simply might be something someone wants to do.Benny fails to fufill his BoP because I have shown that there is logical reasoning why a 18-yo should be allowed to enlist, while Benny fails to explain why the status quo should change.With that, Vote Geo.

My opponents opening statement was that all humans in existence should never be treated differently based on age for any reasons. I've provided multiple instances where they should be treated differently, while conceding that age can be an imprecise method and is sometimes, but not always, in need of revision. I appreciate my opponents zeal for debating for the sake of debating, but if he really thinks humans less than one. Both old should have no legal restrictions as to how it functions in society as a general rule of thumb, then I submit he is either stupid or a troll. Please also note how my opponent shifted his thesis from the start to the end.


Question: Should the Minimum Voting Age be Decreased?

The voting age should be reconsidered, perhaps even raised to 21, as younger individuals may lack a comprehensive understanding of the complex issues facing our nation. Moreover, college students should also be excluded from voting, given the potential influence of professors who might impose their own agendas on impressionable students. They can be quite susceptible to manipulation, wouldn't you agree?

As my opponent has once again forfeited this round, I do not have much I would wish to add. Therefore I shall conclude this debate very briefly. As it is the age of marriage is already quite low and wishing to lower it further is both ludicrous and very ridiculous. I urge you all to vote for me the opposition for several reasons. I believe it is fair too suggest that many people support me in this argument before hearing the arguments made and I believe that I made many good points, all of which I backed up with evidence, although I didn't feel the need to reference anything. I would like to ask you all to vote for wisely and if you haven't already, please read the points that I made. Thanks

I would first of all like to state that I hereby completely disagree with the statement that you should be allowed to be married at the age of 15. I shall be making several points on why it is wrong, immoral and should not be allowed to happen in this first round of three. The first point that I would like to make is the point that the current age of consent for marriage, both in the United Kingdom and in many American States , is 16 years old. Even then you must have parental and judicial approval before you can legally be married. Also it is important to note that the majority of teenagers have never been in a relationship for more than 4 years maximum. So, would it really be worthwhile lowering the age of which a person can get married? Another very important point that I wish to make is the fact that the age before a child can have sex is 16. It is very important to realise that sex is a large factor in any relationship. Sex is a subject that must be discussed in any relationship, long before the prospect of marriage is even considered. My biggest fear is that lower the age limit for marriage will promote more young people to have sex at an age when they are not ready too. I also fear that it will cause children to make rushed decisions about marriage, and not only end up regretting it but also end up in divorce. Another point that I would like to make is one of deep concern. In my honourable opponents first point, he says "they should be able to because when they have a baby they can not care for it if they are not married." This statement makes me worry severely that children as young as 15 are having children. If a woman under the legal age of consent has sex with her boyfriend, even if he is also under age and has consented, he will be charged in a court of law. The boyfriend could be charged with statutory rape which would mean his name going onto the sex offenders register. There it is also always the possibility that the boyfriend would have to serve a sentence in a jail. It is also deeply concerning that my opponent thinks that marriage means that adequate care can be provided. Just because two people decide to marry each other does NOT mean underage circumstances that they will be able to provide for a child. Never mind that, a 15 year old should never be in a position where she is pregnant, not only because it is illegal but also because it is wrong. Nor is marriage something that as many people think about in this current economic depression that we are, slowly but surely recovering from. It is imperative that the age in which marriage is allowed stays at the age of 16. If anything I believe that the age that someone can get married is raised to a more suitable age such as 18. Then you are not a child, under the eyes of the law, and would not require any consent from parents or a judge.

Children Shouldn't have rights. Children like to get in trouble and stuff. They hardly even know what rights are. How can they use what they dont know. Say kids do have rights. That means they have rights like an adult. So that means the age of consent to have sex lowers since they have rights. And this kid that was entered in the army had the right to say "no" but his arents made him do it. It's like Wen parents ship their children to military school, or boarding school. We can sai "I don't want to go" but it's about Authority. They can make us do it because it in their power. If a teacher sends you to the principles office than you have to go. You have no rights for that.

In response to your arguement, I have done my own research and found that the younger the person the more proned they are to being tempted to drink ,because of peer pressure. This is statistical research. Due to that fact I think that 21 should be the legal drinking age . We should not lower the drinking age to 18 because teenagers say we should . This would be an abomination ! by that I mean that we should as people know that drinking under age is far more dangerous than not drinking. If you are going to drink , it should be where you can not drive because you are drunk. That being said, I still feel that 21 should be the legal drinking age, due to being responsible or lack there of.

I agree that getting married and being in a serious relationship at a young age can be a disaster being legal at 16 don't necessarily means that they don't have tobe married or in a relationship that being said although at the age 16 you are still figuring yourself out the reason there an age limit based on maturity which isn't fair because some people mature faster than others that being said those who under the age limit are smarter and mature then those who over the age limit so I feel that why should someone who is very mature advance and know what there doing be helded back because of the age it doesn't make sense.

A person's IQ is based on their "Mental Age". It's far more important that a voter has the reasoning skills necessary to make informed voting decisions, than simply being at least 18. I argue that stupid people should not be allowed to vote, and the smarter one is, the more their vote should count. This is especially important due to the fact that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts to sway the "sheeple".

More than a quarter of youngsters who took part in a survey of youth crime have admitted breaking the law in the past 12 months, according to new figures published today. Teenagers would feel compelled to break the law if the driving age rises to 18 from 16.

=====Arguments/Rebuttals===== "I beleive that once a person is concidered and adult they should be able to make their own choices, drinking being one of them" While my opponent's beliefs are interesting, they lack any support and thus are insubstantial. Thus, the resolution is negated.

Greetings and warmest regards to my opponent. Human society has come to realize, time and time again, that a person's individual aspects override their classification in terms of what they can do, how well they can do it and, by extension, whether or not they should have the right to do it. We began with landowners of a particular race and gender; we then expanded to include all races, and then both genders. The time has come for society to embrace these precedents and take a long look at inherent equivalency of age. I present the following premises in support of this position:1. Experience is qualitative as well as quantitative. It is obviously concedable that the longer one has been alive, the more experience they have. That is the defining characteristic of age, and its only universal truth (by universal truth, I simply mean there are no exceptions; this contrasts sharply with, say, the argument that physiological changes are a reliable sign of aging, since a number of conditions exist in which people experience physical changes more rapidly, more slowly, or not at all). However, simple quantity is given too great a weight in society. If Person A has spent six years studying the art of playing the piano, and Person B has never touched one in their lives, then which person should be called upon to perform in a concerto? Person A is obviously the superior choice, and this remains true if Person A is ten years old and Person B is fifty. This truth is also without exception; name any task within the purview of the human experience, and there exists a young savant whose capability exceeds that of their elders. 2. Age-based policies are inherently inaccurate. Take, for example, the concept of a mandatory retirement age. The primary purposes of such a policy are often to infuse a company with new ideas and remove someone whose capacity to perform their duties has become diminished. Used as the benchmark to accomplish these goals, age is a poor determinor; there is no guarantee that a person of any specific age is diminished in capacity, and there is certainly no guarantee that someone who is chronologically younger is automatically in possession of new ideas and insights. It is quite easy to propose a reasonable scenario in which neither fact would survive scrutiny, and thus the application of the age based policy is naught but an oppressive semantic applied for its own sake. On the other side of the spectrum, a minimum driving age makes the assumption that those who have not yet attained it are inherently incapable of accepting the rights and responsibilities associated with being a licensed driver. This, too, is not necessarily accurate; studies show that younger drivers are more accident prone, certainly, but I would assert that the more accurate representation of that dynamic would be "drivers with less than X years experience are more accident prone"; such rates among people who have attained their licenses later in life match the same curve as their younger peers. Therefore, if one presumes 3 years as the amount of experience needed to be a less dangerous driver, then if the driving age were lowered to 12 tomorrow, the 16-18 category would suddenly rank as consistent in safety with their 35-40 counterparts. This is, of course, consistent with my first premise.3. Age-based policies are often redundant and self-defeating.There is no better example of this than the minimum working age in the United States. Initially proposed in the early 20th century, the minimum age was established as a response to very real dangers faced by children in the workforce. Unsafe conditions led to horrible accidents in mines and factories, and youth were often exploited for their willingness to work for next to no salary. Recently politically empowered mothers put forth the plea that their childrens' safety was at stake, and legislation was passed to remove them from harm's way. As wonderful as that sounds, conceptually, it ignored the realities that such problems were problems for ALL Americans, not just children. Eventually this was realized, and dealt with through legislation which established a minimum wage for the worker and a minimum requirement of safety in the workplace, with mandatory inspections of all facilities and very rigid standards. These regulations accomplish everything that chlid labor laws set out to do, making them no longer necessary. Their continued existence now requires those children who want or need to work to do so discretely - which often means doing so for lower than minimum wage, in facilities which do not meet those rigid safety standards. That the restrictions are now causing the conditions they were meant to protect against is an irony that should be lost on no one.4. Age-based restrictions contribute to low self-esteem.There is an inherent attack in dismissing one's contributions solely based on their age; for youth, it means internalizing the idea that they are somehow less valid or valuable, and for elders, it means internalizing the idea that any value they had is now irrevocably gone. Both are tragic, but particularly in youth, this can lead to a lifelong pattern of belief in their own inherent inferiority, because society most certain never formally gets around to undoing such perceptions when its citizenry crosses the magic age line. Indeed, most governments arguably prefer a docile citizenry, so such perceptions serve them well. 5. A free society has an obligation to lean towards the permissive in all grey areas.There is a counterargument to be made that would frequently contain the words "more often than not". It would sound something like this: "Perhaps some seventy year olds could continue to function well in their jobs, but more often than not, they are, in fact, too diminished to be as effective." "There may be some twelve year olds who can handle alcohol responsibly, but more often than not, people under twenty-one are too irresponsible to be drinking."While I would cede these both as true statements, the simple fact remains that their corrolaries are also truisms, and therefore any blanket policy which does not take individual variance into account is needlessly oppressive. There is no minimum population at which unjustly discriminating against them for the ease of simplicity is acceptable behavior for a civilized, free society. ConclusionThese five premises strike me as adequate support for the conclusion that people of all ages should be considered inherently equal. Continuing to use age as a standard by which we permit or deny things on a massive scale is as inappropriate as using hair color, race, gender, or any other irrelevant demographic. Which is to say, not at all.

What's one teenager going to do to change anything? It's not like one teenager could possibly represent all teenagers. Plus, teenagers are too young to know what's good for themselves. That's why they need their parents, especially a dad to smack 'em into shape. Teenagers only think they know what's good for them when they're mating like rats and snorting and injecting all sorts of drugs. If anything teenagers need less representation and need to be put in their place!