Question: Should the Eligibility Age for Voting be Decreased?

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

Before delving into my arguments, I believe it is crucial to provide a backdrop to our Democratic Republic and the significance of voting. This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people.” When this government was founded, it marked a radical departure from the preceding regimes. The people of the U.S. are meant to have a voice, the ability to elect our representatives. Our Congress and our president are accountable to our approval, granted through our votes. Unlike the oppressive governments of the past, in the United States, “we the people,” are supposed to have the authority and power to govern ourselves. Voting is a fundamental way we exercise this sovereignty. Throughout U.S. history, the sovereignty of the people has been reinforced as voting rights have expanded to previously disenfranchised groups, as seen in the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments. It is time to extend the freedom and self-determination embodied by the right to vote for President to 17-year-olds. What justification could there be to restrict the freedom of 17-year-olds? John Locke posited that man's freedom and liberty to act according to his will are grounded in his ability to reason, guiding him in the laws he must follow and informing him of the extent of his free will. To release him into an unrestricted liberty without reason to guide him would not be granting him the privilege of his nature to be free. The crux of this debate, then, is whether 17-year-olds possess the capacity for reason. I argue that 17-year-olds are as capable as 18-year-olds. The difference between the two ages is minimal, if not negligible. The law generally acknowledges this, as 17-year-olds pay taxes, operate vehicles, can be tried as adults for crimes, and can even serve and die for their country in the military. It seems unjust to subject 17-year-olds to the responsibilities of 18-year-olds without granting them the power or sovereignty to vote. Until 17-year-olds are given the right to vote, they are victims of tyranny. Paying taxes without representation, being tried as an adult, and being able to enlist in the military while being unrepresented in the government to which they are subject is tyrannical. My opponent must provide a compelling argument that justifies denying 17-year-olds the vote based on a significant difference

They use college as a comparison to joining the military. “Teenagers have about 5 years’ worth of actual life experience”. Not practical adult life experience, which is what counts. “Would it be wise to say our college students are impulsive? ” Absolutely it would. If you sign up for college without a plan or even a major in mind (as your source has indicated), you really should sit out until you can figure it out. 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. Part of the problem is everyone thinks they have to go to college. “Would it be rational and beneficial to teens if we delay admission to college until their 21? ” In many cases it would, particularly if you haven’t decided on a major. My opponent mentions not all jobs in the military are dangerous, that is true but it is far more dangerous than college. Yes it is true the military does pay for college and that is why many join for that reason rather than they fully believe in the cause or they are thinking more about the money than the risks involved. [1]I think for college something you learn in high school should be to have a plan, other countries deal with this easier by having a track system. This could lead to a whole new argument in itself, but it can actually be an effective means of dealing with these problems. The biggest downside being the lack of choice later on. [2]I wish I had made another round but I didn’t so that does it for my argument. I feel I have demonstrated my case. So vote for me if you are convinced. Thank you. 1 . http://sundial.csun.edu...2 . https://www.usnews.com...

I believe my opponent's argument is that those aged over 13 should be allowed to participate in buying video games, that are rated Mature by the ESRB system, for themselves. I strongly doubt that this would not be the case.True to my usual debating methods, I will first rebut before I make my own argument."Studies show that most teenagers will use violent and M-Rated games to vent anger(1)."It is my belief that my opponent intended to cite a source here. Specifically, this source: http://www.theregister.co.uk... One I have also read.I will take all that as true.However, I don't believe buying video games should be the future at all. I believe we would gain much more by submitting to simply buying the license for the game. I do believe playing rated M games would be beneficial to the human race. We even use it to treat PTSD*.However, that's as far as I'm willing to concede. Half of the argument my opponent has presented is agreeable with me. We should "play 'M' rated Games." Buying them? No.By only buying the license of these games, community is more developed and encouraged, a more structured relationship between corporations is established, and cultivation of a game beyond its release is also heavily encouraged. It also means that more independent games are shared and more independent video game groups are able to flourish and prosper.I will allow this argument to manifest more in following rounds.

=====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.

Reasons why everyone under 16 should be put to death immediately:1) They b*tch about EVERYTHINGYou know how these days when something's got you down and you just move past it? 16 year olds b*tch about EVERYTHING! 'oh no, my gf that ive been in a relationship for 4 days hasnt replied to my text, our relationship is over waaaa'. Heres an idea, MAN THE F-CK UP! 16 year olds b*tch about everything, just ask anyone who is a parent of a teen. If everyone under 16 was put to death, we wouldnt have to deal with any more of their whiny bullsh*t2) They make everything terribleThe main reason why music is so bad these days is because 13 year old girls are the only people who buy music anymore... I mean Bieber? Nicki Minaj? BOTDF? There are actually people who think that One Direction is infinitely times better then the Beatles! If we want to save music from becoming sh*tty, we need to kill everyone under 16 years old!Its not just music either. When was the last time you saw a good cartoon show and you enjoyed it? Chances are, NOT IN A LONG TIME! Because all these young kids have made cartoons absolute sh*t... I mean I cant even WATCH new episodes of Spongebob anymore since its gotten so bad yet I still remember the one where the pioneers drove rocks for miles! Cartoons, fashion, cars, music, video games.... ALL of it has gotten worse because everyone 16 years old and younger has terrible taste in everything! We must choose between killing all music, video games, tv, etc...... or killing everyone under the age of 16..... Take your pick3) Not have to guess age of the chicks you bang anymoreYou know those 15 year olds who have the body of a 19 year old and you have to really think if shes lying about her age so that if you make sex to her you dont go to jail for rape? Well if we kill off everyone who is under 16 then we wont have that problem anymore, and people can be free to date anyone they want without fearing if they are dating a minor who just happens to have some slammin titties. 4) Actual argumentsjust so that this doesnt get removed or reported Ill include some 'actual' arguments so that this doesnt qualify as a hateful debate. A lot of people get butthurt easily by stuff so just let me do this for the sake of precaution...If we kill off everyone under 16 it doesnt mean we always kill them, this is a one time thing and people can start making babies again after its all over. Killing off all the minors will give huge breathing room to social security in the future, it will give education breathing room as well since everyone will either be a junior in high school or higher, a lot less people will be killed from car accidents which are often caused by teenagers. Alright that should be enough (feel free to bullsh*t your way past these actual arguments)

Thanks to Wylted. I appreciate that he posted rather than simply waited for time to expire, and so I thank him for that. I will just briefly discuss his R3 comments at this time.Firstly, it is important to note that, while he can defend his own case in R4, he cannot rebut my case at all in R4, since that would not give me any chance to defend myself and my arguments, and it would breach the agreed upon structure for this debate. So, besides my argument about the polls, all of my case is dropped and can be extended.Secondly, Con asserts that "DDO is like 2 sites rolled into one. It's clearly got a separate demographic that doesn't care about the other portion of this site...Allowing polls/opinions to vote in the presidential debate would be lilowing [sic] any random site to do it." I have several comments to make about this:(a) Con's own logic defeats him. Con's whole argument is that campaigns are a way of getting people involved in the whole community. Using that logic, we should be reaching out to people in the polls section in order to get them to vote and to help integrate them with the rest of the site.(b) I am not allowing any random person to vote. Notice, that while polls are part of the eligibility requirements, every voter needs to have posted in the forums and/or done debaters before they can vote. So, I am not suggesting that users who hide out solely in the polls section be made eligible, but rather that users who spend a lot of time there, but who are also active in other areas of the site also be allowed to vote. Consider also that very few users you frequent the polls would be enfranchised under my system--only 70 poll users have 50+ polls according to the leaderboard, so it is still a relatively high threshold for these poll users to meet. So again, it isn't like I am opening voting up to everyone who frequents the polls section. What I am doing is enfranchising (or at least making it easier to enfranchise) good users, who spend a lot of time in the polls, but who also have engaged in some basic interactions in other portions of the site. Con writes, "There is some crossover but it's extremely minimal." My goal is to capture that crossed-over population and work to allow them to vote, rather than excluding many of them (like PetersSmith) who ought to have been able to vote.(c) Con's arguments turn back on him. Con says: "[the polls section has] clearly got a separate demographic that doesn't care about the other portion of this site." Why is that true of the polls section, and not, for example, of the debate section? Clearly, there are some members who just debate who really don't care about the welfare of the site as a whole, so why is Con so concerned about making sure they remain enfranchised but then says we shouldn't enfranchise those people in the polls section? Really, that just seems like a barefaced contradiction.With that, I am going to remind voters that Con has dropped pretty much my entire case. I would ask that they please extend it, and that they would please VOTE PRO. Thank you!

"There are over 225 million Americans who are able to vote. During the 2012 presidential election there was a voter turnout of approximately 120 million Americans. This is simply an example indicating many people in the United States did not vote. As a matter in fact approximately 1/3 of the U.S. Population did not vote. That being said, is it fair to say that a 49 to 51 vote is truly an accurate representation of the United States population?" The amount of people who choose to vote is irrelevant here. Obviously it would be better if more people choose to vote but that is another totally different conversation, you have to make decisions with the sample of the population you have. "The foundation of our democracy is founded on the U.S. Constitution. A 2/3 vote is required for all amendments to the Constitution. Where do you see a problem with my argument? Democracy would not be dialed down at all, I believe it would be enhanced. When a 2/3 vote is required, Republicans would have to work with democrats for a common ground." The reason why there are relatively few amendments to the U.S. constitution (yes this is a massive oversimplification) is because so little bipartisan cooperation. Most bills are not passed and those that are passed are usually passed on party lines [1] [2] the amount of bills would dramatically decrease even if those which were passed did have more popular support. Even if bipartisan cooperation increased I doubt that anything like the number of bills which are passed with today's system would be. "I want to bring up a point. Don't forget that Senators and Representatives act in the best interest of their own States and Districts. If a single party barely skips a vote through congress by a couple votes, what about the the other 49%. A 2/3 vote would actually represent an overwhelming majority of the United States, and under that premise should a law be passed." The US is a republic, unless a bill goes against the constitution the majority gets to decide and the minority should not have a veto. "Why would you presume that I obtained this point of view from Fox News? Also, why would I be threatened if Republicans will soon make be little more than a third of the voters. Let's keep the debate professional, you don't even know my political preference. I am merely presenting a voting method that mirrors that of the U.s. Constitution." I saw a similar point of view which isn't really espoused anywhere else and was instantly sceptical of the origins of this idea. If you are genuine then I have no problem with the claims and most of the second half of my first argument no longer matters. I apologize if I caused any offense. When I saw this debate I saw exactly what you so harshly deny "a Republican who is merely trying to hold onto a way of life" but if you are not as you say I must assume that you are genuine and not simply hoodwinked by propaganda (like the last guy I debated this with). "It gives business owners more confidence and drastically removes uncertainty in the markets. Are you willing to claim that businesses don't base some of their decisions on political battles?" Of course businesses make decisions based politics, my response would be what do we value most, economic prosperity or a fully democratic system. My problem with the proposed system is that it makes it much more difficult to pass bills, you claim that it would increase cooperation but I don't see why this would happen. The primaries already make it impossible for any moderate to get through (at least to a degree). At least for the moment the democrats and republicans will continue to each hold round half of the representatives making it as I said very difficult to pass bills. It also has the issue of biasing the blocking of new laws and maintaining the status quo. I already alluded to this previously but I will rehash more in depth. A new bill will struggle to be passed but and old law will struggle to be overturned this means that things will remain as they are for much longer and newer ideas will take longer to be considered. Also I personally don't like the idea that a minority could veto a bill, it seems that we should seek to have majority rule. Again I apologize for confusing your motive and the source of your idea. [1] http://www.policymic.com... [2] http://www.rose-hulman.edu... (see Legislative Process)

thank you for challenging me to debate i hope it goes well, First of all you are correct on the ways America was built but it is nessisary for the good nature of our country that we have regulations so that our country doesn't pick a incompatint leader. First of all let me state the regulations for who can be president: Must be born here. Must be a citizen for atleast 14 years Must be atleast 35 Now each of these has a reason. The reasin you have to be born here is b/c that nonborn here cittizens are firstly citizens of another country and might have other prioritys than what are best for our country. that is what a Presidents job is; to do do what is best for our country. The citizen is b/c of dual citizenship. A person might be vacationing from france here in...Las Vgas. And they have a baby there that baby is a dual citizen. When its 18 it will choose what country to live in and then it will get naturalized. And the 35 is for maturity reasons. The job of president is a really IMPORTANT job the most important in the country. And for our country we want the best suited for the job. A 25 year old person who just got our of college and isn't fully matured isn't best for the job. you need experience for the job. Now remember the President runs the country for atleast the next 4 years. Alot can happen when a inexperienced, younggun is living in the White House. your last statement,: " the beginning of America, the president discriminated as well, blacks, women, non- protestants, and the poor were barred from running." Now the only thing i have to say to that is it isn't "the beginning of America" anymore. Just look at the two leading Democratic runners. A black, muslim man, Obama, and a woman, Clinton. Now for your last statement,: " if a younger person wants to run for president and stand for youth rights, they should be allowed to" That young person should... run for congress(which the age limit is 25) Then for Senate(The age limit is 30) and if he still desires run again for president this way he/she would have more experience and be more mature to be our leader.

I was someone disappointed that some of my argument are not fully countered. Many are countered, but not fully. This is the whole thing that I have been trying to point out since Round 2: >Advertising is bad. It will gives bad effect to mature aged person and children. Instead of waiting it too late until mature-aged. An example will help. 8 yo kid: "Daddy, I want to buy that $500 Barbie Doll!" Dad : "Don't buy it. First it's pointless [insert morale lesson] Effect : Kids know their limit 15 yo kid: "I will buy that $5000 Alligator skinned bag!" Who's going to stop that kid? You may say parents, but unfortunately, kids who's are growing up are not gonna listen your advice. In this age where they're in 'transition mode', they will try to breakout, achieve freedom, including freedom from their parents. Putting morale lesson here will be too late. Here's what I have been trying to say since round 2. Instead of waiting until you're teen (or mature by age, whatever) and it turns out too late, like the example above, it's better to expose them since beginning. Pros mentioned that the reason that some government make some age limit, is because mature person make better decision, but better decision comes from childhood morale lesson. When someone's smoking, they don't blindfold their kid. No, they tell the kid that the person is smoking, and smoking is bad. Same logic applies to advertisement, they don't blindfold their kid when advertisement appears on TV, they tell the kid that is advertisement, and advertisement is bad for you. Rinse and repeat from age 0 until they mature enough. ( Pros argues that 17 years is short, but I honestly think that he haven't come up with a source that says so. ) Mature doesn't come instantly, it comes from lesson and experience. You don't suddenly turns instantly to become wise when you reach 17. You become wise from morale lesson. I like to mentioned that Pros keeps looking "to the past", by giving bad examples. Pros never considered if my idea is successful "to the future". Past is to know what's wrong with us, NOT to blame the future. In the past, we learned that we had not put enough emphasis on good parenting. Pros give 2 good examples of bullying and obese. This is what I emphasis. My solution is better parenting. We haven't try out 'better parenting', why scared out of hell and say that for 100% that 'better parenting' will fail? Again, bullying, obese, consumerism occurs due to bad parenting. My solution is better parenting. This is what I have being trying to say since round 2. It doesn't contradicts my argument, it's the reasoning of my argument. I'd like to give a quote to close my conclusion. We know fire. Fire, when small is good, you can cook food, heat your self, boil water. However, if it turns huge, it will burn everything and become enemy. Same logic applies to advertisement. When advertisement effect is controlled, it's good, when not it's bad. The controller is parents and government. Personal note: I'd like to argue that parents and teacher are pretty synonymous. I mean teacher's is your parent in school right? That's why I never bother to talk about school, because they give the same effect. Education. Unrelated note: Argh, 3 round is too short. I'd like to thank my Pros for providing good debate. This is my first debate. Thank you and may the best debater wins.

I must first apologize to the Gallery for Pro's debating skills, not only had he not defined what "kid" was he also is now saying that the way i defined it is incorrect. Very well Pro, i will accept your new definitions. So Pro then goes on to say that if kids without an education can vote, why can adults without an education vote? Well it is a surprisingly simple concept that Pro simply does not get. Adults.Fend.For.Themselves. An adult is a person over the age of 17, America is a Republic, what is a Republic? a republic is a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them. So since Pro has put the "kid' limit at 9 i will now use them as an example of Pro's poorly thought out debate. So typically what grade are 9 year old children in? Most likely grade 3,4 or 5. Now lets think for a minute, according to Pro, children would be seen as responsible enough to vote for the leader of their government. And what limit do we put the voting age at? 18, so if we were to allow kids to vote, what's next? Allowing children to purchase alcohol? Allowing them to buy cigarettes? Why not Pornography too? Puberty starts anywhere from 9-15 years of age, children are bound to be curious and are most likely responsible enough to do these things right? Wrong. Children don't even fend for themselves, who buys their food? Who clothes these children? Who gives them shelter? They definitely didn't get it by themselves. Gallery lets take a look at what he says next, "So I could go as far as saying that by not letting kids vote, they are slaves under the law, with no option to change their state of living." I would like you people to reread that sentence again, they are slaves under the law? Slaves? Pro, please, do you not abide by the laws which are governed before you? Do you not notice stop signs,traffic lights, and speed limits? Do we all abide by those? I sure hope so, or else this world would be in complete chaos. So according to Pro if we were to follow these laws we would be considered SLAVES. If you are reading this you are most likely NOT a slave, and last time i knew having slaves in North America was illegal. But then again if you were a slave, you would not be a slave of the law. According to Pro. So Pro then says that children have no option to change their state of living. I would like you to read that once more, how much does the government affect children? Now since Pro has talked about America i will base this argument on it. America has a pretty good government, and usually when new leaders come into power, they will not drastically change the laws so children will be forced into labour or something harsh like that. The decisions made almost barely affect the children. But who do they affect the most? The Adults, the Parents, the ones of the age of 18. A child still has the ability to do whatever he or she wants to do, the American government has put no boundaries saying that this child will not be able to follow their career or choice because they are who they are. Pro then goes as far as saying that children are not supposed to listen their parents, what are you Pro? a rebel? Do you not listen to your parents? Do you not listen to the rules and decisions they make for you? He then carries on to say that children should hold seats in the government! Do we actually want a 9 year old boy or girl creating the laws, which everybody in America would then have to follow? Those laws were be absurd and downright offensive to the average class citizen. "Eligibility should be based on skill and expertise" And with that sentence Pro has basically ruined himself in this debate, he has just contradicted himself, had i not said that most children do not have a high school graduate degree? If you believe that adults are not allowed to vote because they do not have an education, then how come you want children, 9 year olds for heaven's sake! to lead the country in decision making? Children have no majors, or degrees, or even graduation certificates for high school. So they obviously do not have enough "skill and expertise" Pro then talks about the past, i will deal with that in my next argument, seeing how as these argument is already much to long. For that Gallery, i apologize, but i hope you agree with me that side Pro has proven absolutely nothing to help his case and therefore most likely no reason to carry this debate on. Pro, i wish you good luck in this debate.

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.


Question: Should the Minimum Voting Age be Reduced?

The legal age for adulthood in the United States should be decreased. As Hungarian psychiatrist Thomas Szasz stated, "A child becomes an adult when he realizes he has a right not only to be right but also to be wrong." Since I came to this realization before the age of 18, I fully endorse the proposition that the legal age for adulthood should be reduced in the United States. Let's delve into the resolution analysis to understand and evaluate the topic.

1. The "legal age" in the United States is the age at which a person acquires full legal rights. However, different rights are granted at different ages. For the purpose of this argument, I will assume that the legal age refers to 18, when significant rights such as voting, military service, smoking, and gambling are granted.
2. The resolution does not specify a new legal age, nor does it require the proponent to provide one. The debate will focus on the advantages and disadvantages of lowering the legal age. If the opponent requires a specific age, I will propose moving it from 18 to 16.

Now, let's examine the three main points of my argument:

I: The legal age is intended to signify maturity. The legal age is a benchmark for determining a person's eligibility for certain rights and privileges. It is an imaginary line that distinguishes adults from minors in terms of legal rights. However, this maturity standard is contradictory and lacks clarity.

II: The standard of maturity is inconsistent. The legal age has exceptions, such as military enlistment and emancipation. These exceptions undermine the legal age's validity as a measure of maturity. Additionally, more serious rights have lower levels of maturity than less serious rights. For instance, the legal age for driving is lower than the legal age for voting or purchasing pornography. This inconsistency makes the legal age an illegitimate requirement.

III: The legal age should be lowered to address these contradictions. Lowering the legal age for the rights granted at 18 would help remove these inconsistencies and re-establish the legal age as a legitimate standard for defining maturity. By setting the legal age at 16, without any exceptions, the government could create a coherent standard for separating mature from immature individuals and assigning rights and responsibilities accordingly.

In conclusion, I advocate for lowering the legal age to correct the contradictions and re-establish the legal age as a meaningful measure of maturity.

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...

=====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.

BOP Con has the BOP Adulthood If you are 18, you are an adult, capable of making your own decisions; that includes enlistment. Why should the military turn an adult away, when they are willing to fight to defend their country? It is not our place to tell adults what they can and cannot do with their lives; especially when their choice is to defend their country. Demographics Only 20.1% of the military are between the ages of 18 and 21. In the Army it is only 18.3%; in the Navy it is 18.6%; in the Air Force it is 14.4%; in the Coast Guard it is 12.2%. The Marines are the only ones with a decent number of young soldiers; 36.9% of their forces aged 18-21, which is still a minority. The average age of a marine is 25; the average age in both the Navy and Army is 29; the average age in both the air force and coast guard is 30. While military personnel between the ages of 18 and 21 are in the minority, it would severely weaken our military if we were to lose those personnel. In addition, most of the older military personnel were at one time in the 18-21 age range; if the age was increased, they would have less military experience. http://www.statisticbrain.com... Founding fathers The founders believed that every citizen should defend their country. The founders believed a standing army was dangerous to the people’s liberty, and they believed our primary defense should be the militia. The militia act of 1792 required that every adult white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 be organized into a local militia. http://www.constitution.org... The militia act of 1862 later made it possible for black adults to join the militia as well. http://www.history.umd.edu... The founders believed that once you become and adult, it was your duty to defend your country.

I will argue that in the United States, the age for enlistment in the military should be raised. It is currently 18 under most circumstances with the possibility of 17 in some circumstances. I will argue that the age should be raised to at least 21.

I accept. Please note that Pro has not set a *minimum* age limit.

I'm doing this because im doing a persuasive essay. Someone please help me i have good points. I think the age of consent laws should not be legal because people are going to do it anyway even if its illegal to do. For example if a 18 year old is dating a 14 year old before or even after he turns 18 and they feel that strongly for each other they are going to have sex if its what they want to do and legally right now in California it is illegal and would justify in a misdemeanor which would exempt the 18 year old from doing certain things but they are still going to do it because they want to its a rebellious teenager thing. My opinion is they laws should not exist they just make us want to do it more.

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...

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

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.

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.


Question: Should the Eligibility Age for Voting be Decreased?

The Eligibility Age for Voting Should Be Reduced to 16
Present-day adolescents are adequately knowledgeable and sufficiently mature to cast their ballots, hence the voting age should be decreased.

I apologize for my late response; we all know college. I wasn't out drinking, if that's what you thought, though. Definition debate _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Anyways, let's get to the definitions first. My opponent tries to bring his case back into the round in the definition debate by providing some definitions of his own. These are the reasons why he is still debating a lost cause: 1) He never refuted my definitions and, since they were provided first, an ideal debate would dictate that mine are accepted and his dropped. No definitions are generally allowed after the first round of debate; only definition refutation. Again, no additional definitions can be accepted. 2) http://i55.tinypic.com... His first source I can edit right now to make invalid. His second source (princeton wordnet) is only one example to counter mine. But here's the issue: he defined "minimum drinking age". This round isn't looking to that phrase in general; rather, it is looking to the minimum drinking age mentioned in the NMDAA, which is lucid in its reference ONLY to the purchasing age which is 21, and it is also explicit in distinguishing between that age and the consumption age, which is 18. 3) His quote from the previous round, "The United States has the highest legal drinking age in the world, as established by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984" directly contradicts the text of the act, which dictates that 18 is the minimum drinking age. For these reasons, my definitions have to be accepted. I can already urge a con vote. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Burden of Proof _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Regarding the burden of proof, my opponent basically states that I need to defend the status quo. I don't because he wishes to change the current situation. I am advocating that we do nothing in this case, and I don't need to justify not taking action. In a debate in which one side advocates that we economic deregulation, they would have to defend why we need this deregulation by providing an affirmative case for it. The non economic-deregulation side would provide a negative case against it. This is a comparable situation to this debate. On the other hand, my opponent is trying to draw a similarity between this debate and something like the conservative/liberal stance on abortion. It is not absolute in either way; conservatives make the moral case against abortion (con) and make a case moral case for preservation of human life for disallowing of abortions (pro). They defend the stance that fetuses are alive (con of liberals) and attack the liberal advocacy of pro choice (pro of liberals). This is not the case here, in which both have a burden of proof. Only my opponent has one in the case of this debate. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Refutation of Pro case _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. 18 years old: old enough to die, old enough to drink This argument is extremely biased to my opponents case, and is a logical fallacy. First, anyone is "old enough to die"; this is a misnomer on my opponent's part. I assume he means to say "old enough to be in the army". If we just go retrogressively ad infinitum, we can get to an extremely low drinking age. My opponent says that the US has the highest drinking age of any country in the world, and advocates simultaneously that we should lower the drinking age to the same age to the age of army enlisting. But, in Uganda, the youngest soldier that is eligible to enter the army is 13 [1]. Thus, as there is apparently a reason to match the minimum standards of the lowest minimum standards on the planet, we should lower our army enrollment age to 13. Even if we don't, by my opponent's standard, 13 is still "old enough to die". So, using my opponent's logic we should lower the drinking age to 13. That would seem to be problematic. 2. Students into criminals, cops into robbers To sum up the argument, my opponent argues that drinking has been driven underground. It's not like changing the law would change anything; if, at the average birthday party, 14 year olds are drunker than Birdy the scarecrow from Conker's Bad Furday, N64 classic game [2]. The argument is really non-unique and won't solve any problems; it will only reduce it by a percentage that is rather insignificant. Moreover, the average person in the US has had is first drink WAY before he turns 21, or even 18 [3]. The average person has had a drink by, according to this source, approximately age 16. 3. Unenforceable My opponent's source is invalid, as are many others. But disregarding that fact, see my previous arguments regarding the average drinking age and the international standard argument. 4. No rational basis This is the same argument that my opponent makes in (1.). My argument about brain development can be extended because my opponents (1.) argument has been refuted. 5. States rights My opponent needs to define "abuse" to make this argument. Moreover, there needs be a balance of federal and state powers. I feel that, in this case, the current law is fine. Again, seeing as my opponent wishes to change the status quo, he has the burden of proof. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ I thank my opponent for a very interesting debate, and anticipate a great response. I thank the readers for their time. Sources _________________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] https://www.cia.gov... [2] http://www.xbox.com... [3] http://www2.potsdam.edu... _________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.youtube.com...Thanks, Philo. In a classic South Park episode the character Stan, uncomfortable with his choices for an upcoming school mascot election, chooses to abstain from voting. After being pressured to vote by his friends, threatened into voting, and ultimately shunned from his community Stan finally returns and registers a vote only to find out that it didn't even matter in an extremely lopsided election. The episode lampoons our cultures view on voting: that despite the stupendous improbability of any individuals vote actually mattering, and even if an individual dislikes or has no opinion on the candidates, it's still viewed by many people as some kind of obligation. However even in their wildest, most cynical dreams the creators of South Park could not have envisioned a world where their "Vote or Die" song would become actual government policy. This is the world Pro wants. Puff Daddy would probably make an excellent enforcer in the Pro world. Don't have an opinion? Don't like the choices? Have a sincerely held moral objection to voting? Too bad. Vote or die.=Framework= What values should we enshrine into law? Pro believes that the only important value is democracy, a manifestly absurd view that would allow 51% to vote to exterminate the other 49%, but it's clear that good governments, including democracies, have higher values--ultimately governance is a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Pro totally ignores the individual rights part of the governance equation. Obviously compulsory voting violates individual rights, but is it in the interest of the common good to mandate citizens to vote? The answer is clearly no, and whatever minuscule benefits it manages to bring to the table are vastly outweighed by the complete destruction of individual rights brought about by this policy. =Counterplan=Assuming that we want to drive voter turnout as high as possible, democracies should make it easier to vote and institute tax credits for individuals who cast a ballot. This economic incentive would be extremely easy to put into practice and would drive up turnout without any of the ethical implications that stem from compulsory voting. I. Undemocratic Pro wants us to value whatever is most democratic. By far the more democratic option is to allow individual societies to determine voting policy themselves rather than making a blanket declaration that they have an obligation to force their citizens to vote. National nuances, opinions, customs, or autonomy be damned--Pro may not know anything about Nauru or Monaco but he still views those nations as his to rule. This is the height of totalitarianism, not democracy. In the United States, the overwhelming majority, 66%-26%, opposes compulsory voting[1]. This statistic is utterly devastating for Pro, who wants the entire debate to come down to whatever is more democratic. I'll get to Pro's specific arguments later, but it's absurd on its face to suggest that it's more democratic to overrule the vast majority of the population on this issue. Ultimately, the Pro position relies upon a fatal conceit: the idea that from our vantage point in the first world we can legislate for everybody else just as well as we could for our own nations. This kind of thinking is what provided the justification for colonialism and indeed Pro's intellectual framework relying on the assumption that we in the West have the right to dictate policy for the rest of the world is blatantly neocolonialist and must be rejected, to vote Pro is to perpetuate this kind of thinking. This neocolonialism is the antithesis of any kind of lofty democratic ideals and to reject it requires also rejecting the resolution. In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory if that is the policy that is best for their society and we don't get to decide that for them. II. Freedom of Speech and ExpressionArticle 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2] protects an individuals freedom of expression. The right to free speech is declared in the very preamble. Article 19 specifies: "this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I argue that both the rights of freedom of speech and expression protect an individuals right to refrain from voting. Voting is inherently a speech act, it's a citizen voicing his opinion on who he wishes to hold the position in question--but freedom of speech itself contains the right *not* to speak. The US Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette[3] took the obviously correct position that the freedom of speech protects the right of silence as well, protecting the right of schoolchildren to *not* salute the flag if they chose. The court ruled that forcing everyone to salute the flag created a "Compulsory unification of opinion". Forcing everyone to vote would violate free speech in much the same manner, and, in the US at least, would mean completely undermining court precedent and the rule of law. An individual has the right to refrain from voting as a speech act--perhaps the individual wants to make a statement about how they disapprove of every candidate on the ballot or if they do not support democracy and favor another system of government such as a monarchy or anarcho capitalism. Refraining to vote is also an act of political expression. Article 19 protects an individuals right to hold an opinion "without interference". Many individuals feel that voting is immoral for various reasons, such as they do not want to perpetuate a system they oppose, and they are allowed to hold and exercise that opinion. Many individuals also believe that by voting for a politician they are implicitly responsible for the actions those officials take. As George Carlin once said[4]: "I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain...If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain." If an individual disapproves of every candidate for office, or every choice on a referendum ballot, forcing them to vote is forcing them to violate their conscience. Governments have to have a compelling state interest before they can override individual rights and force an individual to violate his sincerely held moral beliefs. Pro's arguments don't come anywhere close to meeting this litmus test as we'll see in the next round.III. Freedom of ReligionArticle 18 of the Universal Declaration gives every individual the right to "to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Jehovah's Witnesses, due to religious reasons, are required to maintain political neutrality[5]. Pro would bulldoze over their right to observe their religious teachings. The US has a really great litmus test for what laws violating religious freedom are to be allowed, called the Sherbert Test[6], which requires that if the government is going to violate an individuals sincerely held religious beliefs it must prove that both there is a compelling state interest behind the violation AND that the policy is the *least intrusive* method of achieving this compelling state interest. For example, if the government has a compelling interest in promoting contraception, forcing the Catholic Church to distribute contraceptives after every Mass would not be the *least intrusive* means to achieve this interest. Other democracies have similar policies and I will defend the validity of this test should Pro choose to engage it. If one rereads Pro's arguments with the Sherbert Test in mind it's quite clear that even if there is a compelling state interest in bringing voter turnout as high as possible (there isn't), forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to violate their beliefs is not the least intrusive method of achieving any of these benefits.IV. Nonvoters are less informed Those who choose to refrain from voting often make a wise choice. According to Pew[7], 76% of the people who report rarely voting admit that don't feel they don't know enough about the candidates to cast an informed ballot. Pro argues that forcing people to vote will improve education, but there can be no denying that some people are simply too busy or too lazy to properly inform themselves on politics. The counterplan of providing tax credits for voters would be superior to crafting a high turnout, educated electorate because only generally nonvoting people who actually have an income and pay enough attention to politics to learn about the tax credit would be motivated to vote. We can have high voter turnout without forcing the 29% of Americans who cannot even name the Vice President of their country[8] to cast a ballot and expecting the results to be beneficial to the nation as a whole. Maybe in other democracies with a more informed electorate this policy would make sense (although, I would argue, even in those the tax credit system is preferable) but not in the US. Not in a lot of other democracies. In conclusion, those who refrain from voting are generally less informed than those who choose to vote, compulsory voting grossly violates actual human rights and a tax credit system could achieve similar results without any of these impacts. Don't empower Puff Daddy to force you at gunpoint to vote. Vote Con. Sources:1. https://today.yougov.com...2. http://www.un.org...3. http://www.oyez.org...4. 5. http://www.jw.org...6. http://definitions.uslegal.com...7. http://www.people-press.org...8. http://gawker.com...

As I read through your argument, I saw that you are for change in the American government that would help the American people. I completely agree, but this is not the means that we can achieve that. How would you like college drop-out down the street to be the next President of the United States or even Senate Majority Leader? Now, I know that President Bush isn't the smartest man ever, but he has grown up in an environment that has properly prepared him for the job and I believe that he was dealt a "bad hand" after he got into office. Now, I don't want people to vote on my stance on President Bush, but he's able to do the job, not some random man/woman right off the street. People need education to run the government. I'm a senior in high school in South Dakota that is taking a government class right now. I would consider myself to be a fairly bright person in comparison to my peers, but even I get confused sometimes with all of the information that I'm given. Just think about if you have to make the decision to go to war or not. Take 9/11 for example. If you were in President Bush's spot, would you have gone to war with Afghanistan? You must consider the lives of the troops, the allies we may lose, the success of winning, the process of getting it approved by Congress, etc. The line of thoughts just goes on forever! I'm not sure if you've ever seen the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but it's about a regular guy that goes to Washington DC as a Senator. He was getting destroyed by the whole process and, if it weren't for the help of the good politicians, he wouldn't have gotten anything done. The same would happen if politicians were gone completely. Those "high-class" people need the higher level education in order to properly run the government. Furthermore, you contest that people would bring a good change to American life if the average person was there in Washington DC. WRONG! If average people are there, they wouldn't know how to deal with the politicians from other countries. It may be a slight exaggeration, but if Condeleeza Rice was no longer in DC, then we would be in trouble with so many nations, and, I hate to say it, but if Rice wasn't there, the US probably would've overthrown Bush, forcing him from office. Politicians are necessary for the government to run properly and good politicians, like Rice, are the change that we need to bring to Washington. More decent politicians like herself would be amazing for this country.

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

I only responded to relevant points. All of the scientific evidence presented described typical circumstances, and I happily concede them as fact. But they don't address individual varience, which is the entire thrust of my argument, and they presume a requirement for minimum development that, at the very least, obviously varies from one proposed activity to the next (how much development is truly needed for that job tying strings at a factory?). Therefore, there's nothing in there that actually advances the argument that a catch-all line in the sand is appropriate for a free, civilized society.Direct quote of my opponent:My opponent claims that I am taking his premises to an extreme by citing absurd hypothetical examples.My opponent seems to forget that he said that senior citizens should be allowed to marry a 5 year old, based on a "merit based" case-by-base system.My opponent, conversely, seems to forget that this is yet another "absurd hypothetical" initiated by themself, not me. I will reiterate the point, not rebutted in the last response, that there is a world of difference between advocating something and stating that there should be different reasons for disallowing it. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still wrong. My opponent asks: Does my opponent think that a newborn infant, fresh out of the womb, should be afforded the opportunity to be the POTUS speech writer?Again, an absurdist example. And again, I ask my opponent to explain to me under what circumstances a newborn infant who somehow miraculously beats out all the competition for that job should still be denied it, despite somehow managing that impossible feat. They say that this human can be be dismissed by age, "among other factors". I say that simply looking at those other factors alone should be sufficient. Other than saving two minutes of someone's time, where's the benefit of considering age? And are those two minutes really worth all the harm I described in my last round, all those border cases - cases that my opponent conceded to be imprecise? As a reminder, we're talking about potentially millions of people either unjustly oppressed by being denied the right to do things they're more than capable of doing, or else inadequately protected by being granted the right to do things that they really are NOT ready for - all solely on the basis of how long they've been breathing air. I think it fair to say that the burden of proof is no longer on me at this point. I've already proven that age-based assumptions cause harm. My opponent's only hope of victory is to prove that the benefits of age-based assumptions outweigh that harm somehow - a case that they have not even attempted to make, much less make compellingly.

I will refute what the negative stated and then i will rebuild my arguments of why it needs to be illegal. Negative states and argues, referring to my first contention, by questioning what I stated meaning that adults can do just as much as teenagers can do and vice versa. I stated that it is just like discriminating because of race or religion. Negative states that age has a direct consequence on the ability to concentrate, which deteriorates with time. I disgree. Why do you think cultures around the country and around the world respect their elders? Not to make them feel better before they die, but because the elders have wisdom. Abilities and knowledge increase with age, not decrease! The negative refers to the job of a surgeon, lives hang on the ability to concentrate under pressure. That's what they go to medical school for ... to learn how to learn under pressure. Who cares if it's a 24 year old or a 40 year old doctor? As long as they know their skills, then they are all set. The negative also states that people would be bringing lawsuits against their companies on the claim that they had been fired because their age. He also stated that this would be further exacerbated because some of them WOULD have been fired for their age. This, believe it or not, supports my argument. It shall be illegal because then age discrminination would not happen. It would reduce the amount of people in courts suing because the bosses and the companies would know it is illegal. To restate my points... My first contention is that the elderly may be just as capable as the young. Since age is not necessarily an indication of inferior ability or potential, treating a person less favourably purely on the basis of their age is just as unreasonable and unfair as doing so on the basis of his race or religion. My second (and final) contention is that businesses are liable to be held accountable in a lawsuit. As a result of someone getting "let go" or demoted from their employer, they are going to try and get the money that they deserve.

Resolved: In a Democracy, voting ought to be compulsory In the opening round, we see that Democracy was defined as “a system of government voted in by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state…” I invite all to ponder the following question: How is it that a system of government that is established via voting can truly represent the electorate when the electorate in discouragingly large numbers does not vote? The harm of low voter turnout. In a Democracy, the Electorate is sovereign. The power given to the Electorate is exercised via voting. As is likely apparent to most, in a Democracy high voter turnout is desirable. This is due to large voting turnout being indicative of the legitimacy of democratic authority. Unfortunately, we see that in many democracies, voter turnout is low. Consider; “Over the last 40 years, voter turnout has been steadily declining in the established democracies. This trend has been significant in the United States, Western Europe, Japan and Latin America. It has been a matter of concern and controversy among political scientists for several decades. ” (1) Low voter turnout is undesirable as the less of the sovereign that participates, the less accurate the will of the electorate is reflected in the government. Furthermore, “low turnouts can lead to unequal representation among various parts of the population. In developed countries, non-voters tend to be concentrated in particular demographic and socioeconomic groups, especially the young and the poor. “(1) At this point it should be clear that low voter turnout is harmful, even detrimental to the very purpose of a democratic government. Compulsory voting brings solvency. The impact of compulsory voting It seems intuitive to assume that compulsory voting increases voter turnout. Never the less, Consider Australia, which has compulsory voting; in 2013 had voter “turnout figures of 93.23% for the House of Representatives and 93.88% for the Senate. ”(1) Clearly compulsory voting increases voter turnout. Overview In a Democracy, low voter turnout is harmful and undesirable. Compulsory voting has the solvency of increasing voter turnout. If the right to vote is not exercised, the entire system of a democratic government cannot live up to its primary purpose. Thus, in the interest of democratic government filling their function and purpose, it is only reasonable to conclude that in a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. (1) . https://en.wikipedia.org...

"I personally believe that we should let the audience and voters decide what the score is, not us."The reason I gave my opponent an ultimatum was because he is now wanting to debate an entirely different issue than what his resolution and 1st post implies. It was only after I accepted that I went to the comment section and realized that he may have made a typo, but even then he stated, "I am against gun control. The end. I think we should not control people's guns." As you can see, I thought it was pretty clear what he meant, that he was against gun restriction--the word "further" didn't appear until after my reply. When I realized how impossible it'd be for my opponent to uphold his own resolution, I offered him a way out. This wasn't even an attempt to be mischievous, I genuinely realized that my opponent couldn't uphold his resolution and offered him a way out, if he conceded the first round of the debate he initially started. If my audience believes this to be mischievous or malevolent, then I am sorry, ignore the proposition. I just thought I was being fair in giving him a fair shot at winning, because in actuality, you cannot change what a resolution specifically states, after the debate has started. His next quote, "That is completely false. It is a basic fact to everyone that we do not get constitutional rights until we are a legal citizen, in which you must be 18 years of age."I'd like to point out that my opponent is clearly mistaken. You are a legal citizen of the US if you go through the process (for those who were born outside of the borders) or if you are born here. Children are legal citizens of the US of A. Secondly, at that point in the debate we were not talking about constitutional law. We were referring to the fact that my opponent's resolution and 1st post say that there should be 0 restrictions on firearms. For instance, there is no restriction on the sale of bubble gum, a 10 year old can buy. If there were 0 restrictions on firearms, a 10 year old can buy. Completely void of any constitutionality claim by my opponent. On to the attack on my opponent's 2nd round case:My opponent misses the mark.. "With stricter gun laws, you are disarming the wrong people. The only people that will follow these laws are the law abiding citizens, who are not the ones that will be using guns in a dangerous way anyway."~My opponentMy opponent is completely off. My premise was that private sellers have no way in knowing that they person they're dealing with is being truthful. Of course criminals are dishonest, this is exactly why I proposed a plan to have private sellers have to go through an FFL dealer, so that the buyer has to still undergo a background check, etc. to make sure that all of his information is valid. That's not disarming anyone who would be in the wrong, that's making sure only people who are in the right can receive the gun. He then states that gun laws are strict enough, but I have just showed where it is absolutely legal for a random person to pass the background check and sell it to another person who he may believe is an honest gun owner (non-criminal) and that person could possibly be a terrorist. Not only that, the original owner has no way of finding out if the person he's dealing with is a criminal or not. Yes, you have to be 21.No. There is no such thing as gun laws in all states. It's a state by state basis. In California, for example, you can only have a gun that holds no more than 10 bullets at a time. Criminals can not purchase a gun from an FFL dealer. TRUE.However, none of these restrictions apply to private sellers-- as they have no way in looking these things up or validating them. This is why I've proposed every private seller go through an FFL dealer. No one is trying to take anyone's guns, no one is trying to abolish the 2nd amendment & no legal gun owner is barred from ownership. These reasons above are why I prove more strict gun laws would hurt non one's "freedoms," and would help in the fight to keep guns out of the wrong hands. As I assume not to provide sources for the fact that cars have wheels, I have assumed that restriction of guns to criminals can help lower crime-- no sources needed for this round. Thanks, good hunting.

Pro has made my argument for me. "the point is we peg it to a point where maturity is more a norm", "a point must be established, bottom line." We have already picked the point you are asking for. We as a society have deemed that the general age of responsibility and maturity is 18 years old. My argument is this: Why do we deem this as the median of general maturity for so many things, such as legal penalties, military enlistment, property ownership, employment, all things that have a significant lifelong impact on an individual"s life, but not alcohol. Either 18 is the number for everything or it is the number for nothing. Either it is arbitrary and should be raised, or it"s when the majority of humans are mature enough to handle adult responsibilities. Pro also said that teenagers and adolescents were more likely to suffer accidents when alcohol was involved. He implied also that teens are in fact so immature that they can"t be trusted with alcohol. To be exact "if you look at accidents and alcohol problems, the increase therein is directly proportional to time". I agree, it"s proportional with time, but inversely. Middle age people are far more likely to drink alcohol to the point of alcoholism. In a recent study done nationwide in the UK "Only around three per cent of young people drank alcohol on more than five days in a week compared with 16 per cent of people aged 45 to 64". (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) and that "A new study published in late December 2012 found that middle-aged professional women consume more alcohol than their teenage children." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). Further, drunk driving is the heaviest, not in the teen age group, but in people from 21-25 "Driving under the influence of alcohol was associated with age in 2010. The rate was highest among persons aged 21 to 25 (23.4 percent) (Figure 3.5). An estimated 5.8 percent of 16 or 17 year olds and 15.1 percent of 18 to 20 year olds reported driving under the influence of alcohol in the past year" (http://www.samhsa.gov...) So if you are implying that the age of 18 is an irresponsible age to allow alcohol, I submit that it"s older ages that are the majority of the problem; to the tune of 10% regarding drunk driving, and 13% for habitual drinking and alcoholism. We have drawn a line, that line is the 18th birthday. The data clearly shows that waiting to drink alcohol until a later age doesn't lessen the consequences of doing so irresponsibly, and I daresay it reflects that older people are equally if not more irresponsible about their alcohol use than even children below the age of eighteen. So to deny an 18 year old the right to consume alcohol while simultaneously demanding that he be employed, feed himself, suffer all the legal consequences we do, and possibly take an enemy IED in the chest is not only completely irrational based on the data, but it"s morally ridiculous. These things have everything to do with each other.

Over the past hundreds of years our political system has evolved from a Monarchy into a Democracy and throughout this time, the right to vote has been long fought for, it took till 1918 till both men and women could vote and it was only in 1970 when it was made legal to vote from 18. However there has been little development on the matter in the 46 years since, so people have grown ignorant on how hard people fought for it and because of this people don't understand the importance of voting