Question: Should the Minimum Voting Age be Decreased?

The voting age should be reduced to 16. Allowing 16-year-olds to vote could help in creating a more equitable distribution of voting demographics. Lowering the voting age to 16 would assist in rebalancing the age distribution of voters.

con didn't argue before that 18 was mature enough for most things, so we should make it for alcohol too. he even said himself that there is an issue of maturity with military etc. he is trying to back peddle. and on the point of whether 18 is old enough. it isn't. it is well established that drunk driving and reckless behavior occurs then, and that it is less and less in proportion to increased age. just because younger folks drink less, doesn't mean we they are more mature. it is well established the problems that affect society with danger happens at a younger age. being an alcoholic isn't the same as crashing into and killing another person because you're drunk. con is making my point about the age being proportinate to maturity etc. the only reason 21+ have more problems, is because that's when driking is legal. they drink much more, so they have more problems. what that statistic really demonstrates, is that drinking is more of a problem when you are younger, and decreases with time. as i've argued all along. notice it doesn't say 'drunk driving is worst when you are 35 or 45 etc etc'. con is basically just contradicting himself. for some reason con is continuting to argue about the 'taking an enemy IED" to the chest thing, despite the fact that he's admitted 18 is too young of an age. he may think 18 is mature enough, but he's not establishing this soundly enough. that one stat he gave is sufficient. 21+, or the younger you are, the more likely there's problems. hence, trying to reduce the drinking age more is not only completely irrational based on the data, but it's morally ridiculous. These things have everything to do with each other.

Pro claims that I haven't presented any stellar arguments, and instead have limited my responses to an "all or nothing" factor. Of course that isn't true. In addition to the point about consistency regarding legal adulthood (which is in fact a great argument that Pro hasn't come close to addressing in full), I also pointed out -- 1. Intelligence and the capacity of self restraint are not determined by age. 2. Drinking alcohol does not automatically violate the rights of anyone, and it's immoral to restrict someone for simply consuming a beverage unless they specifically cause harm or danger to others. 3. Forty five out of 50 states allow for underage legal drinking with certain stipulations, proving moral ambiguity and pragmatic inconsistency.4. Prohibiting young people from drinking in public encourages risky behavior. 5. Young people continue to drink anyway, making them criminals and creating harmful repercussions for their actions including but not limited to secrecy (even to their medical detriment) and the problems that go along with an arrest. One has to wonder why Pro hasn't responded to these "not so stellar" arguments. If he doesn't negate them, they stand in favor of Con.Pro's only defense is that an 18 year old is not ready to make "life or death" decisions. In addition to this simple explanation not remotely addressing my previous five (or rather six) arguments, Con hasn't proven that drinking alcohol is in fact a life or death situation. Billions of people around the world drink alcohol, and yet most experiences do not result in fatalities. Myself, my friends and my family have spent thousands of nights combined drinking (and drinking heavily) without any of us ever suffering a devastating injury or death related to alcohol consumption. So while drinking alcohol can in fact be dangerous and increase the chances of being hurt, the fact is that statistically drinking alcohol alone will not kill or even necessarily hurt you. It's only drinking copious amounts of alcohol (which is irrelevant to the resolution) that can have severely damaging effects. However, I am not advocating that young people go out and get drunk a lot; I'm just advocating that the drinking age be lowered.Pro says he advocates "easing kids into adulthood." That is a completely irrelevant point. As I mentioned, in Europe there is a much lower drinking age (there used to be no drinking age at all) and those kids transition into adulthood just fine. Furthermore the fact that nearly 3/4 high school students drink alcohol prove that kids are "transitioning" to adult experiences regardless of the drinking age. Therefore, it is Con's burden to show why the drinking age being over 18 is specifically beneficial. He claims that a drinking age of 21 inhibits underage drinking which has been demonstrated false by the statistics and resources that I posted in the last round.Finally, I would like to point out that I did in fact cite sources that proved a correlation between drinking age and car crash fatalities. I noted that traffic incidents regarding alcohol are most common among newly legal drinkers. This is true regardless of the drinking age. Ergo Pro's comment that "the younger you are, the more likely you will be involved in a fatal crash due to alcohol" is not necessarily true. Pro must prove this is true with a cited study or source. In the last round I cited research that explained if the drinking age is 18, then sure a lot of 18 year olds will be in alcohol related crashes. And similarly, if the drinking age is 21, then a lot of 21 year olds will be in alcohol related crashes. This completely negated Pro's supposition that age alone (especially those measly 3 years) are a large factor in maturity or accidents, and supports my claim that the novelty factor of drinking is what encourages risky behavior. Another argument I would like to present is based on more research. The legal drinking age was raised to 21 in 1987. Pro claims that a lower drinking age would be more dangerous, but the facts point out that vomiting after drinking, cutting class after drinking, missing class because of a hangover, getting poor grades due to alcohol consumption, and being in a fight after drinking -- all irresponsible behavior related to alcohol consumption -- INCREASED after the drinking age was raised [1]. This further extends the novelty argument (that young people engage in risky behavior because it's new and cool) and negates Pro's continuous, unsupported position that a lower drinking age necessarily yields more dangerous or negative outcomes. Cultures such as Italians, Greeks, Chinese and Jews who have a totally different social outlook on alcohol allow minors to drink, and have nowhere near the drinking problems that Americans do. Ergo it's a cultural influence and not necessarily an ageist one that dictates responsible drinking habits. Dwight B. Heath, anthropologist at Brown University, has written a handful of scholarly articles explaining that criminalizing alcohol consumption until age 21 has been detrimental insofar as shaping people's attitudes and subsequent behavior regarding alcohol. He claims that the younger people start drinking, the safer they tend to be [2]. [1] http://www.indiana.edu...[2] http://www.cnn.com...

Well i finaly made the debate you wanted to talk about. May the best debater win. im against youth in asia for many reasons which i will explain throughout the arguments.

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

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.

In response to your argument that the reason we should sacrifice the liberties of free citizens due to them being more prone to pressure from other individuals, the fact remains that it is the personal liberty and responsibility of the individual to take care of ones own choices and actions. One isn't not given nor granted liberty by the advance of ones age after being declared a legal adult. Once declared a legal and voting adult all freedoms should be uniform because they are not granted by our fellow citizens, these rights are granted by being human and are not and should not be under threat to be taken away by a majority. Regardless of these truths, it can be said to refute your argument that drinking perhaps would not be such a hot topic to young adults had they been granted the freedoms that they deserve. Young adults would not be forced to sneak out and party at friends houses, they would be given a responsibility that all people should have and we would most likely see a sharp decline in peer pressure to drink due to the fact that it would no longer be illegal. Regardless of trends, we can look at this from the vantage of an individuals rights instead of collective statistics. What gives one man the right to dictate and sacrifice the liberties of another man for the sake of his security when you do not have the right nor the liberty to do so?

they make various laws t our well being and education. but how many times do they bother to ask us what do we feel? the parliament should have a teenage representative.

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.

Thank you Romanii for your refutations, My opponent observed that the resolution "supports eliminating the age limit entirely, allowing voting for ALL people under eighteen, ranging from infants, to small children, to teenagers." He went on to conclude "there do certainly exist politically savvy teenagers who are able to make intelligent voting decisions,"" My Opponent just admitted that there do exists in our society citizens who are deprived the right to vote due to age despite them being capable of their own beliefs, interests, and prefrences. Consider how intelligent the average voter really is" "In 2011, Newsweek asked 1,000 Americans to take the standard U.S. Citizenship test, and 38 percent of them failed. One in three couldn"t name the vice-president."(1) "About 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half of Americans can name at least two members of the fictional cartoon family, according to a survey. "The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms." (2) Here is another link that shows more of the same (3) Turns out many of those who can and do vote are not particularly "politically savvy" unlike those teenagers my opponent says "certainly exist." 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. He goes on to that children "are most likely going to just copy the political opinions of their parents". "What eliminating age restrictions does, then, is that it gives individuals with children the ability to double, triple, or even quadruple their say in the government by indoctrinating their children to cast their votes a certain way! This is absolutely unfair to all of the nation's other individuals, who only get one ballot per person." 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. 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. Remember I am in no way advocating that parents vote for their kids but that the kids have the ability to vote because they are citizens. 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." My opponent says ""Taxation without representation" is just a phrase with some historical significance; Pro has not provided any real Constitutional basis for us to believe that all instances of 'taxation without representation' need to be disallowed." Con is correct that there is not real Constitutional basis to believe that all instances need to be disallowed. I never argued there was, however the historical significance has had a huge impact on our society today and in many ways is a part of American culture. Many Americans still believe it is tyranny to tax without representation.(4) I certainly agree. 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.(5) Conclusion: To my delight it seems that Con at heart agrees with me as he stated in his argument that ""..one of the core tenets of democracy: that all citizens should have an equal say in the government." I agree. All Citizens regardless of race, gender, and age, should have an equal say in the government. This is a no brainer Vote Pro! (1)http://www.salon.com... (2)http://www.alternet.org... (3)http://www.publicpolicypolling.com... (4)http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)http://www.fairvote.org...

You think that children shouldn't have rights. How about all the parents and adults don't get rights for the next five years and give children rights. Let them have a taste of what we have to deal with every day of are lives. We live are lives every day getting treated like nothing. do you think it is fare that children get treated like nothing and don't have the the right to justice.


Question: Should the Minimum Voting Age be Reduced?

The United States' minimum voting age should be reduced from 18 to 16. In the U.S., 16-year-olds are legally recognized as capable of operating a vehicle, which demands both self-control and sound decision-making skills. We entrust 16-year-olds with the responsibility of ensuring the safety and well-being of passengers and other road users. If we consider them mature enough to handle the critical decisions involved in driving, why can't we have faith in their ability to make educated choices at the ballot box?

In response to your argument that the reason we should sacrifice the liberties of free citizens due to them being more prone to pressure from other individuals, the fact remains that it is the personal liberty and responsibility of the individual to take care of ones own choices and actions. One isn't not given nor granted liberty by the advance of ones age after being declared a legal adult. Once declared a legal and voting adult all freedoms should be uniform because they are not granted by our fellow citizens, these rights are granted by being human and are not and should not be under threat to be taken away by a majority. Regardless of these truths, it can be said to refute your argument that drinking perhaps would not be such a hot topic to young adults had they been granted the freedoms that they deserve. Young adults would not be forced to sneak out and party at friends houses, they would be given a responsibility that all people should have and we would most likely see a sharp decline in peer pressure to drink due to the fact that it would no longer be illegal. Regardless of trends, we can look at this from the vantage of an individuals rights instead of collective statistics. What gives one man the right to dictate and sacrifice the liberties of another man for the sake of his security when you do not have the right nor the liberty to do so?

pro isn't really presenting any stellar arguments, she's just arguing that it should be all or nothing. much like hte military age, if you are old enough for one you are old enough for the other. and con doesn't really negate that the younger you are the more likely you are in be involved in a fatal crash due to alsochol. i'd personally keep adult in cout and voting and smoking, but drining and military for 21. those life and death decisions are not ready by 18. and if one is forced to say either or, i'd say make it all 21 with all these points. i don't see why we can't ease kids into adulthood though the way i describe. at best con can show 'the kids will want to run wild some, might as well get it out of thier system soone thn later' the problem, though is that more car fatalities happen the younger we go with drinking. the bottomline is even if they are going to want to sow wild oats, being more mature when they are getting to that point will only help. con says young people will drink anyways. yes, but not as much if it's illegal.and that means less fatalities.

con didn't argue before that 18 was mature enough for most things, so we should make it for alcohol too. he even said himself that there is an issue of maturity with military etc. he is trying to back peddle. and on the point of whether 18 is old enough. it isn't. it is well established that drunk driving and reckless behavior occurs then, and that it is less and less in proportion to increased age. just because younger folks drink less, doesn't mean we they are more mature. it is well established the problems that affect society with danger happens at a younger age. being an alcoholic isn't the same as crashing into and killing another person because you're drunk. con is making my point about the age being proportinate to maturity etc. the only reason 21+ have more problems, is because that's when driking is legal. they drink much more, so they have more problems. what that statistic really demonstrates, is that drinking is more of a problem when you are younger, and decreases with time. as i've argued all along. notice it doesn't say 'drunk driving is worst when you are 35 or 45 etc etc'. con is basically just contradicting himself. for some reason con is continuting to argue about the 'taking an enemy IED" to the chest thing, despite the fact that he's admitted 18 is too young of an age. he may think 18 is mature enough, but he's not establishing this soundly enough. that one stat he gave is sufficient. 21+, or the younger you are, the more likely there's problems. hence, trying to reduce the drinking age more is not only completely irrational based on the data, but it's morally ridiculous. These things have everything to do with each other.

I am for the abolishment of the drinking age because it would cause a decrease the amount of crime. I recently embarked on a trip to Italy and encountered a much lower and less strict drinking age. The kids at some of the restaurants were drinking glasses of wine and they were under the drinking age of 16. With no law the teens and others didn't feel the need to rebel and just drank occasionally just for the fun. Countries like these had much less trouble with underage drinking due to the abolishment of the drinking law. From an argument by John A. Captillan, he says that people in countries have 24% less crimes involving the consumption of alcohol due to the less drinking age.

I think we should rise the legal driving age to 18 , many teens drive drunk or too fast and often kill in cars . But also they kill everyone in the car and people around the crash . Car accidents have become regular in our everyday life , everyday we see car accidents and this is killing many people , specially teens .

So, in this round I will address Con's remarks, and then provide feedback to Con as Con requested. I hope my feedback is useful. REBUTTAL V: Con says that we should have only the educated vote. But under the concept of free speech, even foolish people can express themselves. In other words, unless Con is going to physically barricade the polls, administer IQ or knowledge tests to potential voters and so forth, then idiots will always vote. To take those steps necessary to prevent the uneducated from casting a ballot would necessarily require an infringement of free speech rights. Furthermore, the Lisa Hill evidence shows that even under a compulsory voting regime, the impact of "donkey votes," including uneducated, blank, and deliberately faulty ballots, is so small that it does not "pollute the polls." Therefore, Con's concerns are baseless. C: Con never warrants why compulsory voting will boost polarization, whereas the entirety of my second contention explains the link between CV and eliminating polarization. C1: Polarization does exist now. A perfect example would be the "defund Obamacare" movement which has brought the government to a standstill. Extend all my other arguments and my attacks against Con's case. They go untouched by Con; Con has no offense on which to vote Con. This means, in terms of impacts, that CV solves for polarization, which in turn achieves our agreed upon value of democracy. Thanks, and please affirm. FEEDBACK Okay, so here are my thoughts. I think you need more research to bolster you arguments. You have a nice foundation in your NC, but you need to find more warrants to further substantiate your claims. Also, it is useful to have some sources which you don't include in your cases, because these sources might come in handy rebutting your opponent. A good example of this was my use of the Lisa Hill card. In your rebuttals, you should try and hit every point, and make sure to be especially vigorous in defense of you own case. Your rebuttal did not defend your own case, nor did it address all the points in my case. And, when you make arguments in rebuttal, always be sure to explain why they are true. For example, you said that compulsory voting won't reduce polarization--why is that correct? Warrant your claims. When attacking a V or C, I always try and do four things: (1) Delink it--explain why my opponent is not achieving his or her Value or Criterion, and/or explaining why a criterion isn't linking to the value. For example, I explained that your V/C relationship was circular--that if the V and C are the same thing, one cannot augment the other, because they're the same. (2) Encompass it--explain why my value or criterion includes and goes beyond my opponent's. I did this by saying that "freedom of speech" was subset of my own value, democracy. (3) Link into it--explain why, even if a judge doesn't buy my value or criterion, how I can still win because I can link into my opponent's V/C framework. (4) Attack it--explain why the value or criterion is fallacious. I did this with my argument about shouting fire in a theatre and with my last two points in response to your criterion. DELA--it's worked for me in several debates. Sometimes not all of these techniques work, and sometimes you don't have time to do all four of these thing, but if you can do at least two of them, you should be good. It's a nice formula to help get you started. Make sure you also impact your arguments; i.e., explain what relevance they have in terms of the V and C. All your contentions and extensions should be connected back to your V/C framework. Try to make at least one attack against each sub-point, that way I can't extend them. Be comprehensive and thorough. If you have any specific questions, just post a comment or message me. I hope I helped!

it is not that hard i think you are too young and you think 18 because you are probably scared to crash that is why people drive at a very young age to take out that fear and kid you have too many grammar errors good debate it was challenging.

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".

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)

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


Question: Should the Minimum Voting Age be Reduced?

The voting age ought to be reduced to 16. It could be argued that the younger generation is disproportionately impacted by the outcomes of elections worldwide, yet they are denied the opportunity to have a voice in the decisions that affect them. I am of the opinion that they should be granted this right, which is why I support lowering the voting age to 16.

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

IQ test is flawed A. ) There can be a large discrepancy between different tests From 1946 to 1953 the Cleveland juvenile court psychologists used the Healy Picture Completion test as a non-discriminating intelligence test. On this test over 30% of the children tested received IQ scores of 110 or over. When the HPC was eliminated only 9% of the children scored at 110 or over. Thus, some voters would be disadvantaged because of the test they take B. ) IQ Test is racist According to Al Siebert, Ph. D. , author of The Survivor Personality, vocabulary tests often use words that middle-class white people are more likely to know. Thus, the tests themselves are racist and thus voting would be racist. Racism in voting would undermine America’s core values and is something that we need to avoid.2 2. Giving everyone an IQ test is impractical A. ) There aren’t enough psychologists According to the American Physiological Association, there are approximately 93,000 practicing physiologists in the United States. According to the U. S. Census, there were 207,643,594 eligible voters in 2008. When you do the math that is one psychologist per approximately 2,233 persons. According to iqtest. com, an adult IQ test can take from 1.5 to 2 and 2.5. Even if the tests only lasted 1.5 hours, each psychologist would have to spend 3,499.5 hours (approximately 5 months) of administrating tests alone. That is way too much. Psychologists have other things to do, like see other patients, make a living, sleep, eat, and have a life. B. ) Waste of Time While these IQ tests are being administered, people will miss work and that will likely hurt the economy 3. Undermines America’s Values We all should have the right to vote. There should not be discrimination, and this plan would discriminate. Refutation He does not show how the ability to do well on an IQ test affects a person’s ability to make informed decisions. He also does not show how scoring well on a flawed test makes a person less likely to be swayed by unions. Thus, he has no impacts. Conclusion I have shown that the IQ test is flawed which is why we must not use this. If it doesn’t measure intelligence then it is won’t even achieve what pro wants. Even if we did do this, the smarter, more informed people would not be getting more voting power It is completely impractical. He doesn’t establish any impacts, he has no warrants, and even if you buy his case my impacts outweigh.

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... _________________________________________________________________________________________________

"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.

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 know what everyone is thinking that's crazy considering that's younger than 18 and there still in school you can get your driver license at 16 and I believe that the younger you are being treated like an adult with responsibility which can help you in your future.

My opponent stated that his value was democracy, which is also my value. My value applies to this debate differently than his does. For a democracy to be legitimate, which will in turn help the people, and the democracy better, we need to have the politically educated, and involved to vote, will pick the best candidate, and the minority will not pollute the polls. His value criterion is reducing polarization, which with compulsory voting, polarization will only increase. The division of the democracy would be even higher then before. His contention one is incorrect, polarization doesnt exist in the democracies now.

You did not refute any of my points nor explained why 14 year olds should not be tried as adults.Brain researchers B. J. Casey and Kristina Caudle stated that when no emotional cues (when we are required to make decisions in the heat of the moment) are present, teens are better than adults at controlling themselves. [1] While lots of crimes involve emotional cues, it's no different for teens because adults are held responsible for their actions.It"s true that the prefrontal cortex is still developing in teens, but it is not defective. Just before puberty, research has found the brain experiences a burst of neuronal growth to provide for a period of pruning before adulthood. During the important adolescent stage of development, prefrontal connections are far from absent [1]. This means that 14+ year olds can examine fully in detail the constitution or structure the consequences of their behaviors, and thus should be held accountable the same way adults are.An argument against trying 14+ year olds as adults is that a teen might not know what is legal and what is illegal. I will counter this by asking what 14 year old does not know shoplifting from a store is illegal and will land them in jail? And should we give less accountability to people new to the US or visiting the US who may not know all of our laws?Another argument against trying 14+ year olds as adults is that their Amygdala is overactive. This can lead to 1 emotion being twice as strong than normal, which can lead teens to relying too much on emotions and thus acting impulsive. I will refute this arguing this can happen to adults as well [2]. Should adults who experience this be treated like juveniles?There is a lot of mature matter in the 14 year old brain. This means that 14+ year olds can examine fully in detail the constitution or structure the consequences of their behaviors.Do I think 14 year olds should be treated like adults in other aspects? Yes but I will not be debating those other aspects.___________________1 https://www.sacklerinstitute.org...2 http://www.psychologytoday.com...

When we look at society and we look at various individuals, we see something that is a constant among all of them. They are individuals. Now this is an important point, and will likely be a focal point on the Pro Stance, that "People's logic and knowledge should be judged in part by age" Now first of all Albert Einstein was an incredible person, he was as my opponent stated able to solve algebraic mathematics by the mere age of 10, however all across the united states public high schools have a course called "Math Models" because people ages 15-18 cannot do Algebra. So then the question arises, if Albert Einstein could do it why couldn't they? The simple answer is that they are different people, while Einstein was incredibly talented in math at such a young age, that says nothing of his perception to the rest of the world. While people's Knowledge and Logic Should never be completely based upon age; Age needs to take part. For example, Say you had a child who used the "your baby can read" program, and by the time they where eight months old they could read anything thing from Shakespeare, to the Latin Vulgate, to (a personal favorite) The Giving Tree. Just because your child could read does this mean they have to capacity to understand that eating nothing but chocolate and soda would be terrible for them? Maybe; but more likely than not the answer is no. This is not to say by any-means that just because a person is young that they cannot be more intelligent, it is just to say that naturally those who are older will likely be more intelligent and better understand how to apply their knowledge in the real world. Now finally before handing the debate back over to my opponent I end with this. If for no other reason; If my logic has no swayed you- Then Vote pro for this reason. The brain is not fully developed until somewhere between the ages of 20 and 25. http://www.examiner.com... http://www.academic.marist.edu... http://www.livescience.com... Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's response that Age should ave nothing to do with considering a person's knowledge and Logic!

In response to your argument that the reason we should sacrifice the liberties of free citizens due to them being more prone to pressure from other individuals, the fact remains that it is the personal liberty and responsibility of the individual to take care of ones own choices and actions. One isn't not given nor granted liberty by the advance of ones age after being declared a legal adult. Once declared a legal and voting adult all freedoms should be uniform because they are not granted by our fellow citizens, these rights are granted by being human and are not and should not be under threat to be taken away by a majority. Regardless of these truths, it can be said to refute your argument that drinking perhaps would not be such a hot topic to young adults had they been granted the freedoms that they deserve. Young adults would not be forced to sneak out and party at friends houses, they would be given a responsibility that all people should have and we would most likely see a sharp decline in peer pressure to drink due to the fact that it would no longer be illegal. Regardless of trends, we can look at this from the vantage of an individuals rights instead of collective statistics. What gives one man the right to dictate and sacrifice the liberties of another man for the sake of his security when you do not have the right nor the liberty to do so?


Question: Should the Eligibility Age for Voting be Decreased?

The age requirement for voting should be decreased to include 15-16-year-olds. Present your counterarguments in the following round, alongside your opening statement. Lowering the voting age would expand the electorate and grant more autonomy to students. Broader electorate Not every individual in a country is engaged in politics or has an interest in voting. Moreover, adults can be influenced to vote, whereas children have a more idealistic perspective and may be more resistant to corruption. Children are less susceptible to manipulation as they have not experienced the harsh realities of the world, thus believing that their vote holds value and should be dedicated to their country. Additionally, as children do not earn income, they are less aware of the challenges of earning money and would require a greater incentive to be swayed in their vote. Autonomy Political decisions have significant implications for teenagers, such as changes to age restrictions for activities like drinking, driving, gambling, and movie viewing. Given this, why shouldn't they have a say in their future?

If the standard age to buy/drink alcohol was lowered, or taken away I know that it would not be a positive outcome. Kids that are under the age of 21 still have a lot to mature and learn to become a responsible adult. IF kids younger then 21 could get their hands on alcohol I believe that it would result in more drinking and driving accidents, which already occur everyday, when the age of 21 is legal to buy alcohol, and drink it. Kids would be immature with the access to this substance that will completely alter the mind. If we do change the drinking age then more innocent people will loose their lives in not just driving, but also obtaining to much alcohol and thinking they are fine to do things that need to be done, sober.

Why is it their duty to decide who runs the country? If they have no desire to choose their country's leaders, then they should not be forced to make that decision. Do you like being told you have to do something you don't want to? This law would just charge residents unnecessary amount of money or do some community service if they don't conform to vote for the leader of their country. Voting by mail is an option, but is flawed as votes could be lost in the mail.

I believe the reason the argument about Military Enlistment age is less to do with thinking 18-year-olds are mature and considerably more to do with the level of responsibility we"ve asked of them. As a woman who joined the National Guard on my 18th birthday, I can attest to the fact that I was not ready to make this decision, but the responsibility to uphold the decision for my enlistment period remained. Not being mature enough had no bearing on whether I had to finish my 6 years. I signed up, and I was expected to serve the time regardless. It"s not that we believe an 18 year old is mature at the age of enlistment, it"s that since they already are legally capable of being held to the commitment, there is no reason to hold a double standard with alcohol use. If maturity were the only defining factor, one 14 year old might be fine drinking, where one 25 year old might not be. We have already drawn the line at 18 years, and no matter the reason, this is when we hold a person responsible for things we would not hold a child of 17 responsible for. To arbitrarily decide that we are going to hold an 18 year old to adult standards, with adult consequences, except in the case of alcohol use, is irrational. Either the 18 year old can be held responsible to adult standards or not, not some at 18 and others at another age. I can see no defining characteristic of a 21 year old that an 18 year old doesn't have. Initially you might argue that they have more life experience, but note that an 18 year old and a 21 year old who attend college, for example, are still both attending college. Possibly both are still in dormitories surrounded by alcohol use, and likely both are still working in experience-not-required retail type jobs part time, if they work at all. Time alone hardly qualifies as life experience, let alone the kind that inspire them to make responsible choices regarding alcohol use. Drawing the line at 1 for some responsibilities and not others is an arbitrary double standard that serves only to make us feel better. I also submit this question: In what way is it rational to offer a 21 year old alcohol rights and handgun rights on the very same day? That is most certainly a recipe for disaster.

I am doing a debate on lowering the driving age to 15 instead of 16 this would help us out with our economy too, there would be more cars being bought by younger ages. Because of more cars being bought there would be money being pumped into our economy and with that lowering our taxes a lot. Our biggest problem in this country is money and with m,ore money we open a lot of new doors and opportunities for others. We could open up new jobs for other people, we could lower the food prices in grocery store, the two most important in my opinion is either making homes with the extra funds coming in or feeding the people that have nothing especially if they have children. That is why we should,NO,need to lower the driving age!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

That may be your opinion, but there is nothing to support such a claim. Drivers under the age of 16 already have the ability to acquire a learner's permit to drive when accompanied by a licensed adult. There is no legitimate need to lower the age considering the risks it would pertain.

Well i finaly made the debate you wanted to talk about. May the best debater win. im against youth in asia for many reasons which i will explain throughout the arguments.

Having the majority of people involved in elections would be ideal. People need to be inspired to learn about the issues and support someone who they trust in making positive changes. I think this can best be done by eliminating and reprimanding the many corrupt officials that make people distrust the government, and then for the public to commend candidates for their education and experience in public affairs, rather than their charisma and money to promote themselves. None of this can be achieved by making voting compulsory, but by making it appealing and fixing the social problem that lies at its core.

In response to that, I still think that the legal drinking age should be 21 instead of 16 or 18. We as adults should be responsible for the actions that our young people take. Also I think that the choices we as adults make should be good influences on the young people today. Being responsible means not putting pressure on our young people, Also it is not intended to put alcohol into the hands of children or young adults, especially teenagers. That is what I mean by peer pressure in our world today . You talk about liberties and choices . Is it a drunk persons choice to kill someone in a car wreck? I think not. That is someones stupidity. Peer pressure is when more than 1 person puts pressure on 1 person to drink or something they are not comfortable with doing . In Austraila the laws are more flexible so that people can get away with drinking at age 16 or 18. Here we are more strict.

One could easily argue that this rebellious attitude is part of growing up, and can come up at varying times in an adolescent's development. In addition, this attitude can be carried out several different ways. But that generally takes place during the early teen years, by the time they're 18 most of that isn't an issue anymore. For the few that it is an issue, lowering the age would fix that. Also, keep in mind that they are legally adults when they turn 18, so why give them most of the responsibilities of an adult and not allow them to drink? Doesn't it seem a little inconsistent to give them some of the responsibilities and not all of them?