Question: Should the Eligibility Age for Voting be Reduced?

The proposition to lower the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK lacks compelling justification. Here are several reasons why lowering the voting age might not be a wise decision: 1) Young people, generally, exhibit a lack of interest in politics, as evidenced by their voting patterns. 2) Compared to older voters, young people possess less knowledge about political matters. 3) There is no pressing need to expand voting rights to a younger demographic. 4) The potential impact of this demographic on the political landscape of the UK is uncertain.

Firstly, why should the voting age be lowered if young people are not inclined to participate in the democratic process? As research indicates, young people are less likely to vote. [Sources: http://www.theticker.org...http://voices.yahoo.com...http://trace.tennessee.edu...http://mypolitikal.com...]

Secondly, young people are often less informed about politics and politicians. This lack of knowledge can undermine the integrity of the democratic process. [Sources: http://www.policymic.com...http://www.appeal-democrat.com...]

Thirdly, there is no urgent requirement to increase the voting population in the UK, given that voter turnout remains high at 76%, compared to the US, which is below 50%. [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Lastly, while there may be some politically engaged 16-year-olds, the idea of granting all 16-year-olds the right to vote raises concerns for some.

In conclusion, lowering the voting age in the UK is not advisable due to the high voter turnout, young people's disinterest in politics, their lack of political knowledge, and the potential risks associated with granting voting rights to all 16-year-olds.

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

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".

Let me start by thanking you for letting me debate you today. This is a very interesting concept to me, as I am still in high school, so I would be able to properly defend it to the best of my ability. Let the best man win, good luck and good sportsmanship!

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

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

My opponent says that my statement about maturity being looked at by case, and not by number, is a stance for his case. This is not so. Maturity is different for everyone, and one doesn’t reach full maturity until the age of about 25. Because of this, teenagers need to be treated with a certain understanding. That understanding is that teenagers are not fully matured. Sure, some teenagers are more mature than others, but this does not mean that those immature teenagers should be treated as adults. Why? Because they are still developing, and need a chance to learn the proper way of doing things. A person struggles with having something on their adult record. A teenager should not be burdened even further from making themselves a value to society. Instead they should be given the tools and resources to learn from the mistakes that they have made at such a ripe and non-reasonable age.Pro also mentioned that the legal age of adulthood should be 16- 18. This in itself confirms the Con standpoint. An 18 year old is considered an adult. Anything younger than that and we are still dealing with a teenager. Like I said previously, every teenager matures differently, but with no cut-off point, no standards can be set. Eighteen is the appropriate cut off point.A good case was brought up about rehab increasing the chance of repeating criminal activity. I understand that I did not respond to this properly in the last round. I will refrain from arguing against his studies, but I would like propose a situation to you. Say you have a teenager who got in trouble. Would the appropriate way to punish them be to lock them in their room for years, or would it be to put short term restrictions on them and teach them about their wrong doings, and how to better achieve success in the future? Even if one misguided kid makes a change to the better from rehabilitation, it is worthy to commit teenagers to this program. Furthermore, I believe that the rehab recidivism doesn’t necessarily confirm the resolution. This shows that the system is faulty and needs to be approved upon, such as finding stricter and more effective programs. It does not show that teenagers should be held to the same standards as adults in a legal setting. Children should be given more fluid punishments than adults. This is because time in jail for a juvenile is as nervewracking as time in an adult jail. A person should not have their record tarnished as an adult because they made a mistake when they were young and not fully developed.I’d like to thank my opponent for this debate. I admit that I really dropped the ball last round, and that was my fault due to lack of focus. Give him the conduct point not just for my forfeit, but for his patience with allowing me to post my argument in the comments. Good luck to him in the rest of the tournament!

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.

The driving age should not be raised to 21. I can give one resounding reason why that would not work, most people of that age need a car for their daily lives, be it driving to work, needing a licence to drive a work vehicle, grocery shopping and many other daily actions where a use of a licence is needed. Also your reason peer pressure won't change when the person hits 21 it will just give them even more reason to celebrate and the friends who can't drive yet will still peer pressure them. Also if one of your views is safety then I can argue that right now, how is making making people wait longer to get their licence going to make roads safer when by that age as I pointed out they will need their licences more and will be more at risk because they would not have had the years of practice they would have before having gotten their licence at a younger age.

To respond to your argument, that lowering the age limit for alcohol consumption would curb the teens feeling the need to rebel....I think that right there shows that it would not be a good idea to lower the drinking age. If these "kids" feel the need to rebel, that tells me they are not mature enough to make "adult" decisions. I believe rebelliousness is a factor in immaturity. Past studies have shown that when the age limit for drinking was lower, accidents from drunk driving were higher. Also, the younger you start drinking, the more chance you have of developing a drinking problem (i.e. alcoholism). http://www.startribune.com......

1. Parents have the correct amount of control on their kids lives, parents have to raise their children so they decide on what is best for them. 2. Okay? You study social studies, big deal so do a lot of other people, but just because you study it does not give you the qualifications to vote. 3. Just because you learn from the past doesn't mean you will make better decisions. 4. Also never once did I say you were uninformed. 5. I'm sure that there are more adults then teens that know about politics, the house of reps. the cabinet, their rights, and the amendments. 6. Also your 14th amendment rights aren't being violated this is the 14th amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Sure people are equal under the law but teens are too young. 7. So what? Lowering the voting age isn't an international norm, and sure she supports lowering the age of voters, but that's one person. PRO dropped so many arguments, don't consider any of their arguments. We should not lower the voting age.


Question: Should the Minimum Voting Age be Reduced?

The Voting Age should be reduced to 16.

Definitions: Voting Age: The legally recognized age at which United States citizens can cast their votes in national elections and have their opinions counted.

Hello, I am Wendell Phillips, the PRO advocate arguing for lowering the voting age to 16. Before I proceed, I wish to acknowledge that my opponent, xStrikex, is actually my classmate, and I am thrilled to engage in this contentious debate with him.

My Arguments: The established voting age of 18 is essentially arbitrary. Prior to the reduction of the voting age to 18, it was set at 21. The justifications for this higher threshold mirrored the current arguments against lowering it to 16, primarily that individuals would be too immature or uninformed to make wise voting decisions. As we've observed, 18-year-olds are just as capable of making sound democratic choices as 21-year-olds, and no magical transformation occurs between 16 and 18 that turns them into fully mature democratic citizens. Rather, maturity is a spectrum, and as will be illustrated below, some 16-year-olds may be equally or even better informed about politics than older individuals who are eligible to vote.

More specifically, there are numerous activities that 16-year-olds are legally permitted to undertake. For instance, they can marry, leave full-time education, leave home, and secure full-time employment, all of which are significant responsibilities. Even more serious, at 16, one can enlist in the military voluntarily, making it illogical to argue that someone can be mature enough to fight for their country but not mature enough to vote.

When young individuals are actively involved in a meaningful democratic process, they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many across different age groups express dissatisfaction with the lack of passion and interest in politics and change, a sentiment evident in single-issue campaigns and protests. Voting at 16 offers young people the opportunity to infuse more passion and energy into the political system.

Young people are motivated by the same issues as older voters, such as public safety, taxation, and transportation costs. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that 16 and 17-year-olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a mandatory subject in the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3, students learn about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the characteristics of parliamentary and other forms

Well i dont even know what an LD format is >.< Anyway, you keep posting arguments, but i want your source. No source? = Argument false "In order to uphold my case and provide for Moral Obligation, I offer the following criterion as a weighing mechanism for the round: Protection of Human Worth. I ask you judges, if you can protect human worth if you throw a ten year old in jail without parole for a mental problem? Take Eric Smith, for example. At the age of 13, he strangled a 4 year old, slammed two large rocks on his head, and then proceeded to shove a stick up his rectum. Judges, do you really think any sane human being would do such a terrible thing? And do you really think those nine years to life in prison will help his sanity more than a psychologist?" Killing and mutilating a 4 year old after being bullied doesnt classify as mental problem. He murdered someone. The murder is serious considering the victim is a 4 year old boy and since he was 13, he SHOULD be knowing whats right and wrong and that murder is an evil thing. For such an unacceptable crime, we should treat them as adults. Contention 1: Juveniles brains aren't as developed as Adults. According to Terence T. Gorski is an internationally recognized expert on substance abuse, mental health, violence, & crime and others qualified professionals, (Ed. Judy Layzell. Ortiz, Adam.) "Scientific studies have determined that the human brain undergoes continuous development up to the age of about twenty-one. "Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses," states Adam Ortiz, a policy fellow with the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center. Although juveniles should be punished for their crimes, they are not as responsible as adults. "This is the premise beneath society's across-the-board restrictions on voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces," observes Ortiz. "Indeed, this is why we refer to those under 18 as `minors' and `juveniles'—because, in so many respects, they are less than adult." Murder however is a different story since you ends someones life. As i said, you are TAUGHT to know whats wrong and right. The mentality of the newer generations are generally higher then the childrens from 30 years ago. Murder is wrong and if juveniles knows its wrong and still commits murder, why should we still go easy on them and treat them as juveniles? Contention 2: Punishment doesn't work, it just makes things worse. "Gorski presents three principles which should guide the debate regarding adult sentencing of juveniles. First, adolescents are not fully developed mentally and are prone to poor impulse control; second, even the most violent juvenile offender can be rehabilitated with proper treatment; last, the United States has a juvenile justice system that is designed to help youthful offenders, not punish them. "It is important to remember that punishment does not work," asserts Gorski. "Punishment is a failed strategy for changing behavior, teaching new skills, or developing new and more positive attitudes and beliefs." Are you even sure that it doesnt work? Some states now treat crimes from juveniles and adults the same way and what was the results? Crimes from juveniles dropped. It seems Gorski was wrong after all for some part. Contention 3: Youths are easily influenced "It's a well known fact that a most juvenile delinquents had a bad upbringing. During the adolescence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child. An example would be a case where a Mother began stealing things with her children, hiding things in their pockets and purses. The children were thereby taught that stealing is OK, maybe even if they must use force. The children should not be held responsible, the bad influences should be, be it a parent or a sibling or maybe an older friend who's experienced in the life of crime. Therefore, we should always take different circumstances into account, something the Affirmative cannot do." I think this is an exception. If a certain person was stealing and you saw it, making you think its ok, then you are influenced by that person. Note that stealing isnt a serious felony. Sub Point A: Youths should not have access to violent weapons. "Guns are usually related to violent crimes juveniles commit. Obviously, you must be 21 to buy and legally own a gun. Who's to blame for letting an underage have possession of such dangerous weapons? Certainly not the juvenile. Maybe the parent didn't fully teach the juvenile right from wrong, and/or carelessly left the gun around. Maybe the juveniles see on T.V. the power the gun has, and can get whatever they want if they have possession of it." You are absolutely correct, they shouldnt be having access to weapons. However, since the gun doesnt tells you to pick it up and fire at people, the juvenile is at fault for taking the gun. Kids watches tv most of the day. They should be knowing what a gun is. Contention 4: You cannot protect Human Worth with the Affirmative position. "Professor Palo Annino (Florida State University) expands: Oh, absolutely, I think we're immoral, ultimately as a nation. This is no different from slavery and other major moral issues. Placing children in adult prisons for life is a death sentence for children. Do we want to do that as a society? Do we want to ignore our Western traditions? I mean, we do have Western traditions, and one part of our Western traditions is called redemption, and for many people in our culture redemption is an important value." Why do we put those children in jail in the first place? Because they committed a crime. Was it serious? Of course since he got life sentence for it. Neither the police nor the victims family will show you mercy if you commit a murder. If we punish juveniles for their crime, how is it immoral i ask you? Here i fight back since i dont like to be pummeled. "1. We look at them as a child because as my Con 1 and Con 3-Sub A states, there are multiple factors that are behind why a child commits violent felonies, such as abuse, growing up in a bad environment, etc. That's not even mentioning the fact that "During the adolescence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child." At age of 13, you should be knowing that killing is wrong and that you get punished if you commit a murder. And with the rising mentality of younger ages, they should be knowing whats right and wrong at young age. You can disagree with me, but my claim still stands that they should be knowing it. "2. If we treat Children as Adults in terms of crime, we should treat them as adults in EVERYTHING, such as voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces. It would be hypocritical otherwise. Also, that narrow minded viewpoint doesn't bring in circumstances such as, as I stated, before abuse and growing up in a bad environment." I disagree here. We have these restrictions here to show those juveniles the differene between bad and good. We dont allow childrens smoke or drink alcohol. Why? Because its bad and unhealthy. As for jobs, the juveniles will be disagreeing with you xD (they dont want to work yet xD) Abuse and growing up in a bad environment doesnt force you to commit a crime. With killing all around you, its absurd to not know what killing is and if it is right or not. I guess i have to stop here since im running out of text... Source: http://www.time.com...

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

You kno this debate just really annoys me know...Obviously your young but I'm younger. The reasons for these qualifications Are for the best of this country. We can't just go around letting any one run to lead it. I'll show you what the anyone off the street you'd elect to lead would have to worry about. Its not like running a monopoly board. You have to worry about 300,000,000 people. You have to worry about Foriegn Policies, Foreign Relations, Hmeland Security, Wars, Welfare, Rights, Unions, Taxes, Health Care. Its not just supporting some thing that you have a passion for. If Youth Rights is all you want then run for senate, Its more likely to get through that way than being president. Now, "You just copy and pasted the same argument! Expain your argument! He will choose citizenship of one country and that country will be America, he is the president. The American people are capable enough of electing a president." Yes, I copied the same arguement b/c u didn't adress it you just said you didn't get it. With the further info I provided I hoped you'd get it but obviously...you didn't. It is similiar. The dualie would grow up in France or where ever learning for what ever is best for there country. If we allow them immediately here and they decide to run they will have a head filled with France priorities not U.S. give them that time and allow them to learn American Priorities then they can efficiently run for office and be a good AMERICAN leader. "I said that discrimination used to take place in voting between blacks and women and you said that was wrong. You conceeded that discrimination is wrong that means that I win. If not, you at least loose on the argument" I never said you were wrong discrimination was ONCE present not anymore. So, you brought up a invalid arguement you still acted as it was true. I still depicted it to you that this is the 21st century not the 19th in which Blacks and Woman couldn't Vote (by the way Lincoln and his REPUBLICANS fixed that) "That is more speculation. These points dont even make sense but anyway wouldnt they vote for her 5 years later for her physic anyway if your logic is true? Proving that 35 years old does not make you anymore qualified especially because u have a nicer physic." The only reason I brought this up is because the people can be swayed to voteing for something by the media. That happened w/ Arnold Swartz and we were lucky to have a good leader in him. (can't expect any less in the Terminator) but that is why we have the Electoral College. You kno a 20 year old still wouldn't be ready. Even advisors wouldn't help them. When your 20 you don't have the right criteria. They my have priorities but there not the right ones. What don't you get. a 20 year old right out of college or high school. They have literally no life experience. They don't know whatis out there They feel they are invincible and can do anything...they can't... Now I'm only 13 and I have already realized that. Now I more thing a 20 year old will never be elected president. The citizens will never bite for it. As president once again you have to: worry about 300,000,000 people. You have to worry about Foriegn Policies, Foreign Relations, Hmeland Security, Wars, Welfare, Rights, Unions, Taxes, Health Care. A 20 year old will never be able to do that...some 40-50 year olds can't

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

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

Voting is a right, but not an unconstrained one. The right to vote is not granted to those under the age of eighteen. That age limitation demonstrates that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter's good judgment. Resident aliens are excluded from voting on the grounds that their interests are not necessarily coincident with the interests of ordinary citizens. Convicted felons are another class of citizens whose judgment is reasonably called into question. The interests of convicted felons are likely to be contrary to the interests of citizens as a whole, who want to be protected from criminals. The U.S. Constitution does not grant individual citizens the right to vote for president. The electors for the President are determined by state legislators *by any means*; Clearly, the Constitution does not make voting in a preeminent right. The Constitution defines a republic, which generally subordinates the right to vote upon legislation to voting for legislators. There are clauses granting equal rights based based upon race and religion, and equal voting rights based upon gender, but there is nothing that prevents voting restrictions based upon other criteria. Non-citizens are also excluded from voting. That is because the interests of non-citizens are likely to diverge from those of citizens on some important issues. The argument that the interests of criminals diverges from that of ordinary citizens is stronger than that for non-citizens. Convicted criminals have demonstrated where their interests lie, but for non-citizens it is only a reasonable supposition. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall claimed that once a prison sentence is served, that felons have "fully paid their debt to society" [1] However, being a jurist qualifies one to interpret laws, not to make them. Whether or not felons have fully paid there debt is a matter to be determined by law, and ultimately of the values of society as reflected in the lawmaking processes. For example, convicted sex offenders must register with the government and are restricted from certain interactions with children. The "three strikes and you are out" laws identify career criminals and remove them from society. The justification for both sex-offender registration and "three strikes" is that convicted felons are more likely to commit additional crimes than persons without a criminal record. One can argue what the correct level of continuing debt to society ought to be, but the fact that convicted felons are more likely to commit crimes is unquestionable. The U.S. Bureau of Justice reports that "over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years" [2]. Note that the two-thirds only reflects released felons who where caught within three years. It does not count those who committed crimes but were not arrested. Overall, only about 45 percent of violent crimes are solved, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics [3] Factoring in the criminals not caught, we may reasonably suppose that the true recidivism rate is in the neighborhood of 85 or 90 percent. Because recidivism rates are so high, the debt to society at the heart of this issue is not with respect to serving a sentence for a particular crime, it is in having adopted a criminal lifestyle. The convicted felon ought to have the obligation of establishing that his interests have become aligned with those of ordinary citizens and contrary to those with a criminal lifestyle. For example, that might be established after ten years without an arrest for a felony. It is not established by release from prison. Only eight states currently prohibit convicted felons from voting for life. Two states (Vermont and Maine) permit felons to vote while in prison. Thirty-three states remove the franchise while convicted felons are on parole. Thus even if one accepts Thurgood Marshall's argument that voting rights should be restored after felons have paid their debt, it is not mainly about criminals who have done so. The issue is mainly about criminals who are in prison or on parole and have not paid their debt. Criminal rights advocates claims that in the 2000 election in Florida, that felons would likely have swayed the presidential election to John Kerry and away from George Bush. They claim that preventing that was undemocratic. There is no doubt that in a close elections the votes of those with an established criminal lifestyle voting for someone they feel to be in their interests could determine the outcome of an election. That, however, is a powerful argument that justice demands that election not be determined by such people. Criminal rights advocates claim that fencing off a certain voter demographic is a fundamentally unjust principle. In reality, it depends upon the reason for fencing off the demographic. People under the age of 18 are fenced off on the reasonable grounds that in general they lack the knowledge and experience to cast an informed vote. Note that this is done despite some seventeen-year-olds being more informed than some citizens who are fifty or sixty. The fencing off is justified because the odds are so heavily against it. Similarly, not all convicted felons remains committed to the criminal lifestyle. But with about 85% recidivism, the odds are much against it. Therefore, it is reasonable and just to identify the demographic and exclude them. Convicted felons are an identifiable target for politicians, who can seek votes by making various promises to tilt the justice system in favor of criminals. Politicians are clever enough not to go to prisons to make the appeal directly, as that would alienate other voters. They would use surrogates who espouse "improving" the justice system by weakening it. Even if no targeted appeal were made, criminals would figure out for themselves which candidate was most likely to facilitate their criminal lifestyle. Crime victims are also an identifiable demographic. However, victims are less likely to vote based upon the single issue of weakening the justice system. For example, victims are citizens who worry about the health of the general economy because a good economy facilitates their making a living. A criminal lifestyle, however, is only facilitated by weakening the justice system. The issue has frequently posed as one in which removing the right to vote is either punishment or retribution. This a false dichotomy. A completely separate reason for imprisoning criminals is to keep them from doing further harm. That is why convicted felons should not be allowed to vote. We should not want people whose primary interest is in pursuing a criminal lifestyle determining the outcome of close elections. 1. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu... Richardson v. Ramerez, in which three ex-felons sued to restore their voter registration. The applicants lost the case. 2. Bureau of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... Recidivism 3. http://www.ncpa.org... National Center for Policy Analysis, Violent Crime Clearance Rate http://www.ncpa.org...

I accept the challenge, and negate the resolution. Raising the legal age for drinking alcohol to 18+ is the best solution. I hope my opponent will inform me and the audience that it is "no solution" for what? Please explain.

So since Jdizzle hasn't defined what Voting should mean, i'll define it in my own ways, so Voting means to "make your choice" And Kid means a person under the age of 18. So people of the gallery, seeing these definition let's take into account what Pro has said so far, he has said that there is no good reason why kids should not vote, seeing how he says "kid's" we are going to say that all "kids" under the age of 18 will vote, this includes 5 year olds, 10 year olds, even 2 year olds. Are we really going to allow young children who most likely still live with their parents vote? Not only do they have most of their decisions made for them they are also not responsible enough to choose who should lead a country. So exactly what is the fundamental question in this debate? It is, "Is allowing Children to vote going to benefit or harm our society? " Pro said that "alot of kids are smarter and brighter than adults" So what kids are we talking about here? how many under 18 year olds do you know that have completed education? Most people who vote have completed high school thus having a good degree of education, under 18 year olds most likely have not completed high school, and therefore they are probably not "smarter" or "brighter". I wil now continue towards my constructive case. Okay so seeing how the people under 18 do not a high school graduated degree, cannot support themselves, and most of the important decisions are not made by these "kids". Are we seriously going to allow these people to vote? Most likely these kids will fall into what other people think rather then themselves, children like to play games, why must they also listen to the problems in the government? Most likely these kids will not know who to vote for, and would listen to their parents, or friends for who to vote for. Not only has Pro neglected what adults really do, he believes that children should have the responsibility of who should run the goverment. What's next? Are we going to start allowing the children to have seats in the Government? Making decisions for us because they are apparently" Smarter and Brighter? People of the Gallery. I think not.

They use college as a comparison to joining the military. “Teenagers have about 5 years’ worth of actual life experience”. Not practical adult life experience, which is what counts. “Would it be wise to say our college students are impulsive? ” Absolutely it would. If you sign up for college without a plan or even a major in mind (as your source has indicated), you really should sit out until you can figure it out. A major difference however is that you can leave college whenever you want (although if you are far along it is not advisable). Not so with the military, you are locked into a contract (5 or 6 years are common) and can’t get out except in very special circumstances. In college you get the major you sign up for, in the Military you MO can change without your choice. Part of the problem is everyone thinks they have to go to college. “Would it be rational and beneficial to teens if we delay admission to college until their 21? ” In many cases it would, particularly if you haven’t decided on a major. My opponent mentions not all jobs in the military are dangerous, that is true but it is far more dangerous than college. Yes it is true the military does pay for college and that is why many join for that reason rather than they fully believe in the cause or they are thinking more about the money than the risks involved. [1]I think for college something you learn in high school should be to have a plan, other countries deal with this easier by having a track system. This could lead to a whole new argument in itself, but it can actually be an effective means of dealing with these problems. The biggest downside being the lack of choice later on. [2]I wish I had made another round but I didn’t so that does it for my argument. I feel I have demonstrated my case. So vote for me if you are convinced. Thank you. 1 . http://sundial.csun.edu...2 . https://www.usnews.com...

"I 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.


Question: Should the Minimum Voting Age be Reduced?

The voting age should indeed be lowered. It has been demonstrated that the average voter struggles to pass a fundamental economics test. So, why introduce more marginally informed voters into the equation? Younger individuals are likely to mirror their parents' voting patterns. Unless they have been avidly following current events or engaging in substantial reading, how can they be expected to comprehend the intricacies of today's issues? Many individuals are unable to name the Speaker of the House or specify which party holds sway in each chamber of Congress. If granted the right to vote, they become easy targets for opportunistic politicians exploiting their naivety. To win over an informed voter, one must present compelling arguments. To sway an uninformed voter, one merely needs to fabricate a stance that appeals more to emotion than logic, one that seems intuitively appealing or grounded in common sense. To convince an entirely ignorant teenager to cast a vote for you, all it takes is a catchy campaign ad and a memorable slogan. Here is an article about a study conducted on the political knowledge of teenagers. The findings revealed that these young people were woefully uninformed. What conceivable advantages could there be in permitting teenagers to exercise their voting rights? [Link to the article]

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

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

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

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

All forms of birth control are available to all women in America at least the age of 18. The procedure of having an abortion is another form of an option for birth control for women. Abortions are now very safe and low risk procedures. Patients are able to go home the same day after an abortion and do not require much to recover. I believe even for a high risk surgery, women no matter the age should have the final say on what is to be done to their own bodies. Women should not have to wait till they are legal enough to drink to have access to this alternative option to birth control, especially when most teens as young as 14 can get birth control pills without parental consent. Why do we allow women this young to have access to these things if they are not capable of making consequential decisions? Even a preteen knows that she should be on some sort of birth control if they are having sex. Otherwise it wouldn't be available to them. Women that age do not always make the best decision to get on birth control before the event of pregnancy, but they are capable of connecting the dots.

Okay, so first off, you have 0 solid evidence on why teens should be allowed to vote. Your only reasoning is that teens drive, pay sales tax, pay income tax, and are more informed* then half of voters. These are not warrants on why teens should be allowed to vote. Everyone has to pay sales tax, big deal. Also you claim that adults don't understand our "democracy" but "we" do, this argument proves that teens have no idea how the USFG works. First off, America is a republic, not a democracy, you also spelled "does" wrong, yet you wonder why teens are seen as dumb. The only reason that the voting age is 18 instead of 21, is because people felt that it was unfair to be sent to fight and die for America, but they were unable to vote. Even then, it was because 18 year old people could go to war, however a 16-17 year old cannot. Also teenagers do not understand our political state. Most teens live with their parents, and their political beliefs are based on their parents. So teens shouldn't be able to vote. Lastly, the true "adult" age is around 23, because that's when the brain is fully developed. So no, teens should not have the right to vote.

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.

Another good point however sources indicate that the fully development and maturity starts in the early 20's another point that my opponent made was that it would effect them in the future if at a young age they be treated like adults with the responsibility that can make them an responsible as adults do longer you treat them like children the more immature they will be If you say there not older enough to do this or that there going to do it anyway what makes teens what to do grown up enough is the fact that someone tells them they can't if these teens knew about the responsibilities of being adult earlier on they would be careful in the decisions they make.

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

Meaning no disrespect to Pro, this will be a very short round. The resolution is that "Young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime. " Therefore in order to vote pro, the reader must belief that curfews will reduce crime, or in an exteremly generous interpretation, have a neutral effect. This is a question best decided by empirical observation, as many curfews have been tried already and many studies have been done on the subject. This argument was made in the previous round and has not been addressed by Pro, therefore please accept it as the standard by which to judge this round. I have posted a link to the U. S. Department of Justice where they review all research on the topic and determine that curfews do not reduce crime. I have posted a link to the JusticePolicy center where their review of the research determines that curfews actually increase crime, having a negative rather than neutral effect. Pro's first link in Round 2 notes that the research shows curfews do not reduce crime and points to a survey of the opinions of politicans as the only evidence in favor of curfews. In addition to this opinion poll, Pro's only other source he uses in support of curfews' crime-fighting effectiveness is the link given in the round 3 argument. It is a broken link to a blog. This is not a matter of argumentation and opinion, but a matter of referencing established facts.


Question: Should the Minimum Voting Age be Decreased?

Reducing the Voting Age

Ladies and gentlemen, in this discussion, I stand to argue against the proposition that the voting age should be reduced to 18. The context of this debate revolves around low voter turnout, which is not due to an excessively high voting age but rather stems from voter disinterest and a lack of politically engaged and mature electorate. I will demonstrate that lowering the voting age has significant risks and should be avoided, and I will propose an alternative that can enhance voter quality and participation.

Firstly, establishing a reliable standard for maturity among the youth is challenging. Age does not equate to maturity, and the proposition must provide a clear, objective standard supporting the idea that 18 is a dependable benchmark for maturity, compared to the current legal age in Korea of 19. Moreover, today's youth are less mature than their predecessors due to increased sheltering and delayed responsibility assumption. In the past, young people were compelled to mature quickly and take on societal responsibilities, such as employment and early marriage, but this is not the case today. The "kangaroo youth" phenomenon, where young adults rely on their parents for support, is a growing international concern, exemplified by the Hanhwa chairman's intervention for his over-20-year-old son.

Secondly, today's youth are more inclined to vote based on superficial appeal rather than political substance. The young generation is heavily influenced by pop culture and can be swayed by candidates' popularity rather than their qualifications, potentially degrading the overall vote quality and distorting candidates' focus. The proposition must demonstrate a surge in political engagement among Korean youth to justify lowering the voting age. Without evidence of such political will among 18-year-olds, there is no clear, measurable standard for gauging youth participation and interest.

Lastly, I propose an alternative that addresses the issue more effectively than the harmful proposition. The counterplan involves a compulsory voting clause in the law, combined with measures to increase voter participation, such as voter education, guaranteed government funding for candidate platforms, televised debates, "Get out the Vote" campaigns, and more. The objective is to increase the number of informed voters, not to lower the voting age. Compulsory voting, whether enforced or not, has been shown to significantly boost voter turnout, as evidenced by Thailand's 15% increase in voting rates after implementing the clause and Uruguay's jump from 67% to 88.2% with enforced compulsory voting. Therefore, the government has the option to enforce

The reason children are so terrible today is because of advancements in technology, meaning they never have to work a day of their lives and that when they do have to work, they b!tch and moan about it. They also do these “terrible” things to the entertainment biz because that stuff is simple, catches their attention, doesn’t make them think, and they have a lot of free time. Even if we killed off all the children, the new batch of children that will be born will be just as bad or worse than the generation before, due to technology making their lives easier and easier. So for the sake of it, think of all the cute babies you’ll be killing off for nothing since the new batch of children won’t be any better. Generations evolve and it’s natural so just let it play out. Complaining Like explained earlier, killing off the children won’t solve this problem because the fresh batch of children will be just as bad. In addition, let’s remember that adults b*tch nearly just as much as children do, just look at GWL-CPA. …He just doesn’t understand why kids love the taste Cinnamon Toast Crunch. Anyways, politicians are the main source of all of the b*tching that goes around, so target them. Making Things Terrible It’s children that make people like Nicki Minaj popular, and they will continue to make annoying pop stars popular so that really doesn’t solve that problem. Let’s also remember that every older generation thinks that the younger generation’s music is crap, it’s been that way since mah great great granpappy were alive. My opponent talks about how children ruin cartoons. Cartoons are made for kids, kids don’t choose whether they are crappy or not. Let’s also remember that the old Spongebob was part of the generation you want so badly to kill off. Fashion, really? Who gives a flying f*ck about what people wear. Sure the girls are a bit showy but what guy doesn’t like that? Ima argues cars. Seriously?! Every kid you know will say they love trucks and muscle cars (Mustang, Challenger) and you really think that’s bad taste? Age of Chicks Ya Bang You’re killing off all kids 15 and under. You still have to deal with the 16 year olds and the 17 year olds and let’s be honest, if you “mistake” a 15 year old or younger kid for an 18 year old then you were probably pretty desperate yourself. It’s the 16 and 17 year olds that are the problem and you aren’t fixing it by killing all the people younger than them. Actual Arguments “Killing off all the minors will give huge breathing room to social security in the future” I don’t know much about social security so I’ll drop this. Let’s just remember, is it worth killing that innocent, adorable baby for some political gain? “it will give education breathing room as well since everyone will either be a junior in high school or higher” Then we’ll watch every private school crash. “a lot less people will be killed from car accidents which are often caused by teenagers.” You’re killing everyone under 16, so this argument doesn’t work.

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

Well the why I saw it. It creates the illusion to parents that Facebook is a safe place for children and there are ways for parents to block Facebook for their children to use it. So, its not that easy if parents are informed. The question is if they lower the age they may not even question if it is truly safe. Reverse psychology does work in some cases but if you tell your kid it is okay to eat a cookie they'll eat it , if you catch my drift. Phones work the same but you know everyone on it.

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

Lowering the minimum age for getting a driver's license wold greatly increase the number of accidents and deaths on the road. People aged 15-24 account for only 14% of the U.S. population, but are responsible for 30% of the costs of motor vehicle injuries. Teen drivers are three times more likely than those over 20 to be in a fatal crash. The perceived "responsibility" of a new generation does not mean they will become better drivers at a younger age. http://www.cdc.gov...

The topic simply means that people should have a basic understanding of economics and basic proficiency in financial literacy before being able to exercise voting and union powers. I am not going to argue about whether or not such an option is implementable, but only whether or not it should. By "basic proficiency" I mean that people should know how to compound interest, what government debt and deficit is, how a bank works, how a credit card works, etc. Things we will encounter in our daily lives as well as economics 101. DISCLAIMER: I am not challenging human rights. I simply believe that there are problems in the current US system. What these flaws are, I am not certain. I believe some discussion is merited in an attempt to find these flaws and amend them. Hopefully this debate will bring out some new ideas. First round is acceptance. Second round is opening argument. Third round is rebuttal and conclusion. I look forward to a civil debate.

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

I am going to begin by saying you changed your argument from legislation to saying that older adults need to set an example for young children today. So basically your way of setting a so called "example" is the "do as I say not as I do principle" because older adults that are over 21 can drink and under 21 cannot. Nevertheless you mentioned several times about our nations youth when the topic of this entire debate has been entirely about legal adults. If you want to change the age of adulthood that is an entirely different subject. I referred to under 21 adults as young adults in my earlier round merely to distinguish between the two groups to make it easier to prove my point, not so you can take it and say they are now considered youth. If our state considers them legal free adult citizens, then they should be treated as such. The parenting age for a family is 1-18, and you are making an assumption that the "parenting" age for the state to teach morality to its citizens is 1-21. So far your arguments have consisted of peer pressure, a moral obligation of one class to protect another, and you have declared 18 year old legal adults as our youth. But as you are on a constant fit of trying to have morality as the basis of your argument, I believe I have proven so far that it is indeed your argument that is in fact deeply immoral. In my case I am arguing in favor of giving a free citizen and legal adult the freedom to choose for himself, while you are arguing to take away that choice and to put it in the hands of someone else to dictate. You are in essence arguing in favor of letting another man assume the interests, the choices, and well being of another without his consent, which from different perspectives could be seen as tyranny or enslavement, if there is any real difference as the losing of ones freedom is all the same.

Very true about us being the public. It's a good age that we're in now, but at the same time, a bad one. This generation at least is becoming a bit smarter when it comes to politics, but at the same time, at least my peers have no clue what's. There are a select few that truly know what's best for the country, but there is strength in numbers. Many of my schoolmates that are going to be of voting age when 08 rolls around don't really know what they want in a president, and like my conformist trend idea, only want to go with what the media force feeds down there throats. I love your idea, but because the media controls so many opinions, I can't see it happening, or at least, getting the support it needs.

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