The Instigator
Miserlou
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
Randomknowledge
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

If You're Old Enough to Join the Army, You're Old Enough to Vote

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,468 times Debate No: 1968
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (15)

 

Miserlou

Pro

I got into an argument about this with someone and thought I'd debate it here.

Before 1970, the age in the U.S. when people were allowed to vote was 21, but 18 was the age when people could join the army, and get drafted. This caused quite a stir in the midst of Vietnam and the voting age was lowered by the 26th Amendment.

I agree with this. If someone is able to join the army, particularly to fight in a war which requires a level of intelligence and maturity, then they are certainly capable of voting and making other adult decisions. Likewise, in the case of a draft, it is unfair to force people to fight for something they had absolutely no say in.

I will expand my argument next round.
Randomknowledge

Con

Hello. I am glad to debate you on this, though i feel that some points of ours are of the same opinion. I agree that if you go to war, you have to be intelligent but i believe that it is not right to generalize voting with going to war. They are two completely different things. When you sign up to go to war, you are going to war under the command of others, especially if you are not a high ranking person. If you vote, you are making a decision all on your own, and you are voting to put someone in charge of the military. They alos nee dcompletely different qualifications. To join the army, you have to passa number of tests, qualificiations, and things that most people couldnt go through. It takes a tough person to go through military training. There is also an age requirement for going to war, as there is one for voting. However there are no Qualifications for voting, besides being a U.S. citizen of 18 years of age. Currently I beleive that the age to go to war is the same as the age to vote, so your age argument is therefore invalid. And I do agree that a draft would be a bad idea, and i will agree with you (and expand more about that) in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Miserlou

Pro

"Currently I beleive that the age to go to war is the same as the age to vote, so your age argument is therefore invalid."

I know. But there are people who believe otherwise and so I wanted to debate it. The argument isn't invalid, it just means that (presumably) the majority already agrees with me. I am arguing a principal.

"And I do agree that a draft would be a bad idea, and i will agree with you (and expand more about that) in the next round."

Thanks, I await the expansion

"To join the army, you have to passa number of tests, qualificiations, and things that most people couldnt go through. It takes a tough person to go through military training."

Exactly, and if someone is capable of that then they are capable of voting.

You say that the current qualifications for voting are only being 18 and a U.S. citizen. Qualifications for the army are numerous and intense. And even though most soldiers will just be following orders, in a war situation chances are that they'll have to at some point be thinking for themselves if something doesn't go according to plan. And if we judge someone capable of going into battle; killing but also being moral, using discretion and doing such an important job right, then I would say that they're capable of picking out someone to vote for. This may not make them the ideal voter necessarily, but very few people are ideal voters. Of course there will always be some exceptions, but as this is the general rule it would be unfair to say that someone is old enough to join the army and not old enough to vote.
Randomknowledge

Con

Hello, miserlou, I believe that this debate is a little weak, but it is still quite interesting. You said "But there are people who believe otherwise and so I wanted to debate it. The argument isn't invalid, it just means that (presumably) the majority already agrees with me. I am arguing a principal." The argument is invalid, considering the fact that the age is the same. I also would like to know who (this is only applicable to people over 18) doesn't know that the age is the same? where does that common misconception come into play?
you also said (about me) "You say that the current qualifications for voting are only being 18 and a U.S. citizen. Qualifications for the army are numerous and intense." I agree with that, and I agreed with that in my previous statement. you are only reiterating what I just said. The qualifications are different. That is the key word. They don't fall into the same category at all. I also want to bring up a very important point about the people that join the military. There are 1000's of men that fight in the army that are not of american descent or from America. They get brought in from other parts of the world to fight for America. Should they be allowed to vote? Should they have a say? they are not american citizens and they most likely have not lived in the U.S. for 14 years or more. They would need to apply for dual citizenship. This is where the fine line gets drawn.
Debate Round No. 2
Miserlou

Pro

"Hello, miserlou, I believe that this debate is a little weak, but it is still quite interesting. You said "But there are people who believe otherwise and so I wanted to debate it. The argument isn't invalid, it just means that (presumably) the majority already agrees with me. I am arguing a principal." The argument is invalid, considering the fact that the age is the same. I also would like to know who (this is only applicable to people over 18) doesn't know that the age is the same? where does that common misconception come into play?"

Okay, everyone knows what the current law is. It's just the question of agreeing with it or not. This person was my dad actually, and he disagreed with the idea that being old enough to join the army means that someone is old enough to vote. What you're saying is that because the law is already in my favor that my argument is flawed. I'm not campaigning for social change here, I just want to debate. Any resolution can be debated, no matter what everyone else's opinion of it is.

"I agree with that, and I agreed with that in my previous statement. you are only reiterating what I just said. "

But then I explained why that doesn't matter. I just restated rather then using quotes.

"The qualifications are different. That is the key word. They don't fall into the same category at all."

However the qualifications for joining the army do not fall outside the qualifications for voting. Have you ever heard "every duck is a bird, but not every bird is a duck"? Not every voter is qualified to join the army, but everyone who joins the army should be able to vote. There's nothing you have to do to be in the army that would somehow make you unqualified for voting. In some cases it might make you more qualified.

"There are 1000's of men that fight in the army that are not of american descent or from America. They get brought in from other parts of the world to fight for America. Should they be allowed to vote? Should they have a say? "

What I think you're talking about are mercenaries or foreign citizens living in the U.S. who join the army.

First off, they can't vote in America because they are not American citizens, but they have the maturity level to vote, and should be able to in their own countries (according to their own governments). The original argument was that if people are old, i.e. mature, enough to be soldiers that they are old, i.e. mature, enough to vote. Foreigners aren't too immature to vote, they're just not American citizens.

Which brings me to the point that foreigners are not compelled to join American wars. Soldiers-for-hire are doing it for the money and other foreign troops that are sent in by our allies can take it up with their own governments if they don't want to fight. For example, if a soldier in Australia doesn't want to go to Iraq should petition his government not to aid us, the same an American soldier who didn't want to go to Iraq would over here (The morality of the Iraq War is another debate and has nothing to do with this; it's just an example). As for foreigners living here, it is there decision to join the army. I'm not sure whether they can be drafted, but if they can then it's wrong and ties in with my point in Round 1 about getting drafted and having no say.
Randomknowledge

Con

Hello miserlou. I believe that the purpose of this debate and subject we are debating has been muddled. We initially debated if you should be allowed to vote if you are old enough to go to war. I said that there are different requirements and we got into picking apart each others responses until we had nothing left and we were quite off topic. I know bring us back to the topic, and although your debates are long and repetitive, mine state something in short time. I am not criticising you, only this debate. I am saying that next time try to stick to the debate and lets not criticize personal remarks, like when you quoted my beginning statement about this being a weak argument. I appreciate your "gung-ho" debating and very involved responses, but i am a straightforward kinda debater and i like to get right to the point. The point is, there are different requirements and they cant be classified even in the same category. Thank you for this debate and I hope to debate you again.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by nitrogen85 9 years ago
nitrogen85
Yeah, all of you guys got one thing wrong. The minimum age to join the military is 17. The only requirements is that you have a highschool diploma or your GED. You do have to take the ASVAP test, but it really isn't that hard because I passed it when I was fifteen years old. That was the first time I walked into a recruitment office. And I can join the military at there standard age, but it doesn't nesacarilly mean that I will pass bootcamp, although if you are in the healthy BMI standards, you should have no problem. I also have to add that if I can join the military, then I should be able to vote. And if I go fight in a war, no matter what type, when I come home, I don't care if I'm under 21, I should be able to have a beer.
Posted by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
Yes, miserlou. Very nice debate. I am only a beginning debater, as well. I can see that you are quite experienced. Thank YOU for the experience. =]
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Good debate Randomknowledge
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Kels, I thought it was a non-issue too until someone brought up the con position.
Posted by kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
i agree with randomknowledge in that the concept of being in the army and being able to vote require two different types of intelligence, physical ability and requirements. i believe that the voting age and the entrance to the military should be, and is, the age of 18.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
What is there to debate about ? You CAN vote at 18 , same age as going into the army , unless your parents sign for you to go in as a minor. Also just because you are in the army doesn't mean you can vote. My husband is in the US army and still can't vote. The army still hasn't had the time to let him go gte his citizenship so therefore he still only has a greencard so he is in the army and unable to vote. Being in the army doesn't mean someone can vote.
Posted by MidnightDaze 9 years ago
MidnightDaze
id debate you but i would definetly lose. i could try? hahahaha. you bring up a good point but... there has been lots of discussion about age... further more i live in canada, which tends to be a bit different. where i live 18 is the voting, drinking, and even army joining age.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I dislike the notion of voting itself, but so long as voting is a norm I see no problem with expanding the base.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
This is a very good subject, but unfortunately I agree with you. Henry Thoreau, if you are familiar with him, has very good ideas on this.

"The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it."

-thoreau

"The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well."

-thoreau
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by nitrogen85 9 years ago
nitrogen85
MiserlouRandomknowledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
MiserlouRandomknowledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by cliffsofdover 9 years ago
cliffsofdover
MiserlouRandomknowledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by towinistosucced 9 years ago
towinistosucced
MiserlouRandomknowledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mynameisjonas 9 years ago
mynameisjonas
MiserlouRandomknowledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by yahoodeler 9 years ago
yahoodeler
MiserlouRandomknowledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by workersaregoinghome 9 years ago
workersaregoinghome
MiserlouRandomknowledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by massvideogamer 9 years ago
massvideogamer
MiserlouRandomknowledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by docargument 9 years ago
docargument
MiserlouRandomknowledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rbowen06 9 years ago
rbowen06
MiserlouRandomknowledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30