The Instigator
Cera_MSHS
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
amey
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Lowering the voting age to 15

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,304 times Debate No: 29975
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (0)

 

Cera_MSHS

Pro

Now I know what most people are thinking, kids are too immature, or ignorant to vote. But for my friends and I, we have known more about voting situations then our parents the past 2 times. Now I have a group of very intelligent friends, and believe me I know that not all 14 and 15 year old are like that. But trust me on this the teenagers who don't want to spend the time to learn about the current political situation truly don't care enough to vote or even "waist there time" thinking about it. I have only met a handful of teenagers who keep up on current events,and those are the only ones who would vote before at least 18.
amey

Con



  • 15 year old's are not mature enough. The large majority still live at home and go to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18 they have become much more independent and are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents opinions or adopt silly ideas for the sake of rebellion.


Debate Round No. 1
Cera_MSHS

Pro

Most adults are way to uninformed to vote and most kids are way more informed because we are forced to learn about it. And I know tons of teen who are WAY more mature then some adults.
amey

Con

It would be dangerous to give young people the vote. They might use it in foolish ways. For example they might vote for celebrities or make their decision on which party had the best image. They might put extremists into power or vote without thinking on single issues (e.g. making drugs legal, free university places, cheap beer!).
Debate Round No. 2
Cera_MSHS

Pro

Cera_MSHS forfeited this round.
amey

Con

Just because 15 year olds have the right to do some things, it doesn’t mean that they should use them. If all 16 year olds left home at 15 and started families it would be considered a disaster. And not all rights are given at 15 - most countries have a higher age for important things such as drinking alcohol, serving on a jury, joining the military, etc. It makes sense for different rights to be gained at different times as young people mature and get used to more responsibility. Because voting is so important, it should be one of the last rights to be gained.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
Well I hope Cera_MSHS gets an F for not finishing her debate...I would have given a C (at best) for minimal effort as it stood in the first place.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
If fifteen year olds were allowed to vote, there wouldn't be another Republican in office ever again.
Posted by Krestoff 4 years ago
Krestoff
If lowering the voting age gets me cheap beer, I'm in.
Posted by alexluis 4 years ago
alexluis
the number of immature teens is significantly greater than the amount of mature teens. the voting age should remain where it is.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
I've posted NO arguments her opponents could use, only arguments SHE could use.
Posted by Krestoff 4 years ago
Krestoff
I like how the con participates in the same kind of dismissive rhetoric that rich white men used to deny the vote to women, african-americans, non-landed men, etc. Yall both need warranted analysis.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
I generally agree with royalpaladin. However, Considering that Pro didn't initially give a case, I think comments are appropriate for getting some clarification on the resolution. Furthermore, think ideas are quite a bit different from arguments. I gave ideas, no arguments/proof. Everything I said was completely unsubstantiated, so it helps both sides equally: gives Con ideas to research and gives Pro ideas about what they might need to refute (and thus prepares them to do so).
Posted by mt0203 4 years ago
mt0203
lol larz agrees with royal paladin after doing exactly what royal paladin rails against! I think I'm getting the gist of DDO etiquette. I hope I don't break it on accident in the future.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
PS royalpaladin is completely right.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
It's not untenable. I've won debates on way more untenable topics before. In fact, I like to encourage my opponents to make the topics as untenable as possible. If anything, pro should be commended for daring to take on what might at first glance be seen to be a difficult position. Should anyone want to prove this point to me, then I invite them to send me a challenge. In fact, I've already sent one myself: http://debate.org...

(I get very annoyed when people say things are not debatable)

The no harm argument is a concession of no benefit. It does nothing to help pro meet their burden of proof. Simply asking "why not?" can only be met with a rational skeptical "because you haven't told me WHY yet" from voters, and besides it opens you up to several dangerous lines of attack.
No votes have been placed for this debate.