The Instigator
aresrat
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Lowering the voting age to 16

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,639 times Debate No: 21337
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

aresrat

Pro

Adults have forever messed up the country, so what would be the harm in allowing sixteen and seventeen year olds to also vote?
Under the law of eighteen and older that we currently have, minors who are intelligent enough to monitor an election and unbiasedly elect a canidate are forced under the leadership of the biased and politically uneducated voting of adults.
This is not fair.
Lowering the voting age to sixteen would allow teens a fair chance at really deciding their future.
InVinoVeritas

Con

The concept that the country has been "messed up" is strictly an opinion of the opponent.

When you turn 18, you are considered an adult in the United States. Not only do you acquire the right to vote also the right to make a will, to make certain decisions (e.g., obtaining medical care) without parental consent, and even to donate organs. [1] I some states, it is the age used to get married and to buy cigarettes, such as my home state, New York.

Why would the opponent like to change it to sixteen? Why not fifteen? Or ten? Or two? By lowering it to sixteen, we will be blocking fifteen-year-old people from voting; would we need to adjust it so that they could vote, too? The opponent's claims are unclear and unfounded.

[1] http://opi.mt.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
aresrat

Pro

I am not saying that every single right granted at eighteen should be lowered to sixteen, but just voting. It shouldn't be any lower because sixteen is just the right age to get into politics.
Adults messing up America isn't my opinion, but a fact. Every decision made that led to this recession was made by adults. The decision to get into wars were that of adults.
So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?
InVinoVeritas

Con

Why should other rights still be granted to those who are 18+ and voting should be an exception?

The idea that there is recession right now is a matter of controversy among pundits in the academic subject economics. The idea that getting into the wars was negative is certainly an opinion. Therefore, it is your opinion that America has been "messed up."

"So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?" the opponent asks. The "why not?" approach isn't an argument for the opponent's position. The opponent has a burden of proof. Why would doing this better American politics?
Debate Round No. 2
aresrat

Pro

People below the age of eighteen are less biased, while people over eighteen are bribed. That is why it would better American politics.
InVinoVeritas

Con

"People below the age of eighteen are less biased, while people over eighteen are bribed. That is why it would better American politics."

This is unfounded and absurd.


Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
aresratInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had horrible arguments and no rebuttals. Pro did not capitalize correctly in round one. Con had a source. This is a very bad debate.
Vote Placed by Davewerty 5 years ago
Davewerty
aresratInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: If anything, the voting age should be raised.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
aresratInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: No refutations by con. Had terrible arguments like less biased. Pro had a source, con didn't.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
aresratInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made the mistake of using opinion instead of fact to back up his research. This was his first mistake. Con called his assumptions into question, and con was never really refuted. Easy win.