The Instigator
kasmic
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MyDinosaurHands
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

On balance, people over 65 should not be able to vote in the United States political system

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
MyDinosaurHands
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/25/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,708 times Debate No: 62258
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

kasmic

Pro

On balance, people over 65 should not be able to vote in the United States political system.

Round 1 for con is acceptance
Rounds 2-4: Arguments and rebuttals
Round 5: Final Rebuttals and closing statements (no new arguments)

10,000 character limit
72 Hr. rounds
Min elo of 2,000 to vote
Select winner voting style

this debate should be impossible to accept, comment if you are interested.
MyDinosaurHands

Con

I accept, bruh.
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Pro

Thank you MyDinosaurHands for accepting this debate. Good luck to you!

Outline:

A: Current Voter Eligibility.
B: Citizens Under 18.
C: Mental Capability of those older than 65
D: Voting as an act of personal liberty

A: Current Voter Eligibility

15th amendment
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." (1)

19th amendment
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." (2)

26th amendment
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."(3)

I provided these to establish the current law regarding who can or cannot vote.

B: Citizens under 18

The United States does not allow citizens under the age of 18 to vote. There are many good reasons for this. The main one I would like to present is as follows. Within the human brain is the Prefrontal cortex. "The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is located in the very front of the brain, just behind the forehead. In charge of abstract thinking and thought analysis, it is also responsible for regulating behavior. This includes mediating conflicting thoughts, making choices between right and wrong, and predicting the probable outcomes of actions or events."(4)

"Since the PFC controls intense emotions and impulses, it is sometimes referred to as the seat of good judgement. As such, a properly functioning prefrontal cortex inhibits inappropriate behaviors " including delaying gratification of needs, for things like food or sex " while encouraging wise, acceptable choices. In part, this occurs because it works to allow humans to balance immediate reward with long-term goals."(4)

"Medical studies have shown that the PFC is the last section of the brain to mature. In other words, while all other brain regions are fully developed early in life, its development is not complete until around age 25."(4)

"A damaged PFC can negatively impact a person's ability to assess situations or perform tasks, particularly those of a moral or ethical nature."(4)

" As a number of researchers have put it, "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car."(5)

Both of these sources suggest the age of PFC maturity is 25. It is quite clear that those younger than 18 on balance, do not have the mental capability to effectively think abstractly, or rationally, or "to balance immediate reward with long-term goals," due to this scientific truth. This lack of mental capability is generally accepted as a justifiable reason to keep those younger than 18 from voting.

C: Mental Capability of those older than 65

Due to mental capability being a justifiable reason to restrict someone from voting, I submit that those older than 65 should not be able to vote in the United States of America. This is due to the decline that, on balance, has taken place in this age group in regard to cognitive ability.

Cognitive: ": of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering) "(6)

Due to age, "there are declines in mental domains such as processing speed, reasoning, memory and executive functions, some of which is underpinned by a decline in a general cognitive factor."(7)

"In general, however, the symptoms of cognitive decline that are associated with aging include:
1.Slower inductive reasoning / slower problem solving
2.Diminished spatial orientation
3.Declines in perceptual speed
4.Decreased numeric ability
5.Losses in verbal memory
6.Few changes in verbal ability"

The graph on the right (third graph in the link just bellow) demonstrates how these functions decline with age. Note that there are almost no changes in verbal ability and they may even have improved with age. On the other hand, spatial orientation suffers a severe drop with age."(8)

(I apologize, I thought I would be able to post the graph here. I have been unable to find how to do that.)
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu...

D: Voting as an act of personal liberty

The United States political roots come from Liberalism. This ideology places emphasis on liberty. Many of the ideologues that postulated on the topic of liberty share the view that liberty is intended for those who are mentally capable.

John Locke, known as the "father of liberalism," had this to say about liberty.(taken from "Second Treatise of Civil Government" Chapter 6) "The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free"(9)

John Stuart Mill said this ""It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine (of liberty) is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties."(10)

Both of these men are referencing those who are not yet mature mentally. Due to today"s knowledge of the brain and cognitive decline in old age, I submit that this clearly applies to those who are past the age of being "grounded in reason."

In both cases of those younger than 18 and older than 65 there do exist those who are mentally capable. However "on balance" people in these categories are not fully mentally capable.

Conclusion

Under current law, the U.S. restricts those younger than 18 from voting. This is reasonable as mentally, those younger than 18 are not as capable, according to science, to reason or think critically. The same can be said of those over the age of 65. Allowing people to vote who are not mentally as capable can have a negative effect on any nation. Due to the impairment caused by cognitive decline due to age; on balance, people over 65 should not be able to vote in the United States political system.

(1) http://www.law.cornell.edu...
(2) http://www.law.cornell.edu...
(3) http://www.law.cornell.edu...
(4) http://www.wisegeek.org...
(5) http://hrweb.mit.edu...
(6) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(8) http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu...
(9) http://www.constitution.org...
(10) http://www.bartleby.com...
MyDinosaurHands

Con

MENTAL CAPACITY OF SENIORS
My opponent makes the case that seniors are not capable of voting well, due to the fact that they suffer certain degradations in their mental capacity as they age. He uses two sources to support the claim that seniors do suffer mental degradation.

I will begin with the second source of the two used, for reasons that will soon be apparent.

The following belongs to his second link regarding mental capacity, which is also the 8th of the entire argument:
"In general, however, the symptoms of cognitive decline that are associated with aging include:
1.Slower inductive reasoning / slower problem solving
2.Diminished spatial orientation
3.Declines in perceptual speed
4.Decreased numeric ability
5.Losses in verbal memory
6.Few changes in verbal ability"
It is important to note that the decline of these mental processes don't negatively affect the ability to vote. The ability to reason and solve problems may be slowed, but that does not mean the quality of their conclusions is diminished. Spatial orientation is related to one's ability to "see and understand the relationships between shapes, spaces, and areas."[1] Good quality spatial orientation is obviously not needed for acceptable quality voting. The rest of the 6 issues listed hardly need defining, and we can see that they don't affect one's ability to decide who they wish to vote for.

Now let's talk about the first link regarding mental health that my opponent used. He quotes the page, saying, "Due to age, "there are declines in mental domains such as processing speed, reasoning, memory and executive functions, some of which is underpinned by a decline in a general cognitive factor."(7)"
The one worrying thing in here is that it seems to imply that the ability to reason diminishes with age. Two things about this. First, my opponent mis-represents the fact by cutting off the beginning of the sentence, which states, "Beginning from early adulthood..."

Not only does this show that his source does not talk about the specific issues seniors face, but it shows that most voters who aren't seniors are not entirely removed from those issues, raising the question of whether or not seniors are especially worthy of being singled out.

Secondly, and far more importantly, this fact is only briefly mentioned, goes unsupported, and is listed in a section titled, 'Areas of Agreement and Controversy'. The statement that my opponent utilizes goes unspecified as either something that is widely agreed upon or widely debated, and as such, the validity and reliability of this information should be considered suspect.

SUPERIOR POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE OF SENIORS
A recent study has found that seniors are far more knowledgeable and informed than the other age voting blocs in America.[2]

And no, 'informed' doesn't mean that they all watch Fox News religiously.

At least, we can reasonably assume so, since in our last election only 56% of seniors voted for Romney.[3] Compare that to the way those 18-29 voted, 60/37 in favor of Obama[3], we can see that seniors are hardly blind, impulsive voters. If any age group is likely to be mentally incapable, based simply on the impulsiveness of their voting, it would be the youngest group of voters.

Often the phrase, "An uniformed voter is a bad voter" is spoken. In a country whose political system relies on the people voting to represent their needs, this is certainly true. The issue of uninformed voters is something that certainly begs addressing, and blocking your most informed group of people is a step in the wrong direction.

I would submit that the mostly irrelevant information presented by my opponent regarding decreasing mental processes is negated by the fact that seniors are more informed voters, and informed in a way that doesn't mean they've been propagandized en masse.

FUNCTION OF DEMOCRACY
In a democracy, everybody is supposed to have a voice, in order that everyone has the best shot of having their needs met. How are seniors to voice their needs if they don't have a vote? My opponent might suggest that everyone else will do it for them. After all, we're all gonna be seniors one day, so we don't want to screw seniors only to find ourselves dealing with the mess years down the road.

Have you ever assumed life would be one way down the road, only to get to that point 'on the road' and find that you were wrong? I think we all have. It is a normal occurrence, and I see no reason why this could not occur if we were to take the right to vote from seniors. It is very possible that misconceptions about dat #seniorlyfe will lead us to vote in a way that is contrary to the needs of seniors, without knowing of our errors until we are seniors ourselves. Think about all the misinformation circulated in regards to politics. It's reasonable to say that this propensity towards misinformation could negatively affect non-seniors voting for seniors.

SLIPPERY SLOPE
In a world where the American public can approve of taking away roughly 25% of registered voters'[4][8][9] right to vote, the idea that the right to vote can be taken away if one is perceived as a somehow deficient voter would have to be widely accepted. If it is accepted enough to take out that large a chunk of voters, where else can that concept be applied?

IQ? Government-decided and created political knowledge tests? Singling out of other voting groups? If one takes the justification behind barring seniors from voting, one could end up with any of these things taking place.

Take the concept of seniors having their needs poorly represented as expressed in the previous section, and apply it to groups who've been singled out because they don't have a certain level IQ, or don't know the information the government deems necessary to be able to vote. In the former, we could definitely see attitudes of elitism develop, where those who can still vote see themselves as superior in such a way that only their opinions really matter, thus not properly representing the needs of the supposed inferior. In the latter, we could see government corruption running rampant, where authority controls the vote, instead of the other way around.

All of this may sound alarmist, but this is about contextualization. If society can accept the idea being debated here, they're comfortable with saying, "They are inferior, they will not be allowed to vote," in regards to large groups of people.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Simply put, doing this would make America look extremely bad in the eyes of our democratic allies, especially the eyes of the UN. The UN fervently supports democracy[5], and has established legal international bases regarding the requirements of democracy.[6] It is likely that if America were to break the status quo and take away voting rights from a whole group of people, there would be repercussions, possibly in the form of harmful economic sanctions.

I say there would likely be repercussions because America is supposed to be a haven for democratic principles. A country as large as ourselves turning our backs on democracy could create a trend that pushes back against democracy, especially in countries where governments have only grudgingly accepted democracy. The UN would prioritize reversing America's decision, in order to ensure that no anti-democracy trends were set.

Not only is the UN likely to pressure the US in some way, so too are many of the world's other democratic nations. Perhaps political leaders of many countries would not care if we were to restrict voting for seniors, but many of their voters would care, and urge some sort of reaction. 43% of the world's population are free, living in societies with respect for civil and political rights.[7]

It is important to note that many of these people are our European allies.

With a number that high, reprecussions are sure to be generated.

BETTER ALTERNATIVES
If the issue is mental capacity, there are more effective ways to 'solve' that problem. Testing. Clearly it's possible, or else there wouldn't be any statistics regarding the mental health of seniors. All we would need to do is take the average ability for mental processes relevant to voting, and have anyone testing too far underneath that average prevented from voting.

This way, the issue raised here regarding poor mental capacities is completely dealt with. Both of my opponent's sources regarding mental health of seniors shows that 1) Mental degradation takes place as soon as early adulthood, and 2) Mental degradation of seniors is not uniform. Clearly, generalizing seniors as incapable voters, and non-seniors as capable voters, is a fallacy. Testing would be a way around this, while also satisfying my opponent's problem.

ON BALANCE
On one hand, you have the questionable idea that seniors are declining in mental processes necessary for voting.

On the other, they're our most knowledgeable voters, there's potential for poor representation with harmful effects, and potential for harmful international repercussions.

To top all of that off, there is an alternative that is less sloppy in its solving of the problem my opponent has. I believe it's reasonable to say that at this point, there are far more reasons to be against this idea than for it. It would not make sense to defer to my opponent's idea when this one solves the issue more elegantly and completely.

Sources:
[1] http://dictionary.reverso.net...
[2] http://link.springer.com...
[3] http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu...
[4] http://www.statisticbrain.com...
[5] http://www.un.org...
[6] http://www.hrweb.org...
[7] http://freedomhouse.org...
[8] http://money.usnews.com...
[9] http://www.online-calculator.com...
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Pro

Rebuttal 1: "Mental Capacity of Seniors"

Con says "The ability to reason and solve problems may be slowed, but that does not mean the quality of their conclusions is diminished."

If ability to reason and solve problems is slowed, as con admits, the quality of conclusions can in fact be diminished. This is largely due to the possibility of being unable to reach a conclusion. As the graph in my first arguments shows the decline gets worse as time goes on. In other words the ability to reason is not just "slowed" but is slowing.

Con addresses my quote that "Due to age, "there are declines in mental domains such as processing speed, reasoning, memory and executive functions, some of which is underpinned by a decline in a general cognitive factor."

He says "The one worrying thing in here is that it seems to imply that the ability to reason diminishes with age. Two things about this. First, my opponent mis-represents the fact by cutting off the beginning of the sentence, which states, "Beginning from early adulthood..."

He continues adding "Not only does this show that his source does not talk about the specific issues seniors face, but it shows that most voters who aren't seniors are not entirely removed from those issues, raising the question of whether or not seniors are especially worthy of being singled out."

My response:

This is not a misrepresentation as the terminology states "beginning" as in, starts and then continues. Again the graph as shown in the first argument shows that this does in fact get worse as time goes on. Implying solidly that these issues get much worse with age, and are therefore more of an issue, on balance for those that are older.

Rebuttal 2: "Superior Political Knowledge of Seniors"

Unfortunately, when I try to follow the second link provided by my opponent to as article that supposedly "found that seniors are far more knowledgeable and informed than the other age voting blocs in America," I find no such article. Apparently I would have to purchase the article to read it.

My opponent concludes "I would submit that the mostly irrelevant information presented by my opponent regarding decreasing mental processes is negated by the fact that seniors are more informed voters, and informed in a way that doesn't mean they've been propagandized en masse."

My response:

As I cannot confirm that "that seniors are more informed voters," and as those reading will also likely not be able to, I invite my opponent to provide a source or link that can be viewed to verify this claim. Until such has happen I will leave this unaddressed.

Rebuttal 3: "Function of Democracy"

Con says "In a democracy, everybody is supposed to have a voice, in order that everyone has the best shot of having their needs met. How are seniors to voice their needs if they don't have a vote?"

The United States certainly does not apply this idea of democracy to voting that my opponent does. Empirically evident, as those younger than 18 do not vote, and are reliant on others to represent their voice or in other words "do it for them."

He also says "Think about all the misinformation circulated in regards to politics. It's reasonable to say that this propensity towards misinformation could negatively affect non-seniors voting for seniors."

Again, is this not already so for those younger than 18. Does not the "propensity towards misinformation" affect everyone already, if not especially the very young, and the very old.

Rebuttal 4: "Slippery Slope"

I advise those reading this argument to be wary of any "slippery slope" argument as they are Fallacies. (1)

Rebuttal 5: "International Relations"

Con says "Simply put, doing this would make America look extremely bad in the eyes of our democratic allies, especially the eyes of the UN. The UN fervently supports democracy[5], and has established legal international bases regarding the requirements of democracy.[6] It is likely that if America were to break the status quo and take away voting rights from a whole group of people, there would be repercussions, possibly in the form of harmful economic sanctions."

We already take voting rights away from groups of people. Criminals, those under 18, the mentally handicapped etc"

The link provided by con to the requirements of democracy states this, "Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."(2)

No mention is made to age, and this is no mistake as many democracies limit voting due to age. The following link goes to a list of democracies that limit voting due to age. (3) As such, the international reaction that my opponent says could happen seems highly unlikely.

Rebuttal 6: "Better alternatives"

These "alternatives" that my opponent suggests seem to be inconsistent with his previous arguments. Specifically his arguments on "function of a democracy" and "slippery slope." It seems my opponent by presenting this argument agrees and acknowledges that there is an issue concerning those currently aloud to vote. I would not refute such ideas in addition to restricting voting to a specific age.

Rebuttal 7: On balance

Again my opponent concedes that there is an issue as he says "there is an alternative that is less sloppy in its solving of the problem."

New arguments:

In addition to the decline in the ability to reason and solve problems due to age, there is the issue of memory.

"What causes age-related memory loss?
"The hippocampus, a region of the brain involved in the formation and retrieval of memories, often deteriorates with age.
"Growth factors"hormones and proteins that protect and repair brain cells and stimulate neural growth"decline with age.
"Older people often experience decreased blood flow to the brain, which can impair memory and lead to changes in cognitive skills.
"Older people are less efficient at absorbing brain-enhancing nutrients."(4)
Conclusion:

As people get older their brain begins to function less and less efficiently/effectively. This causes a decreased ability to reason and solve problems, as well as issues with memory. As such, this can drastically effect one"s ability to reasonably vote. Therefore, "On balance, people over 65 should not be able to vote in the United States political system."

(1) http://www.nizkor.org...
(2) http://www.hrweb.org...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://www.helpguide.org...
MyDinosaurHands

Con

MENTAL CAPACITY
I would like to note that in my opponent's response he A) Did not retaliate to my statement that most of the mental declines exhibited were not related to voting ability, and B) He did not respond to the fact that the statement, "there are declines in mental domains such as processing speed, reasoning, memory and executive functions, some of which is underpinned by a decline in a general cognitive factor." is listed under a section that is titled 'Areas of Agreement and Controversy', and that the statement is not specified as either an area of agreement or controversy. Not only does this make the statement suspect, it also casts some doubt upon the validity of the page as a whole. What kind of info page doesn't specify what statements are agreed upon or debated?

The other response from my opponent is:
"If ability to reason and solve problems is slowed, as con admits, the quality of conclusions can in fact be diminished. This is largely due to the possibility of being unable to reach a conclusion."
This idea makes sense at first, until you examine the fact that people have plenty of time to make voting decisions. Nobody is ever sat down in a voting booth, given information, given a time constraint, and told to make a decision. Even if someone's reasoning capacity is slowed, and they occasionally abandon their thoughts, they have plenty of time to revisit them and work through it. Especially senior citizens, who, on average, will have retired by 64[1], and thus will have much more time than anyone else to think about political issues.


POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE
The information is found when you click on 'take a peek', and view the opening summary, wherein it is stated that, "the analysis finds that seniors learned much more than non-seniors about candidate positions on an emerging Social Security issue that was heavily emphasized in the 2000 campaign, but not when the same issue was more familiar and largely ignored by the candidates and press in the 2004 campaign. Yet, even without additional learning or campaign emphasis, seniors still knew more than non-seniors in the later contest."[linked in prev. round]

And as you can see below, seniors are the second most knowledgeable voters[2](mis-read the info presented earlier, that's my bad), with those soon to join them coming in first place. Seniors have the second highest 'high' rank, 3rd highest 'middle' rank, and 2nd lowest 'low' rank, whereas 30-49 ranks 3rd, 1st, and 2nd highest, respectively.






























Obviously, the 18-29 age group, which my opponent has already proved is largely comprised of individuals with undeveloped minds, is also the least knowledgeable of all of them, by far, which, again, raises the question of whether or not my opponent is going after the right people.

At these point I'd like to affirm my position in respect to my BoP. Currently I've shown that most of the information my opponent has used regarding voting capabilities is not relevant, and the rest of the relevant information I have either refuted or shown as unreliable information. Taking this into consideration with the solid political knowledge possessed by seniors and incoming seniors, the fact that seniors have more free time with which to examine political issues, and that they have specific knowledge of what effects them most: Social Security; we can see that one would be wasting a group of perfectly informed voters, a group that is without any proven pertinent mental degradation.

FUNCTION OF A DEMOCRACY
In this section, my opponent is basically saying in regards to my arguments about the negatives that would result if we went with his plan: we already do/have these things with minors. Note that he never says that the issues I bring up aren't issues just that they're issues already present, as if one issue being present makes it ok to allow another issue to be present.

There are two things that create a distinction between seniors and minors. 1) Minors have little life experience compared to seniors, thus seniors are more knowledgeable, and better equipped to vote, 2) Other voters can more properly vote for minors, because they've been minors before. Obviously this could not be replicated with seniors.

When one applies these two distinctions between seniors and minors to some of the statements my opponent offers, one can see that the analogy doesn't hold. The two groups of people simply aren't the same, and the results of taking away their voting rights wouldn't be the same either.

SLIPPERY SLOPE
Like my opponent, I will open with a link to a page that supports me[3]. It is a very nice paper, and is enlightening on a subject that could use additional consideration. However, I will not be sidetracking my arguments into a defense of slippery slope arguments in general.

The unfortunate fact of slippery slope arguments is that often they are shut down, and in a manner that suggests that even considering the validity of a slippery slope argument is absurd. It is treated as if it were equal to saying that the earth is flat. In reality, slippery slope arguments can have merit, which is the case with mine.

Mine is more plausible because if my opponent was to have his way, roughly a quarter of voters would suddenly lose their right to vote. That is obviously a very large, significant portion of the voting population. If an action like that can be supported on such a large scale, it is reasonable to assume that further events such as that could take place, until our society is in a place where we'd rather not be (examples of places we'd rather not be found in my previous round).

Hopefully readers can see that the significance of a quarter of the voting population outweighs the significance of repealing a law, and thus, a distinction is made between stupid slippery slope arguments, and more meritous ones such as mine, which should be taken as a serious concern, one which pushes the 'on balance' further in my support.

INTERNATIONAL PUSHBACK
In countering my points, my opponent makes two of his own.

First, he says that since the UN's legal document does not mention age, there will be no possibility of pushback. However, if we're looking at this on a legal level, we can see that the document says, "...without distinction of any kind, such as..." The 'such as' indicates that these are simply examples, and the 'distinction of any kind' demonstrates that the document doesn't really preclude any manners of distinction. Thus, this document doesn't prevent against pushback.

My opponent's next point, and my counter to it, also pertains to the issue in the previous paragraph. My opponent links a page to us that shows the voting ages in other countries where voting occurs. In looking through the entire list (that was fun) I did not find one country that is doing what my opponent proposes America does. No country in the world prevents their seniors from voting. So for my opponent to say that other countries would be cool with us banning seniors from voting is a gross mischaracterization of the information presented. I mean, if it was perceived as a good, or at least permissible thing to do, why is it that not one country has dared to do it?

BETTER ALTERNATIVE
My opponent doesn't really refute the idea presented, merely he claims it as a point for his side. First, I need to clear something up. This argument is a EVEN IF argument. Even if you disagreed with everything I'd said before that point, and you still thought poor mental capacity was grounds for losing one's vote, you would see that doing it the way my opponent wants to do it is not as effective as the alternative I'm offering, and therefore, one would not be for my opponent's idea, because it is a less effective option in comparison.

So the balance swings from what my opponent suggests, to what I provide as an alternative, because the alternative is better at addressing what my opponent wants to address with his proposition.

These are all things I would've specified in my previous round, if I'd had the characters, and if I'd thought there'd be confusion about it.

PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH
My opponent mis-quotes me in an attempt to garner an advantage. He quotes me as saying:
"there is an alternative that is less sloppy in its solving of the problem."
In reality, my sentence finished by saying, "..in its solving of the problem that my opponent has." It is a small difference, but one that I wanted to be made known.

NEW ARGS
My opponent uses his fourth source to claim that memory loss among seniors makes them unfit for voting. Perusing through his source however, I have found that this is a non-issue.

"The brain is capable of producing new brain cells at any age, so significant memory loss is not an inevitable result of aging."

"Furthermore, many mental abilities are largely unaffected by normal aging, such as:
"Your ability to do the things you"ve always done and continue to do often
"The wisdom and knowledge you"ve acquired from life experience
"Your innate common sense
"Your ability to form reasonable arguments and judgments"[emphasis added]

"In fact, we often mistake this slowing of our mental processes for true memory loss. But in most cases, if we give ourselves time, the information will come to mind."

The first two speak for themselves, and in regards to the last one, I'd just like to reiterate my point that seniors do often have more free time thanks to retirement, and therefore can do as the last quote suggests.

Thanks for reading.

Sources:
[1] http://actuary-info.blogspot.com...
[2] http://www.people-press.org...
[3] http://www.legalaffairs.org...
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Pro

I am a firm believer in debating ideas as a means to get a deeper understanding or a more complete opinion on different topics. My resolve in this debate is that "On balance, people over 65 should not be able to vote in the United States political system" This topic came up in a discussion with some of my buddies and I wanted to see if a legitimate case could be made to support the resolution. After having the opportunity to debate the topic with MyDinosaurHands I think it has become clear that a legitimate case cannot be made to support the resolution, or rather that I cannot construct a legitimate case to do so. That being stated I concede the debate to my opponent.

I would like to thank MyDinosaurHands again for accepting this debate.

Thanks for reading.
MyDinosaurHands

Con

I appreciate kasmic's honorable concession. This was a good, challenging, and thought provoking debate while it lasted.
Debate Round No. 4
kasmic

Pro

I conceded.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Wow, that is a tyrannical thought to those in your bracket of labels. Some are worthy of your judgement, but it is the minority of those you seek to oppose. GET A GriP!1!!1
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
we need the vote of mature Americans to prevent upcoming politicians from undoing all good things in America. The new generation is retarded, if they can't even find out how the system works to work with and not against it, then they obviously shouldn't rule their own.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
I'm gonna guess I'll be able to respond sometime tomorrow evening.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Damn, Wocambs, I forgot to be funny! Maybe I should add some pictures for you to look at, would that liven it up enough for you. Is that why you commented on this debate? Not enough entertainment elsewhere?
Posted by Wocambs 2 years ago
Wocambs
Damn, kasmic, I thought this would be a fun debate centred around the extreme tendency of old people's opinions to be stupid, prejudiced and reactionary, but it's boring as hell. Is this why you're against civil disobedience too? Too exciting for ya?
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
That's okay by me! Good luck!
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
As long as Pro doesn't mind, I'm going to wait a day before posting an acceptance, in order to push the debate more into the weekend, where I'll have more free time.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
I will take this.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Only if they are freeloading off the rest of us. And that goes for any age.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
kasmicMyDinosaurHands
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
kasmicMyDinosaurHands
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: A gentlemanly concession from Pro. Illuminating debate on both sides, though I agree with Pro in his acceptance that Con just had better arguments.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
kasmicMyDinosaurHands
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Concession from Pro. Good debate up until that point as well, but clear win for Con due to Pro's concession.