The Instigator
blamonkey
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 747 times Debate No: 92442
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (5)

 

blamonkey

Con

Rules
1. Comment before accepting the debate
2. It may take me a while to respond, so be patient
3. No trolling
4. No kritiks
5. No forfeiture
6. Be courteous
7. No new arguments in final focus, you may refute if you want to.

Round structure
R1- Pro provides case
R2- Con (me) present my case, pro refutes
R3- Con refutes, pro final focus
R4- Con final focus, Pro waives
kasmic

Pro

Resolved: The voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17

I would like to thank Blamonkey for instigating this debate and for picking an intriguing topic. Before I launch into my arguments, I think it reasonable to provide some context to our Democratic Republic and the purpose of voting.

This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people.”(1)At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U.S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Our Congress and our president are subject to our approval given via voting. Contrary to the tyrannical governments of history, the United States, “we the people,” are intended to have the sovereignty and power to govern ourselves.As indicated, one fundamental way that we exercise our sovereignty is through voting. In the history of the United States, the sovereignty of the people has been reinforced as the vote has been expanded to groups that initially could not vote. For example, consider the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments.

It is time that the liberty and sovereignty embodied by capacity to vote for President be extended to 17 year olds. For what reason could be given to restrict the liberty of 17 year olds. John Locke argued that 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"(1) The question of this debate is therefore, do 17 year olds possess the capability of reason. I submit that clearly, 17 year olds are as capable as those 18 years old. The difference between the two ages is negligible at best. The law of the land in most respects acknowledges this. Consider 17 year olds pay taxes (2), drive vehicles, be tried as adults for crimes, and can even die for their country serving in the military.(3) It seems arbitrary to submit 17 year olds to all the responsibility of 18 year olds without the power or sovereignty to vote.

Until 17 year olds are granted the right to vote, they are victims of tyranny. Paying taxes without representation, being tried as an adult, and being able to enlist in the military, but being unrepresented in the government to which they are subjected to is tyrannical. My opponent must provide reasoning that demonstrates why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. As I have shown, the difference in age between the two is negligible and thus those who have reached the age of 17 ought to be able to vote for the president that will represent them the next four years. This is why the voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17. Oppose tyranny, support liberty and vote Pro!

Sources

(1) http://www.constitution.org...
(2) https://www.irs.gov...
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
blamonkey

Con

Thank you for responding quickly, I shall offer the following framework since one was not provided.


Framework


We need to weigh the effect on the election process and results over everything else in today’s debate. Thus, if con were to show that the voting age being lowered to 17 is a net harm, then the judge should feel comfortable with voting on the negation.


Contention 1: Uninformed voters


Under the status quo we see that many voters are unaware of the political process. In fact, if we were to turn toward a poll from the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum shows that only 1/1000 Americans know the first 5 freedoms given by the first amendment (1). This is a problem because when people are standing at their voting booths, we see that they are not informed at all about the very basic rights given to us. We can see further in depth why voters are usually misinformed or uninformed with a startling statistic from a study conducted by the American Press Institute and the Center for Public Affairs Research, which states that 30% of Americans do not go in-depth in news stories (2). In fact, we can see this by looking at the following graphic (2).



Forbes goes into more specifics by showing the fact that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party they represent (3). Why does this matter? Well, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered “proficient” in civics (4). If these are high school seniors, could you imagine the political understanding of a freshman? Well, you do not have to take my word for it, a poll of incoming freshman has determined that only 26% of them considered politics important, or kept up to date with political affairs. In other words, we would be diluting the already weak voter base so that more uninformed people would be participating in voting. We would be able to see this because generally, despite a minor decrease in the 2012 election, numbers of youth voters have remained static (5). This shows that despite a generally static trend in young voters, there is still a generally uninformed youth-voter base, which would only increase with this resolution due to allowing more people to vote. In fact, according to CIRCLE, an organization that focuses on youth in voting, has found that off the states with the most influence from the 2016 election, most of them are swing states and states where there is no general consensus on who would win. In other words, the votes from young voters could decide the election (12). This would cause problems, because without an informed base of people voting, we would see that people would be making decisions affecting many people without being necessarily informed about the magnitude, or impact of the decision. Ergo, unqualified people taking office would be the net harm under the resolution. Thus, we need to negate to prevent incompetent leaders.


Contention 2: Propaganda


With teen voters, we would see that propaganda would have an increased effect. In the status quo, we see that teenagers are usually more prone to impulses and their environment, as shown by the Harvard Magazine in 2008 (6). This is important because of the frequency of political advertisements and attack ads which populate the entire spectrum of media. In fact, on TV ads alone, the total spent on advertisement was $4.4 billion, which is a huge number which reaches 87% of people over the age of 18 (7). This would increase for the technology obsessed youth with increased focus on social media in recent years, as candidates are more likely to tweet, go on Facebook, or both. In fact, according to a Pew Research poll, over 70% of teens go on Facebook, and the majority of teens who use social media use more than one site (8). This is a problem due to the aforementioned political propaganda. This can be easily seen as a recent report by New Republic which found the following (9):


“The prod to nudge bystanders to the voting booths was simple. It consisted of a graphic containing a link for looking up polling places, a button to click to announce that you had voted, and the profile photos of up to six Facebook friends who had indicated they’d already done the same.”


What was the result? There was a .39% more of a chance that people would vote for what the friends’? preferences were. The ripple effect of friends on Facebook influencing others resulted in more than 300,000 votes for a particular candidate (9). This powerful tool could result in “digital gerrymandering,” where people abused this tactic to get people to vote for others. This would be incredibly effective against the easily-influenced minds of teenagers, who are proven to act on impulse. Thus, we would be seeing political candidates having an advantage by targeting teens at an unprecedented rate. This is happening in the status quo with Donald Trump, who uses Twitter, a social media outlet, quite often to appeal to the 90% of young adults who use the site (10). This is confirmed by the fact that the majority of young republicans actually support Donald Trump. This is not a coincidence, and with the popularity of social media and the teen’s ability to be influenced means that political candidates will take advantage with propaganda, meaning a negative vote is necessary. Thus, I urge you to negate this resolution.


Counter Plan


What needs to be seen is the problem and the solution. Since teenagers are not represented in politics, then we can allow them to form political clubs or PACs to further political goals. We can push for more time spent contacting state senators to make sure that youth are represented as well. Not only this, but we need to make sure that people who are voting are actually competent, thus we need to establish an observable metric that could determine the overall competence of the voter when it comes to basic rights, current events, and politics in general. However, the resolution has unreasonably harmful effects, thus a negative vote is the only vote one can imagine to be beneficial to the voting process.


Conclusion


One must conclude that lowering the voting age to 17 will produce harms on the electoral system and will skew the results of elections with unfair propaganda being used by future political candidates. Ergo, one must negate.



  1. 1. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  2. 2. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  3. 3. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  4. 4. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  5. 5. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  6. 6. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  7. 7. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  8. 8. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  9. 9. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  10. 10. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  11. 11. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  12. 12. (http://tinyurl.com...)




kasmic

Pro

Thank you for responding. Con makes two contention’s and provides a counterplan. I will address each in turn.

Con’s case

C1: Uniformed Voter’s

Con argues that uninformed voters harm the system and demonstrates that 17 year olds are likely be uninformed voters. The issue with this contention is that con does nothing to demonstrate 17 year olds any less informed than those who can vote. What con has demonstrated is the reality is
many of those who can and do vote are not particularly "politically savvy." Essentially con’s contention here is against uneducated voting, not voting age. Thus, we see this contention entirely misses the mark. It seems to me that according to con’s logic here, if someone is informed they ought to be able to vote. I am certain that con would not contend the fact that there are a few politically savvy teens that are informed enough to vote. Certainly savvy enough to pass an arbitrary test to vote.

C2: Propoganda

As with the first contention, this argument misses the mark. It addresses the issue of misinformation and voter manipulation. This is true of the status quo and is not going to be impacted by allowing 17 year olds to vote. Worse yet, con confirm this as he presented a source indicating that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party with which they identify. Again, this contention has nothing to do with age but rather against voting in General.

Con’s Counter Plan

Here con makes some inconstant and startling suggestions. In my estimation the worst being the suggestion of a type of metric or test to determine if those that do vote should be allowed to. Sound like Jim Crow laws to me. Not only does con want to keep 17 year olds oppressed, it sounds like he wants to take the vote away from other groups.

Summary of Con’s case

Con has not addressed the issue at hand, both contentions address issues that are separate from age and thus do not negate the resolution. Con’s counter plan is likely to restrict voting from young, old, and uneducated.

Rebuttal

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence)

Unalienable: “impossible to take away or give up” (1)

We live in a society that accepts the concept that some rights are unalienable.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” (Declaration of Independence)

“Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority;” (2)

We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights.

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”(Declaration of Independence)

“Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law.”(2)

We live in a society that dictates that the power of government come from the consent of the governed Via voting.

"A man without a vote is a man without protection." Lyndon B. Johnson 36th U.S. President (3)

"Voting is the most precious right of every citizen" Hillary Clinton (4)

We live in a society that accepts…

1: All people born equal with rights
2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights
3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting

To accept con’s argument is to reject the very purpose of our government. His plan rejects equal rights to voting, and effectively would mitigate the ability of people to give consent to the government. This is tyranny. Value liberty; uphold our Constitution and the values displayed in the Declaration of Independence. Return sovereignty to the people. Vote in favor of lower the age to vote to 17. Vote Pro.

Sources

(1)
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://www.brainyquote.com...
(4) http://www.brainyquote.com...
Debate Round No. 2
blamonkey

Con

Thank you for responding quickly. Allow me to refute the points at hand.

Counter-Rebuttal 1: Uninformed voters

I have shown empirically that voters in particular who are under the age of 18 are particularly uneducated with both cards that I used that addressed children in particular. I will quote myself:

“Well, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered “proficient” in civics.” (1)

High school seniors are usually between the ages of 17 and 18. This shows that high school seniors are specifically less politically savvy, as my opponent has put it, which means that this rebuttal is void, due to the fact that he has not nullified the impact of more dilution in an already weak voting base. I also have shown the fact that generally, those who are younger voters have a huge influence on the election cycle, specifically in 2016. By decreasing the voting age, we would be seeing more people who are uninformed voting. Remember, the voting rate of younger voters is usually static, but by adding more to the system, we would be seeing an increase in youth voters which will result in higher uninformed voters.

Counter-Rebuttal 2: Propaganda

Actually, I have proven this. The fact is, teens are more impressionable as proven by my Harvard article showing that teens are more influenced by their environment (2). Not only this, but because teens use social media more than other age demographics, we can see that they will be more influenced by social media. This is a problem since I have shown that presence on social media has effected election results, as shown by Trump (3). So no, I have proven that this would disproportionately affect teenagers at a higher rate.

Counter-Rebuttal 3: Counter Plan

I have proffered a counter plan that was refuted by the pro side, so allow me to respond. First, he suggests that my plan is similar to Jim Crow Laws, which is not a rebuttal, rather an opinion. At the time of Jim Crow laws, racism was rampant. This is important, because in my counter plan I have provided an alternative, which was education relating to policy and public affairs which would allow those who are disadvantaged still become politically knowledgeable enough to vote. Yet, I am confused. I asked for an observable metric to determine voter competence in the future. This could determine the general competence of certain demographics of voters to understand the general demographics for future reference for potential policy to increase said political knowledge. This was my intention of the counter plan. I did not realize the vagueness. I apologize if it seemed that I wanted to oppress groups.

Counter-Rebuttal 4: Rebuttal

Under the framework I provided, the purpose of government does not play in. However, let us observe he fact that if the argument that we are undermining the purpose of the government, then it would be quite apparent. Remember, we live under a social contract where people give up certain rights for protection. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, we see that the social contract theory states the following:

“Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.” (4)

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both who influenced the constitution both proclaimed this (5). With this theory, we can see that some rights, such as voting, are not guaranteed. In fact, people give these rights up to live in a civil society with competent leaders put into office by knowledgeable voters.

Counter-Rebuttal 5: General Observation

My opponent has not offered any points under the framework I provided. Remember, we are debating the tangible effects of today’s resolution on the election process. While this may seem unfair, keep in mind we are doing this to make the election process better with less uninformed voters.
Onto my opponent’s case.

Rebuttal 1: “Of the people”

This points toward a utilitarian framework due to the fact that we are looking for benefits for the people. I have proven that this does not happen because of the fact that we see less competent people in office with uninformed voters. Thus, this argument falls. Even if we are talking about political representation in a sense, I have offered a counter plan that, while vague, solves the problems the pro ide has brought up.

Rebuttal 2: No difference between 18 and 17 year olds

I have shown you through a previous statistic that 75% of high school seniors are not proficient in civics (1). Regardless of the fact that 17 year olds may be quite similar in representation due to their military conscription and other privileges given to them, this does not automatically qualify them for voting. 18 year olds have usually graduated from high school and have earned their votes. Also, weigh the points I made due to the tangible effects it would have over the abstract arguments my opponent has made, as they have no impact in this debate.

Rebuttal 3: Taxation without representation

My opponent claims that by not allowing 17 year olds to vote we are taxing them without representation. This may be true, but under the framework I provided, we are looking at the effects on the voting system in general. This point is then moot because it does not address the problem at hand, which is the system in which voting occurs. Remember, I have already proven that the system is bad due to the already poor voting base becoming even more diluted, which is a problem that my opponent has yet to address.

  1. 1. http://tinyurl.com...
  2. 2. http://tinyurl.com...
  3. 3. http://tinyurl.com...
  4. 4. http://tinyurl.com...
  5. 5. http://tinyurl.com...

kasmic

Pro

Per rules this is my final focus.

Con case

If you recall in my first argument I mentioned that to win my opponent must provide reasoning that demonstrates why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. Let’s see if he has done that.

1: “Uniformed Voters”


Essentially con’s contention here is against uneducated voting, not voting age. Last round he attempted to argue that he has shown that it is a larger issue for those under 18, though all he showed was that it is an issue, not a larger issue for the age group. In fact I can show this via my opponent’s own words. “High school seniors are usually between the ages of 17 and 18.” My opponent has just affirmed that his stat reasonably applies to 17 and 18 year olds alike and thus this contention does nothing to negate lowering the voting age to 17. It is therefore off topic and ought not be weighed against the resolution.

2: “Propaganda”

This contention addresses the issue of misinformation and voter manipulation. Con does claim that teens are likely easier to manipulate, though as with the last contention; this would include eighteen and nineteen year olds. Thus, we see this contention also does not really address why those that are 18 should vote and those 17 ought not. This contention is therefore not well established to be against the resolution so much as voting itself and ought not be weighed against the resolution.

3: “Counter Plan”

Con’s alternative was for an observable metric to determine voter competence. I mentioned that this is reminiscent of Jim Crow Laws. It seems my reference here was misunderstood. I was saying that having some kind of intelligence test or metric to determine voter competence has been found to be easily used to oppress minorities. For example; Jim Crow laws. As Con has provided no kind of specifics, it is impossible for me to attack whatever metric he is referring to. Thus, my contention was that when such “metrics” have been used in the past, they have been used to oppress minorities.

Final thoughts on Con’s Case

My opponents contentions and counter plan miss the mark. We are discussing whether voting should be extended to 17 year olds. Nothing in Con’s case demonstrates support for the status quo which allows those the age of 18 to vote and not allow those 17 to vote. He has thus not justified denying the vote to 17 year olds specifically.

My case

I presented the simple concept that This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people.” At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U.S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Con claims that this claim points toward a utilitarian framework. It does, it appeals to the greatest possible good being liberty of the people to choose outweighing the so called benefits of tyranny. Con’s claims his counterplan solves the problem I brought up. I am not sure how he sees that being the case. His counter plan seems to more than likely limit liberty not oppress it.

I have shown that the difference between 17 and 18 year olds is virtually nonexistent and thus no reason there to give 18 year olds the power to vote and restrict 17 year olds. Con claims that 17 year olds ability to conscript in the military does not qualify them for the vote. If con was aware of history he would see that is the main reason 18 year olds were given the vote. During Vietnam 18 year olds could be drafted but not vote. It was argued that such an arrangement that allows you to die for your country but have no representation way tyrannical. Con again cites his stat concerning high school seniors. Again I will point out this stat also includes those who have the ability currently to vote.

I also briefly argued that taxation without representation was tyrannical. He concedes this but says it does not affect his framework. Apparently con feels as though his framework is the end all be all of this debate. Though, he never addressed my framework. Clearly, I argued that what ought to be valued is liberty and what ought to be avoided is tyranny.

My opponent needed to provide reasoning that demonstrated why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. He has not done so. I have shown, the difference in age between the two is negligible and thus those who have reached the age of 17 ought to be able to vote for the president that will represent them the next four years. This is why the voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17. Oppose tyranny, support liberty and vote Pro!

Debate Round No. 3
blamonkey

Con

As the end of the debate approaches, I would like to thank Kasmic for being a most formidable foe
Let’s go over the points presented and show why con wins.

Counter-Rebuttal 1: Uninformed Voters

I have shown empirically why my opponent is wrong. I have proven that 17 year olds do not have the political knowledge to vote with the statistic I have mentioned before about the fact that 75% of high school seniors are not proficient in civics. Yes, this applies to both 17 year olds and 18 year olds, but that point is irrelevant considering the fact that I have already shown that 17 year olds are not politically knowledgeable. I have shown this through the previous statistic that my opponent has already conceded effects both 18 year olds and 17 year olds. Thus, we see that my impacts are still valid. By passing this resolution to extend voting rights to 17 year olds, we would be seeing an increasingly diluted voting pool, which still stands regardless of whether 18 year olds are any more politically knowledgeable than 17 year olds due to the fact that we are still diluting the voting pool with more uninformed voters.

Counter-Rebuttal 2: Propaganda

First, I should clear something up. No, I do not think it is fair that those who are 18 can vote, and those who are 17 cannot. However, there are impacts that one would want to avoid in the status quo, and since not allowing 17 year olds to vote would mitigate this, one needs to vote for the con side. However, allow me to address the points made by my opponent thus far in relation to propaganda. My opponent has already claimed that my contentions are not specific enough, but this doesn’t matter as long as my impacts still occur, which I have already proven. Remember, we are allowing more people into the voting base who are uninformed, that being 17 year olds. Not only this, but these are young voters who are impressionable and on social media, which I have proven is also a way in which candidates could manipulate to get more votes. I have proven this by the statistic showing that the ripple effect from other Facebook friends resulted in .39% more of a chance that people would vote for their friends’ choice. This, as cited by the author of the previous statistic, can be easily manipulated by means of “cyber gerrymandering.” This impact still remains unrefuted.

Counter-Rebuttal 3: Counter plan

My opponent still has not touched on the other factors I have mentioned in my original case such as forming PACs or pushing for more time in which teens can contact state senators, so extend those as my opponent has dropped them. Regardless, I will explain the difference between Jim Crow laws and my counter plan. I never stated that the information gathered could be used to limit voting I stated the following:

“This could determine the general competence of certain demographics of voters to understand the general demographics for future reference for potential policy to increase said political knowledge.”

Unless affirmative action is the same as Jim Crow laws, then this accusation is false. This would not limit voting; this would make the process even more fair.

Counter-Rebuttal 4: Opponent’s case

Extend my social contract theory point as well as my point that none of my opponent’s points fall under the unrefuted framework. Regardless, I will refute.

  1. a. My opponent’s framework

My opponent claims that his framework has to do with liberty. This not only does not produce tangible effects on the American people, but there are no impacts to this as the political system will continue as it does with no major problems. Not only this, but he has waited until his final focus to point this out.

  1. b. Similarity between 17 year olds and 18 year olds

My opponent may have provided evidence showing that both have similar rights, but again, this has nothing to do with voting ability or political knowledge. Even so, I have proven detrimental effects on the voting system if this resolution were to be passed.

  1. c. Utilitarian framework

One can’t propose both a utilitarian framework and one about liberty. Regardless, I will refute. My counter plan will work because we are still involving 17 year olds into the political system by pushing them to form PACs and generally become more politically involved. Thus, they still get the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

Conclusion

My opponent’s case has been completely refuted. Vote con.

kasmic

Pro

Per rules I waive!

Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kasmic 8 months ago
kasmic
Thanks for voting!
Posted by Danielle 8 months ago
Danielle
[[ RFD part 1 ]]

Pro argues that voting is significant as it gives the American people a voice. He used John Locke's standard of reason as the justification for voting, and argues that 17 year olds can justifiably be assumed to have the same reasoning capacity as 18 year olds, or the reasoning capacity that makes them eligible to cast a vote. Pro suggests that restricting their voting rights is tyrannical.

Con argues that young voters are uninformed voters. Young people tend to not only be less informed, but are more easily influenced by propaganda and peer pressure. He suggests a counter plan that would encourage the political participation of young people and seek to involve them in the political process (short of voting). He proposes involvement in PACs and encouraging politicians to be more considerate of adolescent rights and concerns. He also requests some type of metric be imposed to ensure that voters are competent, and believes this is fair while maintaining the integrity of elections.
Posted by Danielle 8 months ago
Danielle
[[ RFD part 2 ]]

In conclusion: Pro points out that Con is against uneducated (misinformed) voters and not necessarily young voters. Con doesn't deny this and suggests that since 17 year olds tend to be uninformed -- which he cited with sources and Pro did not refute them -- then he is against both 17 and 18 year olds voting which is consistent with the resolution. In all, I do believe Con has proven that young people are easier to manipulate and persuade. Pro would have had to argue why this is not limited to young people, and how most people can be easily influenced or biased, but he didn't emphasize this point enough.

Pro also did not spend a lot of time negating Con's counter plan. He accused any type of voter competence test to be the equivalent of Jim Crow racism or oppression which isn't analogous. Con rightfully points out that unlike Jim Crow, he is not restricting people based on something innate (like age or race) but standards of knowledge which has relevance to the political process. Pro drops Con's arguments on PACs and other ways to be involved in the political process without voting.

In short it was Pro's burden to explain why 17 year olds shouldn't vote. He said they were uninformed and ripe for manipulating like many 18 year olds which Pro doesn't argue. Pro's contention is simply that it's unfair and tyrannical for young people to not vote, but fails to explain why 17 year olds do in fact have the reasoning capacity to vote. He simply says 18 year olds are similar but not that 18 year olds are competent which is Con's contention (that they aren't). Con has proven there is reason to limit the voting age of young people, especially if there are alternatives. Pro did not explain why those alternatives are unacceptable or unjustifiable. He also didn't expand on the implications of less people voting.
Posted by FaustianJustice 8 months ago
FaustianJustice
RFD continued - only in as far as it was on topic specifically to the resolution. Our instigator's premise simply shot themselves in the foot by allowing for individuals to meet the criteria, but still negate the resolution. I would think the instigator would have instead more geared their argument toward legal contracts and our current age for legal arbitration.
Posted by kasmic 8 months ago
kasmic
Thanks for voting guys!
Posted by lannan13 8 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 5: Conclusion

With Pro winning his entire case along with Con's counter-plan and C1, I have no choice, but to give the arguments points to Pro.
Posted by lannan13 8 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 4: Pro's case

Pro brings up the aspect of the American democracy and how the purpose of our nation is to be that of expansion of our democratic voice. There are several amendments that protects the right to vote that has been extended since the foundation of the US. Pro brings up that John Locke states that men should be turned loose to the political system since they are rational beings. They do many things that the average adult does like drive and pay taxes. If they do that then why don't they vote. Pro states that unless they are granted the right to vote, they are being held hostage under tyranny. Con brings up how we live in a Social countract in order to go and over-ride Pro's Utility portion of his argument. He goes on to argue that 17 year olds are less effiecent in civics which links with Con's C2. Con sort of tries to discard Pro's "no taxation without representation argument." This is a drop. Unlike what Con claims, his Counter-plan does not solve the Democracy portion. Pro gave an example of Vietnam how 18 year olds could be drafted, but not vote. They were extended this to show equality under the law due to them facing the same ability as others.

I have to give this to Pro.
Posted by lannan13 8 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 3: Propaganda

Con talks about how people would increase the amount of advertisement they are putting out there since an overwhelming amount of minors are subseptiable to this and a huge portion uses social media. He argues that there is a .39% that a friend votes for someone they friend meaning that 300,000 votes can go to a certain candidate. Pro counters by stating that the same occurs with adults and the status quo. He argues that this is more general than specific. Though issue is that Con has addressed all of these things with the Harvard study and using the Donald Trump example. Pro uses semantics on how Con refers to teens meaning 18 and 19 year olds as well. Con points this out and shows how this would cause cyber-gerrymandering leading to 'unfair' politics.

Con wins this argument.
Posted by lannan13 8 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 2: Uniformed Voters

Con begins by stating that there is a huge amount of American voters who are uniformed as they are unable to actually name the freedoms in the 1st Amendment. He also states that they are highly bias towards the party they tend to affilate with. He then brings up a poll showing how only 26% of incoming Freshmen thought that politics was important (though this doesn't necessitate that they are uniformed). He argues that by lowering the voting age, then the political process would be harmed as our uninformed base would be increased. He then goes into showing how people will dettermine the next election and this is something that shouldn't be left to uniformed voters, which later leads into his counter-plan. Pro brings up how this doesn't show that they are less informed then the people involved in the current political atmosphere. Pro shows that Con doesn't have a Link and this makes the argument kind of useless since there isn't a way this talks about 17 year olds rather than generalizing the general populace. Con argues that people between the ages of 17 and 18 are less than savvy in their civics, though he never compares it to the current pool of voters. He argues that it would further increase the dillusion of the voter base. Pro quotes part of Con's argument by showing how it argues for both sides, making it untopical. Con repeats his argument in R4.

This argument goes to Pro.
Posted by lannan13 8 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 1: Counter-plan

For this RFD I shall be analyzing each individual argument and I will be grouping Pro's arguments to one since they are constantly refered into that throughout the debate.

Con seems a bit confusing with his counter-plan. He states that since 17 year olds can't vote then they should be allowed into PACs and other clubs (though these already exist). Con then advocates for knowledge tests to test people's confidence of the existing voters. There appears to be a lot of vagueness here as it doesn't seem clear how this solves for the current resolution. Pro brings up how this is comparable to Jim Crow laws and preventing more and more people from voting. Con discards this claim, which seems almost like him dropping the argument. He goes into depth on how he just wants to measure competance, but doesn't really establish how this is possible or why this is important. Pro continues by showing how an extention of Con's counterplan can be used to oppress minorities as it has in the past. Pro did drop the portion about PACs and clubs, though many clubs for minors currently exist, but Pro wins the argument on Jim Crow as Con never actually address how this isn't really discrimination.

This argument goes to Pro.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 months ago
Danielle
blamonkeykasmicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments Section
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 8 months ago
FaustianJustice
blamonkeykasmicTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: What we have here is a fairly straight forward contest of "No taxation without representation" vs 'only the informed should vote". Con puts forward some compelling evidence to whom is more -likely- to be persuaded by what, and whom is coming out the gate more civicly minded. As the instigator, I am left in a state of bewilderment. Pro proceeds to argue a resolution, but Con wants to move the straightforward obvious duel into a policy debate, of which, Con's own evidence doesn't specifically avail. To wit: "?This could determine the general competence of certain demographics of voters to understand the general demographics for future reference for potential policy to increase said political knowledge.? This has nothing to do with age. By the instigators own criteria, a 15 year old voter is okay, should a competency level be met. This is not the resolution. I think its fair to say that after round 3, each side was repeating themselves. Pro's side was convincing (check comments)
Vote Placed by lannan13 8 months ago
lannan13
blamonkeykasmicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the comments section. This vote has been brought to you in part by, the DDO Voter's Union.
Vote Placed by Romanii 8 months ago
Romanii
blamonkeykasmicTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The fatal flaw with Con's case in this debate is that he fails to draw a meaningful distinction between people who are 17 years old and people who are 18+ years old. As Pro points out, many of Con's sources actually work against him by showing that voting-eligible people are susceptible to the same exact flaws that 17 year-olds are (e.g. being uninformed, engaging in social media groupthink). Because Con was not able to draw a meaningful 17/18+ distinction, and because Pro showed that 17 year-olds have a fundamental capacity to engage in independent reasoning, I have to buy into Pro's conclusion -- denying voting rights to 17 year-olds is unfair and inconsistent with the spirit of democracy. The resolution is affirmed, and therefore I vote Pro.
Vote Placed by Udel 8 months ago
Udel
blamonkeykasmicTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: My RFD for voting on this debate in the voters union can be seen here http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/88549/