The Instigator
ark428
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
XStrikeX
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

The Voting Age should be lowered 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 5 votes the winner is...
XStrikeX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,397 times Debate No: 13859
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (5)

 

ark428

Pro

Definitions:
Voting Age: The legal age at which citizens of the United States can submit their opinion on current matters to be counted during national elections.

Hello, my name is Wendell Phillips and I am the PRO speaker stating that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Before I begin, I'd like to point out that xStrikex, my opponent, is a classmate of mine and I am very excited to debate this controversial topic with him.

My Points:

The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote.

When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests.

Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others.

In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. While young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years.

Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago.

Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right?

I rest my case.
XStrikeX

Con

Welcome to DDO (debate.org)! Yes, the Proposition is a classmate of mine and I return his excitement. I hope that this will be a fun debate for both of us.
As the CON side, I will be arguing that the voting age should not be lowered to 16.
And without further ado, I would like to begin this debate.

Refutations

"As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens."

Just because 18 year olds are capable of making choices much like 21 year olds does not mean, in any way, that 16 year olds can cast a mature, independently-made decision. I argue that there is a transformation when a person grows from 16 to 18. At 16, a boy or girl is in his or her sophomore years, still very young and maturing in high school. However, an 18 year old is a senior in high school and is very capable of making self-decided decisions and mature enough to understand politics, government, and society. 16 year olds have not completed their full studies of the United States government. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org...

"More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote."

Does this necessarily mean that they are mature? Marrying is a huge responsibility. A responsibility that 16 year olds have not demonstrated their ability to handle. Marrying means there must have been a great bond of love between two people, love that must have distracted the 16 year old from high school work. Raising a family is usually also a party of marrying. Just because 16 year olds can have sex does not mean that they are mature. When a 16 year old drops out of high school, that must mean he or she is extremely lazy and does not wish to learn. This is not maturity. Furthermore, if a 16 year old doesn't wish to be delayed by the work of high school, why would that same person with to receive a full time job? If someone is devoted to studying, then why would he or she get a job, for that same matter? This is not a clear-cut case of maturity. Lastly, 16 year olds are not allowed to actually fight in the army. They can receive cadet training, but cannot risk their lives [1][2]. Plagiarism. Same source as above.

"Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system... there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others."

You have provided no evidence for any of your arguments. Your former argument about passion, energy, enthusiasm, and responsibility have absolutely no true cases in which 16 year olds would have possessed such feelings. Anyways, the evidence will be provided in my arguments. Argument is plagiarized. http://debatewise.org...

"In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum."

Please explain this entire paragraph and put it in your OWN words. Further plagiarism. http://debatewise.org...

"Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago."

As my opponent himself has stated, we should revert to a system where well-educated people can vote. 18 year olds are much better educated compared to 16 year olds. They are in their senior year or have even possibly finished high school. 16 year olds are still stuck in high school and do not yet understand politics and government. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org...

Proposition, I ask that you provide real, hard-core evidence and facts rather than state opinions that you have plagiarised from Debatewise.

Arguments

1. 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote
The large majority still lives at home and goes to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18, they have finished high school and have legally completed all their educational requirements for their life, they have become much more independent, and they 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. Worse, they may be uninformed and vote for the candidate not for his or her policies but the candidate's give-aways
A research team headed by The Chief of Brain Imaging at the National Institute of Mental Health, found that in teenager brains, the part of the brain in teenagers where long-term consequences spring to consciousness is not fully mature [3].

2. Not everyone needs to vote.
Governments do things which affect every age group but that does not mean everyone deserves the vote. Should 12 year olds get the vote because school policies affect them? Should toddlers get the vote because health services affect them? No - we trust parents to cast votes after thinking about the interests of their families. And there are other ways for young people to have a say - they can write to elected representatives and newspapers, sign petitions, speak at public meetings, and join youth parliaments. It's not like we're shutting these kids out of the political world forever. Come 2 years time, they'll get to vote.

3. 18 is the best age to have as a minimum for people to vote
When you're 18, a lot of things happen to you. First, you officially become a U.S. citizen. This is also the age when you get your driver's license officially, are allowed to take any job you want, and have finished all required education by the U.S. government and can go to college. Now, what about 16 and 17 year olds? Well, they can practice driving under a licensed supervisor, can practice having a job as long as it isn't one of the 55 job types not permitted by the Federal Youth Employment Laws, and they can practice taking college exams or practice completing school. Obviously, in those 2 years gap between 18 year olds and 16 year olds, much maturity and experience is put upon the teenagers, which without, they would be too irresponsible to vote or do most of the things that we legally allow 18 year olds to do.

Due to the fact that I have run out of space, I will add 2 more points the next round.
I await my opponent's response.

Sources:
1. http://wiki.answers.com...
2. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com...
3. http://www.nimh.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
ark428

Pro

I apologize to my opponent and the audience for not posting up my source. Here it is: http://debatewise.org...

Before I begin my refutation, is any vote really wrong? We cannot say that a teenager will vote for someone because they are misinformed, and that it is the wrong vote. An 18 year old, can be misinformed about politics. A citizen of any age can be misinformed. So why, is it to fall upon the 16 year olds, that they cannot vote because they are misinformed? No vote, is the wrong vote.

Now, I'd like to continue with refuting all my opponents points.

In my opponent's first point, he stated that "16 year olds are not mature enough to vote". IF they are not mature enough to vote, then how is it they are mature enough to pay taxes, get married, and leave home? All of these things require more maturity than voting.

In his second contention, he stated that not everybody needs to vote. Of course not everybody needs to vote, yet THIS debate is about 16 year olds. He then listed examples of toddlers voting. I'd like to remind him that this debate is about 16 year olds, and not toddlers. Therefore his point is irrelevant and has no further use.

In his third contention, he stated that more maturity develops when you're 16-18. He then stated the things that develop the maturity, such as a driver's license, or the ability to go to college. How does this develop the maturity required for voting? After all, no vote is the wrong vote. Gaining a driver's license is not going to have a critical effect, on the person's political party and who they want to vote for. Obviously, my opponents point has no meaning.

Now, onto my points.

Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right?

Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago.

Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others.

The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote.

I await my opponents response.
XStrikeX

Con

Thank you for the response, yet I am boggled. It seemed as if you completely ignored my refutation of your arguments, restated your arguments as if they were unrefuted and solid, and only focused on my arguments.
Nevertheless, I will begin.

Refutations

"IF they are not mature enough to vote, then how is it they are mature enough to pay taxes, get married, and leave home? All of these things require more maturity than voting."

This argument of 16 year olds being mature enough was refuted in the first round. Please do not ignore it this time.

"In his second contention, he stated that not everybody needs to vote. Of course not everybody needs to vote, yet THIS debate is about 16 year olds. He then listed examples of toddlers voting. I'd like to remind him that this debate is about 16 year olds, and not toddlers. Therefore his point is irrelevant and has no further use."

Yes, this is about 16 year olds and 16 year olds are a section of everyone. This is completely relevant and was simply just an argument stating that 16 year olds do not need to vote. It seems you are confused this time.

"In his third contention, he stated that more maturity develops when you're 16-18. He then stated the things that develop the maturity, such as a driver's license, or the ability to go to college. How does this develop the maturity required for voting? After all, no vote is the wrong vote. Gaining a driver's license is not going to have a critical effect, on the person's political party and who they want to vote for. Obviously, my opponents point has no meaning."

A driver's license demonstrates the responsibility, safety, and caution a person has used throughout his driving test. This is a key area of maturity. The fact that they can be responsible means that they can also be responsible for their own actions as well as voting. It seems you ignored the fact of them being able to attend college and learn even more.

Seeing as my points are brought back into play, I will continue on to talk about my opponent's arguments.

"Now, onto my points."

My opponent has listed his source for all of his arguments in the beginning of his speech and I infer that he no longer thinks he is plagiarizing. However, the key word in this short sentence is "my." Plagiarism is defined as, "a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work [1]." The word "my" means that it is his and therefore, is plagiarized. For this, my opponent should lose in the conduct stage.

It's actually a funny thing, seeing as my opponent basically restated, word for word, all the arguments posted in the 1st Round, except for the concept of "Citizenship" and "key stages," which was asked to be explained. Apparently, my opponent must have drawn back such a response, which means he does not understand his own arguments which were simply plagiarized from Debatewise. Until the Proposition actually does bring his point back into play and counter-refutes my refutation, these points are negated, as well as the resolution.

Arguments

To tack on to my unrefuted points, I have one new argument to present.

1. Having a broad range of opinion at elections has to be balanced against having responsible voters.
If we allow 16 year olds to vote, there's obviously going to be an increase in turnout. However, that can also be a two-sided sword, and in this case, allowing 16 year olds to cast votes will clearly harm our country. This is because these children are not old enough to be able to develop their own political views about the world. Most of their votes will be cast without reason and will therefore harm the good of the country.
According to a study conducted by Cato.org, out of 2400 teenagers aged 14-16, over 97% of these children had the same political views as their parents. Of these, sadly, 43% didn't even know the first thing about the party that their parents, and they, represented. These are children, what else would you expect?

Keep in mind that 3 other arguments are still up and running.
16 year olds are immature, they don't need to vote, and 18 is the best minimum age to allow people to vote.

I await my opponent's response for the final round.

Sources:
1. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
ark428

Pro

Thank you for responding to my argument, this has been an interesting debate. I will now refute all my opponents points, and save my best points.
Refutations:

"Yes, this is about 16 year olds and 16 year olds are a section of everyone. This is completely relevant and was simply just an argument stating that 16 year olds do not need to vote. It seems you are confused this time."
The argument that you stated was that not everyone needed to vote. You then listed examples of toddlers voting on health. How is this relevant? Not everybody needs to vote, but shouldn't we allow those who wish to do it participate? Perhaps you misunderstood my refutation. Not everyone needing to vote has nothing to do with this debate, if someone wants to vote for their country, they should be able to do it! I'm sure if you were talking about an 18 year old, you wouldn't be saying the same thing!

"A driver's license demonstrates the responsibility, safety, and caution a person has used throughout his driving test. This is a key area of maturity. The fact that they can be responsible means that they can also be responsible for their own actions as well as voting. It seems you ignored the fact of them being able to attend college and learn even more."
Why would attending college affect this debate? Of course, students can learn more about politics, but this is not necessary if they think they have a future in politics. Can you safely say, that your parents were COMPLETELY informed about politics before they voted? A driver's license has absolutely nothing to do with the maturity required to submit your opinion to a national election! How can someone not be mature enough, if they want to have their vote casted? There is no wrong vote! If they want to vote, they drive out to the voting station, and they are fully prepared to show what they think, how could they be considered immature? Obviously, there is some confusion in my opponent's mind about what real responsibility and maturity is.

Saving my points:

"Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago."

Refutation of this point: As my opponent himself has stated, we should revert to a system where well-educated people can vote. 18 year olds are much better educated compared to 16 year olds. They are in their senior year or have even possibly finished high school. 16 year olds are still stuck in high school and do not yet understand politics and government.

Refutation of this: If you don't understand sarcasm, I wouldn't be surprised. The argument clearly said "to its logical extreme". This was pointing out that the inability for uneducated people to vote was classist and was abandoned. You clearly do not understand what I was saying. 16 year olds could already have taken certain classes concerning government, and 18 year olds might not have taken them!

"More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote."

Refutation of my point: Does this necessarily mean that they are mature? Marrying is a huge responsibility. A responsibility that 16 year olds have not demonstrated their ability to handle. Marrying means there must have been a great bond of love between two people, love that must have distracted the 16 year old from high school work. Raising a family is usually also a party of marrying. Just because 16 year olds can have sex does not mean that they are mature. When a 16 year old drops out of high school, that must mean he or she is extremely lazy and does not wish to learn. This is not maturity. Furthermore, if a 16 year old doesn't wish to be delayed by the work of high school, why would that same person with to receive a full time job? If someone is devoted to studying, then why would he or she get a job, for that same matter? This is not a clear-cut case of maturity. Lastly, 16 year olds are not allowed to actually fight in the army. They can receive cadet training, but cannot risk their lives.

Refutation of this: If anything, you are helping my point. According to this legal system, 16 year olds can marry, have sex, drop out of high school, get a job, and join the military. If they are mature enough to do all these things, why can't they simply represent their ideas in important elections? Your refutation is completely useless. Lastly, you said that 16 year olds cannot fight in the army. I am aware of this. But, they receive military training, so it is obvious that they have the maturity to fight in the army. It takes a lot of maturity, to even decide to train. Thank you for assisting me.

"As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens."

Refutation of this point: Just because 18 year olds are capable of making choices much like 21 year olds does not mean, in any way, that 16 year olds can cast a mature, independently-made decision. I argue that there is a transformation when a person grows from 16 to 18. At 16, a boy or girl is in his or her sophomore years, still very young and maturing in high school. However, an 18 year old is a senior in high school and is very capable of making self-decided decisions and mature enough to understand politics, government, and society. 16 year olds have not completed their full studies of the United States government.

Refutation of this: If you say that there is no major difference between 18-21 year olds, how can you say there is a difference between 16-18 year olds? There is a 2 year age difference compared to a 3 year age difference. 21 is when you are 3 years into college at the most, and you are now allowed to drink (which can lead to drunk driving).
Another thing, is at 16 a boy or a girl have already studied politics enough to fully understand who they want to vote for. Once again as my opponent CONTINUES TO IGNORE, is that there is no wrong vote! You cannot say that someone who wants to vote for the law or official they like, is wrong!

Now to refute my opponent's main points.

In my opponents first contention, he stated that 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote. Of course, the amount of 16 year olds that are not mature enough to vote, will most likely NOT vote! The 16 year olds that clearly arrive at the voting booth, and are enthusiastic about sharing their opinions will be the mature teenagers! You cannot say that 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote, because that is a complete generalization. This argument means nothing.

In my opponent second contention, he said that not everyone needs to vote. Not everyone needs to vote, but that is also inferring that citizens over 18 do not need to vote! He also stated some rubbish about toddlers voting for health, I don't know what that has to do with 16 years olds, but his loss!

In my opponent's 3rd and final contention, he stated that 18 is the best minimum age to vote. Yet, all the reasons he listed show absolutely no reason that there would be a maturity increase in Politics. Obviously, my opponent is confused about what is required to have real opinions. (all opinions are real)

I'd like to thank my opponent for making this an excellent debate, and I'd like to quickly repeat my best point.

No vote, is truly wrong. You cannot walk up to a person and say they cannot vote because they want a good candidate to win
XStrikeX

Con

Thank you for sticking all the way throughout this debate.
In this final round, I will tell you why the Opposition should win this debate.

Refutations

"The argument that you stated was that not everyone needed to vote. You then listed examples of toddlers voting on health. How is this relevant? Not everybody needs to vote, but shouldn't we allow those who wish to do it participate? Perhaps you misunderstood my refutation. Not everyone needing to vote has nothing to do with this debate, if someone wants to vote for their country, they should be able to do it! I'm sure if you were talking about an 18 year old, you wouldn't be saying the same thing!"

The logic simple. Not everyone includes 16 year olds. This is the relevancy. Toddlers are simply also one of thos every people. We should not allow those who wish to vote to vote. Should ten year olds be allowed to vote? This point is relevant to your argument that we should allow anyone to vote, and clearly, we should not. I'm sure there are many children in the world who are at least 10 years old that wish to vote on American politics. But should they? No, because they are too immature and most don't understand what they're talking about. This applies to 16 year olds as well.

"Why would attending college affect this debate? Of course, students can learn more about politics, but this is not necessary if they think they have a future in politics. Can you safely say, that your parents were COMPLETELY informed about politics before they voted? A driver's license has absolutely nothing to do with the maturity required to submit your opinion to a national election! How can someone not be mature enough, if they want to have their vote casted? There is no wrong vote! If they want to vote, they drive out to the voting station, and they are fully prepared to show what they think, how could they be considered immature? Obviously, there is some confusion in my opponent's mind about what real responsibility and maturity is."

You basically answered your first question. Sure, parents are not completely informed, but they are more mature and responsible enough to make a self-decided vote, whereas 16 year olds cannot form their own opinions, are easily swayed by advertisements, and fancy commercials. A driver's license demonstrates the responsibility to drive carefully and safely. The RESPONSIBILITY and MATURENESS. Thought it may not directly affect voting, it does indirectly by showing how careful and how mature a person is to have even received that license.

"If you don't understand sarcasm, I wouldn't be surprised. The argument clearly said "to its logical extreme". This was pointing out that the inability for uneducated people to vote was classist and was abandoned. You clearly do not understand what I was saying. 16 year olds could already have taken certain classes concerning government, and 18 year olds might not have taken them!"

Sarcasm is not welcome in a debate! And please stop insulting me and claiming that I am confused and telling me that I can't understand sarcasm. There is no logical evidence for this argument, aside from conduct. 16 year olds have not even made it half way into high school. 18 year olds are near the completion of high school. What's the likeliness that one year of high school teaches more than the three exact years?

"If anything, you are helping my point. According to this legal system, 16 year olds can marry, have sex, drop out of high school, get a job, and join the military. If they are mature enough to do all these things, why can't they simply represent their ideas in important elections? Your refutation is completely useless. Lastly, you said that 16 year olds cannot fight in the army. I am aware of this. But, they receive military training, so it is obvious that they have the maturity to fight in the army. It takes a lot of maturity, to even decide to train. Thank you for assisting me."

My refutation is not completely useless. It seems as if you have skimmed my entire refutation. I proved that all the things you have listed are not mature decisions. They cannot join the military, they can only get very low pay jobs, sex and marriage is rarely a mature decision as a 16 year old, and dropping out of school means they are lazy and don't enjoy work which usually also means that they don't want a job. Anyone can receive military training. Young children can receive military training [1]. Does this mean they should vote? No, because they are immature!

"If you say that there is no major difference between 18-21 year olds, how can you say there is a difference between 16-18 year olds? There is a 2 year age difference compared to a 3 year age difference. 21 is when you are 3 years into college at the most, and you are now allowed to drink (which can lead to drunk driving)."

16 - 18 is a more critical age advancement than 18 -21, simply put. Using your own arguments against you, 18 year olds can serve in the military and die for our country, have nearly finished or possibly finished high school, which is basic education, and they are considered ADULTS [2].

"Of course, the amount of 16 year olds that are not mature enough to vote, will most likely NOT vote!"

There is a complete lack of evidence on the Proposition side. 16 year olds can abuse their voting powers and vote without care. Or, a 16 year old could be easily swayed by an ad and cast the "wrong" vote, which I will explain later.

"In my opponent's 3rd and final contention, he stated that 18 is the best minimum age to vote. Yet, all the reasons he listed show absolutely no reason..."

18 is the best minimum age to vote because 18 year olds are more mature and can serve for our country and are considered adults.

Finally, considering the "wrong" vote.
There, believe it or not, are "wrong" votes. The votes that are biased, the votes without care, the votes that were easily swayed by an ad or commercial... These are all wrong votes! And this is much more likely to occur from 16 - 17, than 18 - however long you still wish to have your opinion heard.

Arguments

1. 16 year olds are too immature. This basically corresponds with the "wrong" vote. 16 year olds are too easily taken over by flashy commercials or have the same opinions their parents do, without truly understanding government and politics.

2. 16 year olds do not need to vote. Why can't they simply wait two more years? There will not be a major turnout in all elections and a very small difference might be made, but not large enough to completely alter the outcome of an election.

3. 18 is the best age to have people vote. These people are mature, trustworthy, responsible, can form own opinions, and are adults and completely have the right to vote.

These are the three arguments that have continued past this debate, whereas my opponent has had all of his refuted.

Who you should vote for:

Conduct: CON
Reason: The Proposition has called the Opposition's arguments, "means nothing." He has directly insulted the Opposition's own character using words such as, "confused," I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't understand sarcasm, essentially, and "continues to ignore." Also, my opponent has plagiarized from a source.

Arguments: CON
Reason: All CON arguments have been unrefuted. All PRO arguments have been refuted.

Spelling/Grammar: Tie/CON
Reason: Various grammatical errors on PRO side. Unsure of CON side's grammar, but my opinion is that the CON has had better spelling/grammar. Your decision.

Sources: CON
Reason: CON has more sources, all reliable. PRO possesses 1 source, which he commonly copied and pasted off of.

For these reasons, please vote for the negation of this resolution!
Thank you for a wonderful debate.

Sources:
1. http://www.mysummercamps.com...
2. http://www.philforhumanity.com...
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ark428 6 years ago
ark428
Point was refuted.
Posted by LukeSchreiner 6 years ago
LukeSchreiner
And furthermore, pro, all of the 'rights' you stated that 16 year olds have are all based on parent permission. They need parent permission to marry, to recieve military training, etc. They probably discussed the desicions with their parents, learned from their parents. If they were allowed to vote, they'd discuss politics with their parents, and therefore would heavily bias the system.
Posted by LukeSchreiner 6 years ago
LukeSchreiner
Erm...are you claiming that 16 year olds pay taxes? Income tax, maybe, but the way you say it, it's like they're paying property tax, and any other tax you can think of. 16 year olds are not nessessarily tax-paying citizens
Posted by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
Absolutely Ludicrous. If any type of voting it should be over 21 (In my opinion).

pla·gia·rize: Take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.
Google definitions.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
I'll take up this debate some time.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Sorry, buddy. Do more research for debates, mind all the best arguments you can, site sources, and work on your refutations. If you have the burden of proof in a debate and you don't refute your opponent you're likely to lose.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Conduct: Tie
Arguments: Con
Spelling and Grammar: Tie
Sources: Obvious Con

Personally I agreed before and after the debate with Con.

I can't vote but hey at least you know what I think.
Posted by ark428 6 years ago
ark428
just so you guys know, this is the third debate i've ever done.
Posted by ark428 6 years ago
ark428
I know that, and agree. Although I have listed my source it is no longer plaigerism
Posted by debateboy 6 years ago
debateboy
Wendell, you totally plagiarized. Don't deny it.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by LukeSchreiner 6 years ago
LukeSchreiner
ark428XStrikeXTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
ark428XStrikeXTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
ark428XStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
ark428XStrikeXTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by superdebater 6 years ago
superdebater
ark428XStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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