The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

The lowering of the voting age>>>

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 66657
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Until the age twenty-five, the human brain is not at its full potential and the human being has not yet developed foresight, or an ability to see consequences in advance, however some develop quicker than others, by far the majority do not.
What I am trying to say, is that humans can't predict how their choices will affect their own- and others- lives until the age of twenty-five. By lowering the age limit on how old someone can be to be able to vote would be the suicide of this nation (the United States).


Where oh where to begin...

For starters, this is an insult to those who are 24 and have graduated college. Especially those who have graduated Yale, Harvard, MIT, or any other ivy-league school. I will even go as far as to say some 14 year olds have the brain capacity to vote intelligently, although I'm not saying that we should lower the voting age to 14.

You are applying a small statistic to a vast number of people. Your argument is just completely illogical and it's, as I said, an insult to many of the middle-aged voters in the United States. 25 year olds are able to see the ramifications of their actions quite clearly whether it be voting, driving, or anything else.
Debate Round No. 1


First, just because you went to Ivy-League college doesn't mean you know everything.
Second, my argument is completely logical and is completely supported by hundreds sources and is backed up entirely by science.
Third, the more educated a person is, the more mature that person will become and the can make better choices. However I understand that people are not immature until age twenty-five, but on average the human brain is not fully developed.
Fourth, the more mature people are, the better off our nation will be (the United States). Its that simple. There is nothing more to it.


I never stated that all Ivy-League college graduates know everything, but they certainly know enough to be able to vote at age 23 or 25. Secondly, you never stated any statistics or sources. The rest of your Round 2 argument confuses me and I would appreciate it if you cleared it up.
Debate Round No. 2

It's all pasted right there. However in your first argument you gave no facts or sources and all of your statements were opinions. That goes to show how illegitimate your "arguments" were. When you said that a fourteen-year old could have the brain capacity to vote wisely, you are wrong, a fourteen-year old would still be undergoing many changes in his or her mind. This includes synaptic or neural pruning (they are the same thing), or when a brain starts strengthening often used synapses, or pruning unused synapses. As sourced below.
This goes to show how young adults (at least twenty and below) are only still developing.
I also wonder are you really for the lowering of the voting age in the U.S., or are you just disagreeing with my first argument?


There are also studies that show that not all brains develop the same way:

You can't take one statistic and apply it to everyone. I admit that not all 14 year olds have the capacity to vote intelligently, but I also am going to say that some 14 year olds do.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and would usually be disregarded in a real debate tournament.

I don't have a personal opinion on this matter. I could go either way.
Debate Round No. 3


First, you are using the same argument over and over again about how my statistics do not apply to everybody. In that case you are correct. There may be in fact teens who can vote wisely, but I suspect that it would be a minuscule percentage and could not be taken to a real debate. I also agree that generally Wikipedia is an unreliable source, but I believe that the information is accurate for this topic. But here are some more reliable sources.
All of these suggest that the brain does not fully develop until the 20s. however I could not find any statistics comparing my statements to the U.S. population.


The United States has some of the best colleges in the world, therefore producing some of the best minds in the world. Thousands of students graduate from our Ivy colleges with brilliant minds and continue to go on to being great inventors, scientists, etc. And I would like to remind you that I am not arguing for the voting age to be 16, but rather 21, which is the drinking age. If you keeping the status quo because some people aren't capable of making correct decisions, why not raise the drinking age as well? Hundreds die per year because of drunk drivers and other drinking-related accidents.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by briandvs 1 year ago
I totally can't understand the reason why people argue to lower the voting age. Seriously, what will you gain after lowering the voting age? What are the advantages except for "the rights of teenagers"?
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
Until a person gets out there and has to deal in the real world, work, pay your own way, then they are not ready to vote. That is why ALL welfare freeloaders should not have the privilege to vote.That is also why anyone under 21 should not vote. They have not heard both sides. Just what their parents have told them.
Posted by dontdebateme 1 year ago
It all depends really. Some13 year olds know very well how to vote properly and how to make important decisions and even some 30 year olds can't do it.
Posted by Bob_Manbook 1 year ago
I find your argument insulting to those of age 24
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
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: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Pro. This was a difficult debate to judge. Both debaters started off by making generalized claims that needed to be supported by evidence. Con's strongest argument at this point is that mature people make better decisions and most people fully mature at 25 years old. Pro rebuts this by pointing out college grads younger than 25 and how they'd be competent enough. The burden on Pro was to show that the voting age should be lowered, which he said to 21. He was able to show that there were people younger than 25 who were capable of voting and thus fulfilled his burden. Con's was to show that a majority of people under 25 weren't capable of doing so, since he was advocating a change to the status quo the biggest burden fell on him. By failing to fulfill that burden, Con loses. I'd like to point out that the voting age is 18 in U.S. btw. Narrow win for Pro.