The Instigator
Udel
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The voting age should be reduced to 14.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Udel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 431 times Debate No: 92429
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Udel

Pro

This resolution will be about the United States.

I believe you should be allowed to vote once you turn 14. Another stipulation is that you must also be enrolled in high school or high school equivalence (if home schooled). I will begin my arguments in the next round.
ViceRegent

Con

Heck, no! Today's kids are way too immature and ignorant to be trusted with such a privilege. We need to raise the age to 21 and make it so only male landowners can vote. Liberalism will die in one election cycle.
Debate Round No. 1
Udel

Pro

Originally you had to be 21 to vote in the United States. The voting age was lowered to 18 because young men were being drafted to the Vietnam war before they were old enough to vote. The government changed the voting age because the lives of young people were being directly impacted by government policy, and they believed young people should have a say.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Policy affects everyone including children. Small kids are not smart or informed enough to vote, but older students are exposed to things in school that make them more knowledgeable. In fact school is a great place to talk about politics. Adults are discouraged from talking about politics in public which is considered impolite. But in school, students have the opportunity to learn and discuss things.

http://www.amazon.com...

In most states you can begin working at 14 years old. Teens are working and paying income taxes. They are also paying sales tax on their purchases. By not allowing them to vote, it is taxation without representation.

https://www.dol.gov...

Con says kids are too young or stupid to vote, but that could be said about many adults as well. We don't have a screening process that makes sure people are intelligent enough to vote. Many 14 and 15 year olds are smarter than 18 and 19 year olds, or even 48 and 49 year olds. Age does not determine intelligence or maturity.
ViceRegent

Con

I did not say kids were too stupid, but too ignorant and immature, which you confirmed. And by limiting voting to landholders, we weed out the ignorant and immature.
Debate Round No. 2
Udel

Pro

Con says kids are too ignorant and immature. I did not confirm that, I said that ignorance and maturity is not determined by age. That was the last line of my previous round. It's a shame that Con does not know how to read. Perhaps Con should not be able to vote even though he is 47. If he cannot grasp basic comprehension then he should definitely not be casting a ballot. But the government does not weed out the ignorant and immature. They only weed out by age which I explained is unfair, does not make sense and is contradictory with other values (like no taxation without representation).
ViceRegent

Con

Ignorant, immature, and we can now add irrational. He has made no case for why children should vote. To the contrary, they would simply whine for free goodies, like x-boxes.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: youmils03// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by ViceRegent 11 months ago
ViceRegent
As if I needed more proof of my position, this dude pops up.
Posted by yomama12 11 months ago
yomama12
Look who's talking mister "lets only let male land owners vote because everyone else is stupid". Based on your arguments, I doubt you're even 47. What would a 47 year old be doing on a debate website?
Posted by ViceRegent 11 months ago
ViceRegent
It is amazing how little children cannot see outside of their sexist cages.
Posted by ViceRegent 11 months ago
ViceRegent
Because society should be build by families with an permanent interest in that building. Duh.
Posted by InsaneSanity 11 months ago
InsaneSanity
You are both ridiculous... I'm 16 and I can tell just by looking that if other people my age could vote whatever country that was in would be royally f***ed. Teenagers simply aren't as well informed as we think we are...

And Con: I seriously hope you are just kidding... why the frick would you say that only male landowners should vote?! We're not living in ancient Greece, you know. If you're actually serious then you're a sexist classist a**hole. What stupid logic makes you think that women and non-binary people are too dumb to vote?

If you're both serious then I will sit back and watch the lunacy... *grabs popcorn*
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 11 months ago
FaustianJustice
UdelViceRegentTied
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: No taxation without representation is a hallmark of the US, and indeed, kids pay taxes. Con made no rebuttal to this, and while Con's centerpiece seemed to be related to whom is immature or stupid, Con didn't demonstrate that all, any, or some are to "stupid" as such a defense required.
Vote Placed by blamonkey 11 months ago
blamonkey
UdelViceRegentTied
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: Con used no sources and simply dropped the entirety of Pro's case. Since both insulted each-other, I will not count conduct.
Vote Placed by yomama12 11 months ago
yomama12
UdelViceRegentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Lets face it... Con's arguments were only one or two sentences long each round. Pro actually brought up reasons why the voting age should be lowered, successfully upholding his BOP. Con kept repeating the same argument over and over again, one which Pro also successfully rebutted. Sources also goes to Pro, since Con didn't have any. Con, I suggest you take one of those debating classes in the forums section.