The voting age should be reduced to 16
Debate Rounds (3)
The voting age was set pretending that people would be able to make an analytical election. A random person at age of 16 generally is starting to know how the world works and what to look for in life. Their opinion might be easily influenced by false arguments and the campings could be measured by a lack of truthful proposals.
But, you can not determine case by case who is able to make an intelligent choice. So you have to appeal to well defined segmentations, in this case, by age, and by majorities or average.
The average teenagers has not showed to be enough rational or knower about politics and how does the world work.
If you suggest something to change the status quo you should show some objetive evidence that support your argument.
And I repeat, the main point to set the age to be able to vote are not the taxes, is the maturity of people.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that it is unconstitutional to tax without representation. I disagree with this but con concedesnthis point and offers a counter plan to not tax minors. Pro fails to show why the counterplan would not work as well. Con argued that 16 year olds are typically not knowledgable about politics, which was already addressed by pro when pro stated that many adults also are ignorant of politics. However Con wins on these grounds because he pointed out that we cannot eliminate everyone who is bad from voting, so we havebto focus on these age Demographics. Pro never challenges that argument, so it stands. Congrats on arguments con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate