The Instigator
randyb
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
johngriswald
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

There should be no voting age

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
johngriswald
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,265 times Debate No: 10312
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

randyb

Pro

There should be no voting age. If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote? The argument that youth "should not vote because they lack the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions is valid only if that standard is applied to all citizens." But yet this standard is not applied to all citizens, only young people. "We do not deprive a senile person of this right, nor do we deprive any of the millions of alcoholics, neurotics, psychotics and assorted fanatics who live outside hospitals of it. We seldom ever prevent those who are hospitalized for mental illness from voting.
johngriswald

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for making this debate.

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for her affirmation.

Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I affirm that there should be no age restrictions when it comes to voting on our federal, state, and local officials.

Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define any terms in either your affirmation or supporting information that may be unclear to readers and/or your opponent. You can also explain what you mean about points in your affirmation if they could possibly come across as unclear

Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why there should be no voting age. This should include factual information (Please cite your sources), logical reasoning, and all the benefits such an action would cause. You can also refute any reasons you might think could be brought up as a con

Thanks and good luck on the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
randyb

Pro

I don't want to sound like a retard, but what did you just say up there?
johngriswald

Con

Extend my position.
Debate Round No. 2
randyb

Pro

So let me see if I have this straight. You want me to source my argument?

Here is the National Youth Rights Association (NYRA) website:
http://www.youthrights.org...
johngriswald

Con

Extend my position

You don't have this straight. Again if you are unclear or have any questions PM me, or ask me them in the comments section.

I want you to do everything I stated in Round 1. It couldn't possibly be any clearer.

In short:

1. Make a clear affirmation
2. Define any terms in either your affirmation or supporting information
3. Cite all points you make that aren't merely logical ones with a direct link to what you are talking about
4. Make logical points about why there should be no voting age. Your only points so far only emphasize why there should be further restrictions on voting, not why there should be less. The reasoning you have given makes no logical sense. You are basically saying: "We let tons of other incompetent people vote, so lets increase that incompetency by letting children vote too" To which I respond, shouldn't we be striving towards more competent voters, not less competent? Show me the benefits no age restrictions etc. Could newborns vote? Could anyone that speaks vote? All valid things to put in your explanation.
Debate Round No. 3
randyb

Pro

OK here goes:

In 1971 the United States ratified the 26th Amendment to the Constitution granting the right to vote to 18-20-year-olds. The 26th Amendment was the fastest to be ratified in U.S. history. At the height of the Vietnam War most Americans realized the sick double standard inherent in sending 18-year-old soldiers to fight and die for their country when they weren't allowed to vote. Double standards didn't go away in 1971. Right now youth are subject to adult criminal penalties despite lacking the right to vote.

Frank Zimring found that "Between 1992 and 1995, forty American states relaxed the requirements for transferring an accused under the maximum age of jurisdiction into criminal court,"2 and "In Colorado, for example, defendants under the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction may nonetheless be charged by direct filing in criminal court if they are over 14 years of age and are charged with one of a legislative list of violent crimes."3

What kind of twisted message do we send when we tell youth they are judged mature, responsible adults when they commit murder, but silly, brainless kids when they want to vote? This is a double standard, no different than during the Vietnam War. War isn't a dead issue now either, leaders who youth can't vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Lowering the voting age is the just, fair way to set things straight.

Youth pay taxes, live under our laws, they should have the vote

Just like all other Americans, young Americans pay taxes. In fact, they pay a lot of taxes. Teens pay an estimated $9.7 Billion dollars in sales taxes alone.4 Not to mention many millions of taxes on income, according to the IRS, "You may be a teen, you may not even have a permanent job, but you have to pay taxes on the money you earn."5 And teens do work: 80% of high school students work at some point before graduation.6 Youth pay billions in taxes to state, local, and federal governments yet they have absolutely no say over how much is taken. This is what the American Revolution was fought over; this is taxation without representation.

In addition to being affected by taxes, young people are affected by every other law that Americans live under. As fellow citizens in this society, every action or inaction taken by lawmakers affects youth directly, yet they have no say in the matter. In her 1991 testimony before a Minnesota House subcommittee, 14-year-old Rebecca Tilsen had this to say:

"If 16-year-olds are old enough to drink the water polluted by the industries that you regulate, if 16-year-olds are old enough to breathe the air ruined by garbage burners that government built, if 16-year-olds are old enough to walk on the streets made unsafe by terrible drugs and crime policies, if 16-year-olds are old enough to live in poverty in the richest country in the world, if 16-year-olds are old enough to get sick in a country with the worst public health-care programs in the world, and if 16-year-olds are old enough to attend school districts that you underfund, then 16-year-olds are old enough to play a part in making them better."

The just power of government comes from the consent of the governed, as it stands now youth are governed (overly so, some may say) but do not consent. This is un-American. Like all tax-paying, law-abiding Americans, youth must be given the right to vote.

Politicians will represent their interests if youth can vote

Politicians represent various constituencies; currently young people are no one's constituency. Why should politicians care about the needs and wishes of youth when they have no ability to vote for or against them? Lowering the voting age will give politicians a real reason to respect the desires of young people.

Youth feel alienated from politics and politicians, lowering the voting age will include them in the process. The words spoken before the Senate Judicary Committee supporting lowering the voting age in 1971 are as true then as they are now, "The anachronistic voting-age limitation tends to alienate them from systematic political processes and to drive them to into a search for an alternative, sometimes violent, means to express their frustrations over the gap between the nation's deals and actions. Lowering the voting age will provide them with a direct, constructive and democratic channel for making their views felt and for giving them a responsible stake in the future of the nation." 7

Youth have a unique perspective, they'll never have those experiences again

A common argument against lowering the voting age is that it isn't a burden to wait a few years. Denying youth the right to vote isn't the same as denying women or racial minorities, according to opponents, since in a few years young people will grow up and be able to vote. Why go through the trouble to lower the age to 16 when after two years they'll be able to vote anyways? Were it that simple, then perhaps, but it isn't.

Would it be acceptable to limit the right to vote to those with a certain income, reasoning that it is a flexible standard, those will less income must only work harder or wait till they too make enough to vote? No it wouldn't. Voters vote based on their individual circumstances, when those circumstances change often so do their voting habits. The concerns of a 14 year old are different than that of a 24 year old, just as the concerns of a poor man differ from that of a rich man. The beliefs and priorities of 16 year olds as a class are unique to them; we cannot expect former 16 year olds to have as accurate a perspective as those who are currently that age. If we care at all about the needs and desires of youth, they must be allowed to vote for themselves.

16 is a better age to introduce voting than 18; 16 year olds are stationary

Currently the right to vote is granted at perhaps the worst possible moment in one's life. At 18 many youth leave the home and community they have lived for most their life, either to go away to college or to move away from home in search of work. At the moment they are supposed to vote they either have a new community that they are unfamiliar with or they must attempt to vote absentee back home, a process that turns off many new voters.

Lowering the voting age to 16 will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, have an appreciation for local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those just two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings, school, parents, and stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote. Lower the voting age, and youth will vote.

Lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout

For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life.

I ran out of characters. Post your argument then I will finish mine.
johngriswald

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his excellent response.

However I would like to tell him, that I do not debate others' points. I will only debate his points.

Next time, do not copyright your points. Put your arguments into your own words.

http://www.youthrights.org...

Extend my position, my opponent's entire argument is plagiarized.
Debate Round No. 4
randyb

Pro

randyb forfeited this round.
johngriswald

Con

Extend my position/arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
In before the buzzer.
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
All points to John, Pro's argument was 100% copy pasted.
Posted by randyb 7 years ago
randyb
I will also post my sources.
Posted by randyb 7 years ago
randyb
The same thing could be done in a nursing home situation. E.g:

Kid: "vote obama or no more medical care"
Posted by basketball_duncker 7 years ago
basketball_duncker
The problem with this would be at there could be unfair pressure put on the childeren by their parents or alteratuly the children could be manipulated by the parents which would just give the "stupid adults" more of a vote.
Posted by randyb 7 years ago
randyb
Anarchy.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Alternatives to voting:
-Divine dictate
-Platoan Oligarchy
-Anarchy
Pick wisely, I need a lol.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
If you have no solid arguments, an out would be that there should be no voting.
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
What exactly are you unclear about randyb? Next time, try not to waste an entire round with something that could be done through the comments or through a personal message.
Posted by randyb 7 years ago
randyb
And how do I do that?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
randybjohngriswaldTied
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 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
randybjohngriswaldTied
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 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 Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
randybjohngriswaldTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07