The Instigator
Koolman123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WAM
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Uk 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...
WAM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 274 times Debate No: 80347
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Koolman123

Pro

Why can young people drive cars but not vote? Why should sixteen year olds not vote. There is a sixteen year old can speak fifteen fluent languages. Is his brain not developed enough. My son is seven and he is trilingual. His brain is not fully developed but he understands and that's what matters.
WAM

Con

Kind Regards for this Debate. I will be representing the Con side of the debate, meaning that I will Debate against young individuals voting in the UK, as this seems to be the topic Pro wants to debate.

Opening Statement:

Personally I believe that a grand part of the population should not vote, and this part most definitely involves the group of individuals of under 18.

First however, I would like to address Pro's assumption that the ability to speak languages is directly connected to the ability to vote. To make it clear, a monkey could vote, all it involves is ticking a box, if trained, a grand number of animals would have that ability. This thus proposes the question if they should vote. The short answer is no. There is no reason for animals to vote, as they cannot comprehend the action nor the result of their vote. This is exactly the same reason why I believe that individuals under 18 should not vote, as, first of all, there is no reason for them to vote as they are not fully implemented into society, as they attend school, as well as them not possessing any knowledge of politics or what their vote influences. I will go into this deeper later, but now to the second and above already addressed point of Pro that the ability to speak language implies an ability to vote. It does not. While there may be a teenager who speaks X amount of languages this does not imply that this teenager has any knowledge of politics. Was it a teenager who studied politics for X amount of years and had a grand knowledge of politics this would be a different issue, however in today's school system politics, as well as general history are subjects that are not well studied, with thus results in the majority of individuals not having any clue about politics, whether they are young or old.

While Pros child may be 7 and be trilingual (which I very heavily doubt), Pros child most likely does not know a lot about politics and probably does not have an own opinion about issues nor would know how to vote for something that would support themselves.

Furthermore, http://theconversation.com... states that the majority of young voters vote for the greens. Having seen that the Greens are the most active in 'recruiting' young voters at universities and such and having spoken to many of them, while I am in no way interested in voting, nor vote, it became very very clear that these individuals have little to no knowledge of politics. That however seems to go for the majority of young voters.


Conclusion:

To summarise, young individuals, as well as many other individuals, should not vote. Voting is for educated people who know what their vote does. Young individuals do not possess this kind of skill. If there was mandatory, unbiased political education in schools, this would be a different issue, but as there is not, there is no reason for young individuals to vote. Furthermore there seems to be the trend of young individuals to vote for parties who they either think will not be influenced by their vote, as they do not know who to vote for (this majorly happens in countries with mandatory voting) or may even vote for parties which seem rebellious or different (such as legalize marijuana parties, which don't do anything), simply as they do not have an actual, proper political opinion. Just on the side, who do you think is going to "vote" for Kanye West as president if he runs in 2020?

Besides, intelligence also does not have anything to do with being able to vote. You need to know what you are voting for. And most young individuals do not know this. Which is why there is no reason for them to vote. And why they should not vote.


Kind Regards, I am looking forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Koolman123

Pro

Koolman123 forfeited this round.
WAM

Con

No need for extensions nor rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
Koolman123

Pro

you are rong and u are silly
WAM

Con

Kind regards for your reply.
I will now present the conclusion, as well as making some rebuttals.

Final Round Rebuttals and Conclusion:
Pro has neither displayed any valid arguments nor has attempted any form or sort of valid rebuttal. Indeed, Pros statement and most meager, but to be honest entirely useless attempt at debate and rebuttal actually proves the point Con tried to bring across.

Furthermore, Pros incapability of spelling 'wrong' correctly, as well as the simple lack of effort in writing 'you', yes, 'u' saved two letters, 'y' and 'o', and did not bring any credit to your case by doing so, coupled with Pros assumption that Cons case is 'rong' and that Con is 'silly' creates the concerning display that Con presented in round 1. Voting is for people who are willing to educate themselves about what their vote does, if they neither care about who they vote for nor about what they vote for, they shall not engage in the practice.

Not attempting to be offensive or to insult, however, Pros lack of argument as well as their non existing ability to display coherent thought, but rather to state one is wrong and silly, without any justification, proof or evidence thereof, makes one consider if Pro could fall under named above category.

Therefore, as no actual case has been laid before, no evidence was provided, nor was there a valid form of rebuttal, Con will have to stand by their original statement, that young individuals should not vote.

Kind regards to pro, thanks to all readers and voters. Have a nice day.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
Koolman123WAMTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Stefanwaal 1 year ago
Stefanwaal
Koolman123WAMTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided arguments while pro was just blurring out nonsense and forfeiting. It's clear con was the better debater.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Koolman123WAMTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture