The Instigator
lord_megatron
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
BoggleBros37
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16

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...
lord_megatron
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 458 times Debate No: 92861
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

lord_megatron

Pro

Yes it should be reduced as most adults are ill-informed and teenagers are still in school so they at least get bits and pieces of politics in history and other subjects. I don't see why I need to be 18 to cast a foolish vote.
BoggleBros37

Con

I accept and will have an opening statement in round 2
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Pro

Give your rebuttals in round 2 along with the opening argument.
The voting age should be lowered as it would give a wider range of voters and give more free will to students.
Wider range of voters
Not all people in a country are even interested in politics, much less for voting. Furthermore, adults can be paid to vote, but children have a more idealistic sense and may be harder to corrupt. Children would be harder to buy as they haven't seen the real world yet, therefore believe that their vote matters and that they should be loyal towards their country in voting. Furthermore, as children don't earn money, they don't understand the difficulty of earning money and therefore would need more money for their vote to be bought.
Free will
Decisions of the political party severely impact teenagers, such as changes in the age limits of drinking, driving, gambling, and movies. Then why they don't have a right to choose their future?
BoggleBros37

Con

There's a bunch of reasons why the voting age shouldn't be lowered

The average 16 year old would be completely uninterested in politics and wouldn't even know the importance of voting. There are only a small minority of 15-16 who are interested in politics and want to help change their country. If the voting age was lowered to 15-16 then the kids would vote which one is "the cool one", also candidates could easily the vote from a child by promising to destroy homework or by making detentions illegal while on the other side that same candidate is about to make bad decisions for the country. Con states that "Children would be harder to buy" which is false. You could pay a child almost any amount to do something especially if it was just voting, the child would see that as writing on a piece of paper. Children are easily corrupted especially at a young age, this is why we shouldn't lower the voting age.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Pro

As for interest in politics, those not interested may not vote either, and the same case is for most adults. I know a person who spins a dice to choose who he votes for. He is about 45.
Children are also very active on social media and would know about the current events from there.
No candidate has try asserting the claim for no homework, for otherwise college students would have voted for him. Moreover, by the age of 15 we all know deleting homework is irrational, and we know we can't trust any politician. Lastly, detentions are useless as the child is required to sit idle for hours, rather than studying during that time. I support the removal of detention.
As for corruption, children are harder to buy as they have a sense of justice which is not yet corrupted by the harsh world. Also, tattletales would report such incidents to the police, while adults usually fear the reciprocation after reporting.
Even adults are not doing responsible voting, especially when I got to know Trump won in a few states. Children voting would have had a different outcome. Furthermore, 15 to 16 is relatively not a young age and are intelligent enough to make a wise vote.
Vote pro.
BoggleBros37

Con

If we were to lower the voting age to 15-16 then governments (of some countries) would force kids to vote like they do for adults and it'd be pointless because majority of all the children voting wouldn't know the importance of voting. My opponent then states that children are very active on social media and would know about the current events from there which is useless. Children on social media don't even pay attention to the news, especially if it was concerning politics. Pro keeps stating that Children are harder to buy because they have this "Sense of justice", children are already becoming corrupted because of social media. Any kid would be willing to sign a piece of paper for $10 or less, why? because to them, it's something meaningless. This is why we shouldn't lower the voting age, you wouldn't want ignorant children choosing the future for your country.
Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 10 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
Great debate.
I'm going to vote for this debate, hoping that nobody reports it :) Just kidding.
I will show my RFD by showing the first side's arguments in a round and the other side's rebuttal for them. Then I'll do the same for the other side
RFD

PRO R2
PRO starts the debate with 2 arguments, Free will, and wide range of voters. In this argument he says that many adults don't vote or vote irrationally and so on... and children don't get bribed easily... CON refutes that point by saying that it is the opposite, tou can bribe a child by 10 dollars and tell him to sign on a paper.
In the free will argument, PRO had a very good point that teenagaers would be highly affected by the governement/ the new government, and gave an example of age limits.

CON R2
CON stated that children of 15-16 would be, even if not all of them, completely unintersted in politics. PRO refuted this by saying that those who have no interest aren't forced. They may not vote. He also stated that children would vote for the cool one, such as the one who promises them to remove homework or cancel detention. PRO refuted this by saying that removing homework is totally irrational, and nobody will vote for it. As for cancelling detention, PRO says that cancelling detention is a good thing as it just wastes precious time. Pro also refutes this point by saying that children have a sense of justice. PRO adds that children would report these bribes to the police, where adults don't, by fear of reciprocation after reporting.

PRO R3
PRO had nothing but rebuttal, which I already have shown in CON R2. No new arguments.

CON R3
CON says that kids would be forced to vote. PRO has already refuted this point in previous round. The last argument worth mentioning was that children dont pay attention to the news even if they are very active.

OVER ALL, PRO REFUTED ALL OF CON'S ARGUMENTS AND HAD VERY POWERFUL POINTS. CON ALSO REFUTED PRO'S POINTS, BUT NOT WITH THE SAME POWER.
Thnx,

Adil,
Qa
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 10 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
Done. Thnx.
Posted by lord_megatron 10 months ago
lord_megatron
Just change sides in the vote here column and click cast vote again, it shall be edited to support the side you wished to
Posted by lord_megatron 10 months ago
lord_megatron
You can edit your vote
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 10 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
Sorry, I voted CON WHERE I WANTED TO VOTE PRO
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 10 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
Greal debate.
I'm going to vote for this debate, hoping that nobody reports it :) Just kidding.
I will show my RFD by showing the first side's arguments in a round and the other side's rebuttal for them. Then I'll do the same for the other side
RFD

PRO R2
PRO starts the debate with 2 arguments, Free will, and wide range of voters. In this argument he says that many adults don't vote or vote irrationally and so on... and children don't get bribed easily... CON refutes that point by saying that it is the opposite, tou can bribe a child by 10 dollars and tell him to sign on a paper.
In the free will argument, PRO had a very good point that teenagaers would be highly affected by the governement/ the new government, and gave an example of age limits.

CON R2
CON stated that children of 15-16 would be, even if not all of them, completely unintersted in politics. PRO refuted this by saying that those who have no interest aren't forced. They may not vote. He also stated that children would vote for the cool one, such as the one who promises them to remove homework or cancel detention. PRO refuted this by saying that removing homework is totally irrational, and nobody will vote for it. As for cancelling detention, PRO says that cancelling detention is a good thing as it just wastes precious time. Pro also refutes this point by saying that children have a sense of justice. PRO adds that children would report these bribes to the police, where adults don't, by fear of reciprocation after reporting.

PRO R3
PRO had nothing but rebuttal, which I already have shown in CON R2. No new arguments.

CON R3
CON says that kids would be forced to vote. PRO has already refuted this point in previous round. The last argument worth mentioning was that children dont pay attention to the news even if they are very active.

OVER ALL, PRO REFUTED ALL OF CON'S ARGUMENTS AND HAD VERY POWERFUL POINTS. CON ALSO REFUTED PRO'S POINTS, BUT NOT WITH THE SAME POWER.
Thnx,
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 10 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
no sources :/
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheWorldIsComplicated// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. Con had ether points like the average 16 year old not caring a lot about Politics. Con also had a good point about them being easy to corrupt. Con debunked Pro's points whether you can trust the children to be able to vote.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess points made by both sides. In this case, the voter stated that some of Con's points were strong, and then stated that Pro's points were debunked, the latter of which isn't an assessment of the given arguments made by that debater.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ericfleishman// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to make a more logical debate, as well as provided more realistic arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or S&G. (2) This RFD is too overgeneralized. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides in the debate as part of assessing arguments. Assessments that one side was more logical and realistic need to be furnished with examples from the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by Cxaxukluth 11 months ago
Cxaxukluth
Neither provided any evidence for their claims. Lol.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JustVotingTiedDebates 10 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
lord_megatronBoggleBros37Tied
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: RFD IN COMMENTS