The Instigator
KernGordon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
prunesquallor
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

should kids be aloud to vote

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
prunesquallor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,350 times Debate No: 35259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

KernGordon

Con

I believe Children should be children they should enjoy their lives and not have to worry about law and sh1t.
I believe the legal age of voting is fine as it is and children would make careless mistakes because they do not understand the world enough to make big choices as big as voting.
prunesquallor

Pro

My opponent has put forth a very formidable contention- whether or not children should be "aloud" to vote.

aloud: with relatively high volume;

My opponent reasons that children should not be "aloud" to vote since "they should enjoy their lives and not worry about law and sh*t". Although his assertion is recursively intellectual (i.e.) infinitely complex, I will try to make sense of it. Basically, my opponent contends that children can vote- but they should do so silently (i.e.) not aloud.

As to why he thinks that the decebel volume makes a difference to the vote cast, I can only surmise. Perhaps, he means to say that a silent vote is no vote at all (since no one would get to hear it) and therefore it is as good as not allowing children to vote.

As you can see, I have- through a maze of infinite perfidiousness reached a conclusion that is formidable indeed. I have, in other words, dropped the metaphoric axe on my own foot.

Even so, I assert that children should be "aloud" to vote (i.e.) they should cast their votes in the loudest manner possible (which also happens to be the default reflex for children). However, in a sense I also agree with my opponent that such votes should not count. Now, I am quite certain that the number of children who voluntarily agree to vote is going to be quite small in any case. But the votes of the children who do cast a ballot, however loudly- can be discreetly abandoned.

Therefore, I contend that children should be "aloud" to vote yet their votes should not count.
Debate Round No. 1
KernGordon

Con

If you say "they should vote but it shouldn't count" you are basically agreeing to my point because if it doesn't count then its like their not even voting.
And I wasn't talking about volume so what the hell are you talking that is completely irrelevant.
Just because I said "aloud" don't mean I'm talking of volume we're talking if kids should vote not if they should be loud or quiet.
Though they are putting some paper in a box just for it not to count what is the point in that.
If you are saying "they should vote but it shouldn't count" shouldn't that just mean that no one will take them seriously at all, as if children didn't get treated like crap by adults already.
prunesquallor

Pro

Again, my opponent has executed a streak of earth shattering wit and intelligence. He argues that the mere usage of the word "aloud" should not be taken as an attempt to reference a property of sound and volume, rather, the meaning should be extracted from the incohorent phrases that my opponent has seemingly perfected. I cannot help but be surprised at such a penetrating combination of logic and reason, and have to grudgingly concede to his contention.

He asserts that if a child is allowed to vote but that vote does not count, the child hasn't voted at all. This, indeed, is sound reasoning and has led me to wonder what foolishness waylaid me into arguing against such formidable an opponent. My opponent states that there is "no point" to such a vote, and therefore it isn't a prudent decision to establish such a system of voting. I will agree to my opponent's line of reasoning, but through the same logic it must imply that each and every action of a child has a certain "point" to it, and this "point" is grounded in logic- explanations such as "it is fun to do so" are not acceptable.

Therefore, I have decided to ask a question the answer to which has alluded me for years- "What is the point of a child swallowing shirt buttons ?" If my opponent manages to give a logical answer to this question, I am willing to contemplate over his query.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
KernGordon

Con

what is wrong with you going around saying random crap your argument is irrelevant and if you weren't going to be serious go to your mom's house which you live in and don't throw a tantrum when yo mom ask you to wash the dishes.
I know I'm going off topic But I'm done with yo @ss and your off topic arguments
prunesquallor

Pro

I believe the word is "eluded", when I used "alluded" in the last round. But it does not seem to worry my opponent because he has seen it fit to ignore anything I say, calling it "off topic".

I noticed that my opponent is 13 years old, a bit too late to be noticing such things, but explains the feeling of amusement that has steadily accompanied me in this debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Blitzkrieg 3 years ago
Blitzkrieg
I am against children voting( I am a fifteen year old), however the person representing my view is obviously unequipped. They are not losing because they are wrong, they are losing because you don't know how to make a decent point. (Maybe start with a healthy dose of spell check) :)
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
OP, you got this wrong. I think you meant "should kids be 'allowed' to vote" instead of "should children be 'aloud' to vote".
Posted by Sleezehead 3 years ago
Sleezehead
We should have as competent of voters as possible. Children aren't taught politics and economics at such a young age. Not even teenagers. Children would be easily bribed to vote for who their peers influenced them to.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
KernGordonprunesquallorTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "children would make careless mistakes because they do not understand the world enough to make big choices as big as voting". Nonsense. Not all children are the same. Not all of them don't understand the world enough to vote. It's like saying all humans are the same, which isn't the least bit true. They can vote IF they want to, yes.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
KernGordonprunesquallorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro because 1. I'm a huge fan of Semantics, 2. Con never countered, anything, 3. "I believe" has no place in a debate. Conduct because derp, Spelling because "allowed".
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
KernGordonprunesquallorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for con's constant ad hominem attacks and cursing (most prominent in round 3). Spelling and Grammar goes to Pro because of Con's constant run on sentences and mis-spelling of words. Pro wins arguments with his use of the word "aloud" being his central argument which was never refuted by Con. Sources are a tie for neither side used them.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 3 years ago
airmax1227
KernGordonprunesquallorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Con's profanity in R1, R2 and R3. The debate ended up being mostly lead by the pro who naturally focused on the terminology (wrongly) used by con. While Con could have corrected the term "Aloud" (should be allowed) in a later round, he never did and the resolution stood as is as Pro continued to define it. Pro taking the intended same position as con that children shouldn't be allowed to vote, but arguing should be "aloud" when doing so, was never refuted in his arguments. Therefore Pro's arguments went unopposed. In R3 when Con could have refuted Pro's arguments he instead went on a rant, dismissing the rest of the debate. So Args to Pro.