The Instigator
flint149
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

should students under 18 be active participants in politics

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 6 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 753 times Debate No: 66822
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

flint149

Con

Students under 18 are really just children. The most important time in a persons life, is their childhood. They don't need to remember constant political arguments. Nor should they have to face the mental stress that comes with constantly remembering all views and opinions of each debate. Children should be educated in our countries past before having a say that could change our future. I agree, some kids have the maturity to make smart educated decisions, yet most lack the knowledge that they need to come to a well thought out decision. So,no, children shouldn't have a say in politics.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

I want to thank Con for instigating this thought-provoking debate and expect it to be a good one!

Since I am Pro, I will present my arguments immediately. I'll also include my rebuttals directed towards the arguments already raised by Con in R1.

I. The importance of politics

I'd like to immediately bring to light the importance of learning about politics. Politics is defined as: The activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. [1]

Now that I've defined it though, the question still persists - why is it important?

In looking at the definition, we can see that politics relates to the activities associated with governing others - be it an entire nation, a state, or even your local town. The actions of everything related to governing others, in an official capacity, is encapsulated within the term 'politics'. The reason it is important to learn about the mechanics of these activities is because it is the government which is responsible for providing and maintaining the fundamental things which keep us alive. It is the government which is in charge of our military, of upholding our laws or making changes when necessary, of balancing the budget, etc., even in the local sense the government is responsible for the quality of our water, the maintenance of our roads and highways, or even town ordinances.

Still though, why is it important for children under the age of 18?

The reason is simple, it is our children which will eventually be left to make the decisions. Someday, those children might grow up to be politicians themselves, or perhaps they may grow up to be apathetic citizens who fail to involve themselves and then complain about the current state of things. The choice is theirs, but it is up to us to at-least expose them to the option of that choice in the first place. By giving them that option, we are opening a path for them to become leaders themselves someday.

The potential knowledge, benefits, and freedom of choice far outweighs the lack of knowledge, lack of options, and lack of freedom that would come if we didn't at-least impart such things to our children.

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

II. Being politically active leads to hands-on knowledge and experience

"Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn." - Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin captured a pretty common truth found amongst most people. Being involved in something generally leads to a greater depth of experience than merely being told or taught about it. For instance, I could read about building a car engine, I could even watch someone do it right next to me and listen as they explain the process, but until I actually build one myself I'll never have the 'feel' for it, that fundamental experience of actually doing it myself.

The same notion can be applied to politics. By actively participating in politics you get that first-hand experience that you might not be able to gain otherwise. For instance, you can literally be a part of a change in the current law, which would give you the life-long experience of knowing the mechanics for carrying out change should you ever need to do it again.

Another quick example would be if you are in a small town and your town is suffering from severe water pollution. By actively participating in politics, you might be able to clear up whatever issues are blocking the politicians from enacting higher water standards. This is hypothetical but has potential to be a real-world issue and is one that could benefit from someone who has been participating in politics from an early age.

III. There are plenty of intelligent, capable children under the age of 18

A key reason why I support this resolution is because I believe that failing to educate or inform children under the age of 18 is doing a great injustice to those who are capable and willing to learn.

On this website alone we can see countless children under the age of 18 who partake in intelligent discussions with others on topics relating to politics. This is evident for anyone to see themselves by simply clicking on the 'politics' forum section and scanning a few threads.

I will expand on this with further evidence should I find it truly necessary. I believe, however, that the politics section of this website speaks for itself and shows, without fail, that there are children under the age of 18 who have both the intelligence and desire to discuss and be active in politics.

**Rebuttals**

IV. Students under 18 are really just children.

Since my opponent is making this claim, I will leave it to him to provide evidence supporting this claim. I do not believe that every person under the age of 18 is really just a child. Some of them are highly developed for their age in terms of mentality or physicality. Even the laws in America stating that anyone under the age of 18 isn't an adult is subject to individual discretion. This can be seen every now and then in the court system where someone under the age of 18 is tried as an adult. Furthermore, such laws might not necessarily exist in other nations. So, my opponent needs to prove how "students under 18 are really just children", otherwise it is nothing more than a baseless claim.

V. The most important time in a persons life, is their childhood.

I fully agree, but when this statement is taken alone - it holds no relevance to the debate whatsoever.

The issue is that Con uses this claim as a reason for why "children shouldn't have to remember constant political arguments and the stress of having to remember all views and opinions of each debate".

This is just absurd. Being active in politics doesn't mean that you have to remember *all* views and opinions of each debate, or *constant* political arguments. Being active in politics could be the simple task of painting signs that are to be used while a new bill is being signed, or while protesting. Being active in politics could mean that you are acting as an aide to a local politician or even simply calling your state representative to express your opinion.

There is no such obligation to remember every position, every argument or every aspect of politics. So, for my opponent to think so if a fundamental flaw in his argument. At this point, Con will need to show that such an obligation is a part of being "politically active" because I do not believe so due to the reasons I've just shared above.

VI. Unimportant points

Con additionally presented some irrelevant arguments such as children needing to learn about our history before being active in politics. This has no relevance because in order to be politically active effectively you would necessarily need to know or understand at-least a little bit of our history. Otherwise, you wouldn't be effective regardless.

Lastly Con argues that because some lack the knowledge, they shouldn't have to be politically active. This resolution states *should* -not - *obligated*. This means that even if I win, children wouldn't be *forced* to be politically active, it would still ultimately be up to them.

In closing,

I've presented three arguments affirming the resolution, I've also provided rebuttals for each argument raised by Con.

I now return the floor to Con.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 1
flint149

Con

Pro provides some good points. Children under 18 can be tried in Court as an adult, yet only for severe crimes that are beyond the juvenile Court. The child can otherwise ask to be sent to juvenile Court for crimes that don't include rape or murder. Children under 18 can't be expected to know and realize the intensity of their actions or crimes. Just the possibility of the child having to be punished of lack of knowledge or lack of parental vigilance is horrid. Parents normally procrastinate teaching their children about politics and the importance of their decisions until they absolutely have to. I agree that adolescents should be sedately taught the importance of their decisions.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

I want to thank Con for the response, and will move right into the debate.

I. The importance of politics


No response was given to this line of argumentation. Since Con dropped this argument, I extend it.

II. Being politically active leads to hands-on knowledge and experience

No response was given to this line of argumentation. Since Con dropped this argument, I extend it.

III. There are plenty of intelligent, capable children under the age of 18

No response was given to this line of argumentation. Since Con dropped this argument, I extend it.

IV. Students under 18 are really just children.

Con agrees that children under 18 can be tried in Court as an adult. Con then goes on to say that children under 18 can't be expected to know and realize the intensity of their actions or crimes.

Unfortunately for Con, none of this is relevant to the resolution at hand. Let's not turn this into a legal-system debate. The main point of my argument here was to show that not all people under the age of 18 are "children". Con still never rebutted the fact that there are other countries which might not consider anyone under 18 as a child. Nor has Con rebutted the fact that some children develop faster than others in terms of mentality.

For Con to win this line of argumentation, there would need to be proof presented to both myself and the audience that every person under 18 is a child.

V. The most important time in a persons life, is their childhood.

There was no response given to this line of argumentation. I therefore extend it.

VI. Unimportant points

There was no response given to this line of argumentation. I therefore extend it.

In closing,

Con dropped alot of my arguments, and decided to only rebut one specific part of one argument.

I therefore extend all arguments which remain standing unchallenged, and now return the floor to Con.

Thank you.




Debate Round No. 2
flint149

Con

I shall continue the dropped arguments

I do agree that there are many children that have the intelligence to make the necessary decisions. Yet what pro fails to address is that the children that have the necessary intelligence will be more focused with their studies and they would not spend their time to deal with the political arguments of their country. The experience would be virtually wasted on the child and they might never get in politics and their knowledge would never help the government.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

Thank you for continuing the debate Con.

I. Importance of politics & II. Being politically active

Remain unrefuted by Con. Thus I extend both lines of argumentation once again.

III. There are plenty of intelligent, capable children under the age of 18

Con assumes that children with high intelligence will be more focused with their studies. Thus not spending enough time to deal with political arguments from their country.

I find this claim to be widely unsubstantiated. Con have given us no evidence or reasoning to assume that this would be the case, and without proof of this being the case there is no reason to assume that this claim is valid.

For instance, Con has still not denied that there are intelligent children under the age of 18 here on DDO alone who spend their time having intelligent political discussions. With such evidence, I do not believe it is fair to assume that every intelligent child under the age of 18 would be too busy with studies. In fact, I'd argue that some of those kids fully devote their high intelligence to studying politics. You cannot just make a general assumption though Con. That doesn't uphold, especially without proof.

IV. V. & VI.

All three of these arguments were unrefuted by Con, thus I extend them as well.

In closing,

I've provided the rebuttal to the only argument Con made in the previous round. I, therefore, extend all arguments which remained unrefuted by Con as they currently remain standing unchallenged.

I now return the floor to Con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
flint149

Con

flint149 forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

My opponent, Con, has forfeited Round 4.

I, therefore, extend all arguments as they current remain standing unchallenged.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
flint149

Con

flint149 forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

My opponent, Con, has forfeited the final round.

There are several arguments of mine that remain standing unchallenged due to Con dropping them.

Furthermore, I've provided sound rebuttals to each counter-argument raised by Con.

Due to the dropped arguments and forfeits by Con, please vote Pro :)

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
@chey, yup I agree.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I think they should be active. After all, they will be the ones forced by history to pay for this massive debt that those who voted democrat all these decades have bestowed on them.
Posted by rich123 2 years ago
rich123
Of course not there just children who doesn't need to stress themselves or be in apart of politics. Matter of fact lets apologize to all the 18 year old's that are serving in the military and and tell them there to immature to serve and........ I don't think I can do this debate might get a little touchy.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
flint149Blade-of-TruthTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
flint149Blade-of-TruthTied
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 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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by darthebearnc 2 years ago
darthebearnc
flint149Blade-of-TruthTied
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 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: Conduct - Con forfeited and Pro didn't. Arguments - Pro is more detailed, well-explained, and convincing. Sources - Pro used sources while Con didn't.
Vote Placed by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
flint149Blade-of-TruthTied
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: S&G to Pro for several grammatical errors on Con's part, Conduct to Pro due to Con's two FF's, and arguments to Pro as the majority of them were defended and unchallenged.
Vote Placed by Rubikx 2 years ago
Rubikx
flint149Blade-of-TruthTied
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 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: He forfeited so he loses
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
flint149Blade-of-TruthTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: ff