The Instigator
megha123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dylwal92
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

voting age should be lowere to 16?

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 3 votes the winner is...
dylwal92
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,237 times Debate No: 26942
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

megha123

Pro

53 percent of the world say that it shoul be lowered to 16.16 year olds are mature enough to make important decisions such as voting. Their bodies are fully adult, they have been educated for at least 10 years, and most of them have some experience of work as well as school. All this allows them to form political views and they should be allowed to put these across at election time. There is no magic difference between 16 and 18 - indeed, many 16 year old are more sensible than some 20 year olds.
dylwal92

Con

1. "53 percent of the world say that it should be lowered to 16."

There are two problems with this statement. For one, it goes unsupported by any means and until a source is provided, this parameter will not be accepted in this debate. Secondly, to state that the "world" says the voting age should be lowered to 16 is beyond the scope of America, given that there are several countries such as Austria and Brazil that already have a legal voting age of 16.

2. "16 year old teenagers are mature enough to make important decisions such as voting."

This argument has been made for quite some time, but follows the model of a bandwagon argument. Just because other countries have a legal voting age of 16 does not mean that the same effects in America. The maturity level of 16 year old teenagers is not the same for each 16 year old. There are many 16 year old teenagers that "are more sensible than some 20 year old teenagers," but there is no way to determine levels of maturity, and by extension, there is no way to determine how many 16 year old teenagers are mature "enough" to make important decisions.

3. "Their bodies are fully adult, they have been educated for at least 10 years, and most of them have some experience of work as well as school."

To claim that their bodies are fully adult is completely absurd. Does a 16 year have the same body as a 20 year old? 30 year old? The human brain is not fully developed until age 25 [1], but even then the brain does not stop developing with information provided even after this age. I will stipulate the 16 year old teenagers, if not all, most of them have been educated for at least 10 years; however, it cannot be determined their beliefs on certain prospects that voting entails such as abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, environment, etc. While the age gap between 16 and 18 is small, a lot can happen in those 2 years that they continue education, find their character, and delineate their interests based on what they like and don't like. I agree that the educational factors and the development of a teenager "allows them to form political views," but to state that they "should be allowed to put these across at election time" is widely debated and based off of the information I have provided, they should not be allowed to do such.

[1] http://www.academic.marist.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
megha123

Pro

first of all i would say that you are a very good debator , this is my first debate.
voting age should be lowered to 16 because.....
1.They deserve to have a say.
2.YES, give them the rights they deserve!
2.It would get younger people interested in politics
They deserve to have a say.
If they are now in a responsible stage of their life, they deserve a say on who will decide how their schools will be run through elections!

Yes Because

If a sixteen year old can join the Arm forces, then the right to vote should be allowed.

If the voting age is lowered to 16, then politics could become a GCSE course, meaning they will be fully prepared at an early date, ready for an election if they are 16 for example.

YES, give them the rights they deserve!
yes, I do understand that sixteen year olds are you and some may be irresponsible but that shouldn't determine why other 16 year olds cant vote, there should be a voting list of which 16 year olds are mature and responsible enough to vote there are plenty of other things they are aloud to do so why jepordise how this country is ran by not letting 16 year olds be able to vote, huh?
This isn't just affecting you guys because you are old enough to vote. David Cameron has ruined this country and let the people of Britain down if we where aloud to vote then we could of changed that, for the better of Britain and the folks that live here!
Thank you for reading my viewpoint.

It would get younger people interested in politics
The numbers of young people's interest is ridiculously low. How should we address this? One way would be to allow younger people the vote, as it would encourage them to investigate further into how it all works. Some may not be interested at all, thats fine. But should we really obstruct the opportunities for those interested in learning more? I think it is important for young people to be interested in politics as will affect them hugely at some point in their lives, therefore we should offer 16s and over the vote.
dylwal92

Con

My opponent began R2 with a few listed points that I would like to first begin discussing.

Pro began by saying "Voting age should be lowered to 16 because..... 1. They deserve to have a say." While I respect the condition by which Pro is debating on, the matter of voting is not based on what people deserve, nor is a matter based on morality. Voting is a legal matter that has been heavily debated upon. Precedents based on what is right for the people demeans the legality of voting. This also ties in to the idea to give the youth "rights they deserve." In Pros third point (listed as the second 2.), Pro states that "It would get younger people interested in politics." Who is to say that they aren't interested? There may not be as many young adults interested in politics compared to the number of adults of the same accord, but to say that decreasing the voting age will "get younger people interested in politics" is fallacious.

Before I go any further, I would like to point out that in the second part and beyond of Pro's arguments, my opponent is a citizen of the United Kingdom, while I am a citizen of America. Having stated such, our views may contrast invariably, but I will attempt not to stray off topic by using this matter as an excuse to weaken my opponent's argument and in extension mine.

1. GCSE

The GCSE exams have been receiving much controversy within the last few years and many believe the "Universities use GCSEs to 'filter out' weak pupils" [1]. Yet, to say "if the voting age is lowered to 16, then politics could become a GCSE course", based on Pro's grammar, the idea that "politics could become a GCSE course" is an appeal to probability. There is no way to determine this.

2. Maturity and responsibility through selection

It is here that Pro argues the need to create a "voting list of which 16 year old teenagers are mature and responsible enough to vote..." With all due respect, the ability to do such is impossible. Even so, to be able to determine who is "mature and responsible enough to vote" would take quite some resources in order to go through each person that is to be 16 by the election as well as those who are already 16 and 17. Even if this process were to take place, determining the require maturity level and responsibility level and the ways in order to determine such would take be very difficult, for "to each his own" takes precedent. Pro mentions that because 16 year old teenagers are able to do other things such as join the military, they should be able to vote. Based on this logic, I can state that because I am able to smoke, I should be able to drink here in America. While some may argue that this statement is not similar, consider this: joining the military is based on a legal precedent that is entirely different from that of the ability to vote. The ability to smoke in America is a completely different legal matter than that of drinking, for they pose different health conflicts and different negative consequences.

3. David Cameron

David Cameron, as with any political candidate for a position in government, was voted in as Prime Minister for a reason. There would be no way to determine the outcome of his position as Prime Minister in Britain at the time, for people like Cameron say one thing to influence votes and to the complete opposite, putting their country in ruins.

4. "It would get younger people interested in politics."

How low is "ridiculously low" for the number of youth interest in politics? I cannot expand on this topic, for I do not know the details of this matter. Yet, by saying the way to address this unsupported statement is to allow younger people to vote "would encourage them to investigate further into how it all works." I cannot stress enough the complexity behind the American political system, but as for the United Kingdom, I have not the slightest inkling of how it functions. Historically, voting is far greater in people ranging from 40 years of age to 69 years of age. [2] I agree with my opponent on the basis of "it is important for young people to be interested in politics as [it] will affect them hugely at some point in their lives." Yet, to say that allowing 16 year old teenagers to vote will increase the youth's voice and greater demographics in voting age is not possible to determine.

Thank you for the debate.

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[2] http://www.census.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
megha123dylwal92Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I really just didn't get a more convincing argument from con. What is different about a 16 year old and adult that justifies excluding them from voting rights was not validly addressed, adults can be immature and irrational too. Con totally ignored some of pro's arguments. Con strawmaned some of pros arguments. I will tie arguments because they both aren't very convincing.
Vote Placed by baseballkid 4 years ago
baseballkid
megha123dylwal92Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: For spelling look at the title. Con made better arguments and upheld what he needed to uphold. Pro had no sources.
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
megha123dylwal92Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Spelling and grammar to con because pro didn't have as good grammar in round two. Pro had no sources and his arguments consisted solely of opinions, no facts.