The Instigator
witherpig
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JackFritschy
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

voting age should be lowered

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 4 votes the winner is...
JackFritschy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 758 times Debate No: 54642
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

witherpig

Pro

acceptance only, this is for voting rights for 16&17 year olds
JackFritschy

Con

I will gladly accept
Debate Round No. 1
witherpig

Pro

I believe that the voting age should be lowered. at 16 we allow kids to drive, and a car is lethal weapon so why would you think we could trust them with voting?
JackFritschy

Con

It's been shown that an average voter couldn't pass a basic economics course. Why then, should we put more barely knowledgeable voters into the mix. Most kids would probably just vote for who their parents voted for. Unless they've been watching the news or doing some serious reading, how would they know anything about the issues of the day. Most people can't identify the speaker of the house or tell which party controls which part of congress. Assuming they are allowed to vote, they will become targets of eager politicians taking advantage of their general ignorance. To get a informed voter you have to sway them with arguments. To get a uniformed voter you have to make up some position that relies more on emotion then logic and sounds very supportable or common sense. To get a totally ignorant teenager to vote for you, you just need a good campaign add and a nice slogan. Here's a article about a survey done about some kids political knowledge. The results showed that these kids didn't know crap. What possible benefits are there to gain by allowing teens to vote?

http://www.phillyburbs.com...
Debate Round No. 2
witherpig

Pro

kids have read about the government and now the difference between good and bad, they know about government corruption. They have studied history and i argue that they do know who to vote, having a younger age group would help us because they are still is school which would make the votes better for school.
JackFritschy

Con

If you read that article I attached, in a survey only 46 percent of kids knew who controlled the house and only 57 percent controlled the senate. Only 15 percent knew one of their states senators and 27 percent knew the districts congressmen. Very disturbingly, only 18 percent where aware that the US was 16 trillion dollars in debt. At this point it's 17 trillion. The vast majority of kids have little interest in the political system and will only serve to increase the amount of barely knowledgeable voters. You have claimed that kids can make wise votes because they know whats good and bad. Well isn't it the job of politicians to make things look good. Both sides are firmly convinces of their positions inherit "goodness." In just this year, we have seen both parties try to out do each other at being anti authoritarian. Rand Paul and his libertarian buddies decried the snooping and peeping of the NSA and Rand even made allusions to libertarians being the modern sons of liberty. Dems played the little guy card over and over again calling for minimum wage hikes some as high as 15 dollars. How is a kid supposed to know whats correct? When did he take economics? Pros alternative to kids actually informing themselves is that kids will get all their voter training in history class. In a non biased text book kids shouldn't be receiving political training. Most history books have a brief section on the politics of the early republic but mostly act as a omnipotent narrator not a debater between parties. If history books do contain lots of political ideas, your pretty much giving the votes of a whole age group to textbook writers. Why shouldn't they vote for someone who's ideas were positively talked about in a school book? Until kids grow up they have no business deciding a nations future.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Shikyo 3 years ago
Shikyo
I believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. The reason being that at whoever is voted into office will effect a 16 year holds life. Because at that age they are getting jobs, buying cars, paying for gas, etc. So however the economy is and any new laws will more than likely affect them.
Posted by FrankTheBob 3 years ago
FrankTheBob
I'm interested on who argues this.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Gs325jcbd 3 years ago
Gs325jcbd
witherpigJackFritschyTied
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: JackFritschy knocked this one out the park. Con showed how kids shouldnt be able to vote. Pro lacked sources and quality information to back up his/her statement.
Vote Placed by FrankTheBob 3 years ago
FrankTheBob
witherpigJackFritschyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a nice debate. At first, I agreed with Pro, but you convinced me Con. Nice debating.
Vote Placed by Lt.Harris 3 years ago
Lt.Harris
witherpigJackFritschyTied
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: The Pro just sucked at the debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
witherpigJackFritschyTied
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 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: Con showed, with a semi-reliable source, that the average high school student does not have enough knowledge to vote, and so there is no reason to add them into USA's already-uneducated voting body.