The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Should under 18 Youth be able to vote after "voter's ed"?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
SJM has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 849 times Debate No: 103589
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




There should be an optional class for youth under 18 to take to get informed about politics, so that they can exercise their right to vote at a younger age. It would kind of be like driver's ed in a way. You have to pass the class before you can vote, unless you're 18 or over. It would give the youth who are informed (or want to be informed), the chance to get their right to vote early.


1) Affirmative has the Burden of Proof, therefore neg solely must refute the argument or cast sufficient doubt on the plan pro proposes.

2) "Voter"s ed" is a vague term which doesn"t have any specific plan in the context of this debate. Thus, we don"t know what this Voter"s ed would encompass.

3) The Voter"s ed plan would have to have a non-arbitrary syllabus. There must be at a level at which this course would inform the students about, to make them as eligible as older citizens.

Contention 1: Maturity doesn"t fully develop until 25

Age, 10-10-2011, "Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years,",

"Under most laws, young people are recognized as adults at age 18. But emerging science about brain development suggests that most people don't reach full maturity until the age 25"

Maturity is one of the main indicators in whether we should allow a certain age to vote.

What this shows us is that it may be even justifiable to raise the age at which one could vote. However, what can be said is that this isn"t consistent with letting people younger than 18 vote. Even if you make the argument that we then shouldn"t have 18 be the age one can vote, as long as my stance is that we don"t make it younger than 18 I win. I can defend any age at or after 18.


1) Let"s talk about Pro advocates for a plan, but doesn"t specify the plan they propose. We cannot assume that this course will turn into a God course that makes anyone a master of politics. The audience cannot vote for a plan if they don"t know what the plan is. So, the harms of the status quo are not solved by the Pro. No solvency means their plan is disregarded unless we know how it solves.

2) Their warrant for why we should allow this, is so that people can vote while they"re young. By this logic, we should go even lower than what they propose but realistically we cannot teach a 10-year-old to develop the maturity they need. Therefore, when extending their conclusion, we see it lead to an absurd situation which would show the argument is flawed, and that the plan doesn"t solve for the problems of informing people under 18.

In conclusion, maturity decides who votes. There are two reasons why my opponent"s plan doesn"t solve.
Debate Round No. 1


1. The class would be offered by the community to students between ages 14 and 17, to teach basic level civics, as well as hosting debates about "big issues" such as the ones listed on the website. After finishing the two week class, a test covering topics such as government function, civics, political parties, etc. It would be something similar to the US Citizenship Test, however it would be 100 questions, and it would require a 90% score to pass the class.

2. The course would have a standard set by the state or federal government on what must be taught, similar to present common core standards.

3. The idea of this class would be for students who display exceptional knowledge of US government and politics to earn their right to vote early. There are some youth in this country who have the maturity to vote in local, state, and federal elections. Although some youth would be incompetent, the current system shouldn't let "mentally mature" adults who know nothing about politics vote, while political enthusiasts that are under 18 are barred from exercising the right to vote. The course isn't required by the state, so youth who don't care about politics, or youth who aren't "mature" enough to pass won't get their right to vote. This isn't about making every youth vote, it's about letting the exceptional youth who are ready to vote get the chance to.

The 2-week class set by government standards would give the chance for some youth ages 14 to 17 to earn their voting rights in local, state, and federal elections. The course does not target all youth, but youth that can display their knowledge of the subject, as well as their readiness to participate in elections.


I"ll start with a rebuttal of the four points and then move on to what has been conceded throughout this debate by my opponent.

There"s overall still some ambiguity with the plan my opponent proposes. My opponent tries to use an argument which doesn"t specify the standards of the plan, yet says it"s going to be set by the state or federal government. First, whether it"s the states or the federal government matters, not something you can just say because they"re an authority of some sort.

Second, everything is not adequate solely because they"re done by the federal government or the state. The proposition that it"s going to be done by the federal government/state, is not enough to demonstrate that this is a good plan. This refutation should still cast doubt on the plan, and make it seem undeveloped to the extent that we can"t accept it.

Now, my opponent responds to my argument about maturity by making a claim against it, but doesn"t give a warrant for it. My opponent just says what we should do, without saying why we should do it. For example, they say we should let exceptional students vote, yet they don"t explicitly say why immature yet exceptional students should be able to vote.

Now, there is a distinguishing factor between maturity and being book smart which my opponent sort of mixes together. I say maturity should be what generally lets people vote, my opponent says maturity shouldn"t be the factor, but instead it should be government smarts. Aside from not having a warrant, the reason for not allowing government smartness to be the criteria for voting abilities, is because this tends to lean on the side of wanting to do evil things. To clarify, when you typically see a villain or an evil person such as plankton, Hitler, and etc. They"re smart people, yet they let their immaturity get in the way.

And finally, my opponent restricts to a 2 week plan, the reason we need the specifics for this is because I strongly doubt that the youth will be informed to the extent of being able to vote. Not only that, but now that we have distinguished between maturity and government smartness, they would not only have to know about politics, but they will have to be taught to be mature, which I don"t think can be taught.

My case
Extend my argument about the plan not solving for not having a plan with specified standards.
Extend my argument about having people vote when they"re mature.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm not trying to lay out a definite plan here, this was just meant to be an idea. You revealed a lot of flaws in this idea. I still disagree on the whole maturity thing, although maturity doesn't constitute just being book smart.

I concede, thanks for taking time to debate this topic.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DNehlsen 3 years ago
But most kids are idiots, most have never worked a job, and nearly none own their own property. What gives them the right to decide how the country should be run?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.