The Instigator
EJR925
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
serenapp
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Voting Age: Should it 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,086 times Debate No: 119791
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

EJR925

Con

[First round is for stating your position or premises you'll be defending and clarifying anything you think needs it]

Position/Premise(s): I do not think the voting age should be lowered. I do not think 16 or 17 year olds should have the right to vote because typically have lower interest in politics (which makes them apathetic towards issues and reduces their voting effectiveness), Less political knowledge, And lack of experience (which on average is the main factor for changing people's minds on issues).

Clarification: To lower the voting age to 16 would require a Constitutional Amendment approval from 2/3 of both houses and Congress and 3/4 of the 38 states of state legislatures. Some cities in California and Maryland allow 16 year olds to vote in local elections.

I am open to getting my mind changed. I hope to have a discussion with someone who has rational reasons and logic and evidence to support their position. I will post my arguments/rebuttals on rounds 2-5.
serenapp

Pro

Position/Premises: I do think that the voting age should be lowered. When I say that it should be lowered, I do not mean that "tweens" and young teenagers should vote; I mean that 17 y/o should have the right to vote. Yes, The age of 17 is quite young but one's age doesn't cause them to be "stupider", It causes them to be uninteligent in such matters. I believe that lowering the age to vote will pressure the young to be enlightened on political issues and it gives power to the youth, Because they are the future.
I'll strengthen the argument in the later discussions but this topic provokes interest in me, Being a 15 y/o and I'm excited to see what will become of this discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
EJR925

Con

According to social scientists Tak Wing Chan and Matthew Clayton, 16 and 17 year olds would not be competent voters. Quote, "research in neuroscience suggests that the brain, Specifically the prefrontal cortex, Is still undergoing major reconstruction and development during the teenage years, " and added that the prefrontal cortex is what "enables us to weigh dilemmas, Balance trade-offs and, In short, Make reasonable decisions in politics. " And not to mention citizens under 18 are under different contract, Labor, And criminal responsibility laws. They aren't allowed to join the military without parental consent. They can't serve on a jury.

Ages between 18-29 don't really have interest in voting anyways until their later years. Only 12. 5% of 18 year olds participated in the 2014 midterm election, Even though the general population was 42%. According to the United States Elections Project's analysis of U. S. Census Bureau data, There were only 16% of eligible voters 18-29 years old voted in the 2014 election. Even though ages 30-44 was 30%. Ages 45-49 was 43%. Ages 60 and up were 55%. Over the last 3 decades, 18-29 year olds participating in voting for elections never exceeded 21% in a midterm election. In the 2016 presidential election, 18-29 ages voted were 43%, Ages 30-44 were 57%, Ages 45-59 were 66%, And 60 plus were 71%.

Only 23% of students scored above the "proficient" level on the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress test of civics knowledge and skills. 16 or 17 year olds are typically the least politically uninformed or misinformed, Least politically experienced, Least mature or competent in making long-term judgments that are realistic.
serenapp

Pro

serenapp forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
EJR925

Con

I have nothing to rebuttal
serenapp

Pro

serenapp forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
EJR925

Con

I have nothing to rebuttal.
serenapp

Pro

serenapp forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
EJR925

Con

I have nothing to rebuttal.
serenapp

Pro

serenapp forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by EJR925 3 years ago
EJR925
On my round 2 third paragraph, I meant to say least politically informed.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
In a Constitutional Nation it is wrong to place a juvenile under judicial separation without power of say in representation to the Executive Office which they are held accountable in.
Posted by radhikashyap 3 years ago
radhikashyap
Yeah You are right. I agreed with you. Https://www. Punjabkesari. In/
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Honestly Democracy is a broken system to begin with. A test of basic knowledge prior to voting should be required, But the problem is then who is authorized to create that test?
Posted by HushamFusion 3 years ago
HushamFusion
I personally agree with you, And I would have provided arguments to support your view. But anyway, I am looking forward to see how this debate develops!
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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