EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

The legal age to vote should be lowered to 16

0 points
0 points
KatewoodwardKatewoodward (PRO)
1) 16 y/o are still in education (a place for classroom discussions/debates) meaning they're now learning about economics, sociology, civics, government & politics ect. therefore this knowledge is fresh for them, compared to the older generations who a) haven't been in education for years, and b) whose education might be outdated / not relevant in todays society
2) They are the future of the society, they should have the right to participate in it
3) old & enough to work = old enough to vote
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-08-12 14:01:05
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Tejashree AnanthTejashree Ananth
There are a lot of sixteen year old who writes thier major exams at that age , so when they can decide the major answers to question about science ( which they won't be that sure of) , decoding people who is right for society is not that tough .
Posted 2018-08-26 16:55:26
Lots of sixteen year olds, are equally as intellectually mature if not more so than a lot of 18 year olds as they are still in education and discipline, in which they are surrounded by others with different views and from different walks of life (including teachers, senior staff, and classmates from different backgrounds), in order to keep them grounded and have a rounded view, unlike 18 year-olds, who once out of the system, may sometimes go 'off the rails' and forget what they've learnt to an extent. As said in the debate there are relevant classes to do with voting, meaning what they are learning is applicable and up to date, meaning they should be allowed to use this knowledge and have a say in something that is going to affect them in the future.
Posted 2018-08-26 10:38:21
It would be logical for the youth to be voting at 16. For the sole fact that they are young, they know what they want, and they should be able to get it since they are the future. Their leader will serve 1 to 2 terms, and they will be legal by then, so why not lower it down to 16? Though, if it does happen, political classes should be added to the high school to help them make the best decisions. Not to try to persuade them to vote for who the adults want, just to educate them on both sides of the spectrum and let them decide on which one they want to be for.
Posted 2018-08-23 11:21:28
Carmel AlmeidaCarmel Almeida
Just because it is done does not mean it should be. Furthermore, as 16-year-olds are busy with their school, immature, and most usually extreme in their opinions, what would most likely happen is that these children don't take it seriously. This is talking about your future leader, not some silly joke. Although there are some teens that would most likely vote seriously, the majority would either not vote, or vote recklessly.
Posted 2018-08-23 09:59:34
Debate MasterDebate Master
As per me the getting married is different as the voting is the future of the nation and it must not be in the hands of 16 year child and also in the above given comment about jail,driving and property doesn't shows that the brain of 16 year old brit is as experienced as the brain of 18 year old one
Posted 2018-08-04 14:49:47
*As far as I am aware*, At 16, Brits can already have sex, get married, be left at home alone, have a job, buy a property, and go to jail, as well as being able to drive at 17, so why should they have to wait to 18 to vote?
Posted 2018-08-03 14:53:24
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 5 rounds
  • 500 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • No images
  • No HTML formatting
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 month
  • Time to vote: 3 months
  • Time to prepare: None