CreateDebate


Debate Info

113
114
Yes, they should No, they shouldn't
Debate Score:227
Arguments:114
Total Votes:271
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Debate Creator

missliberal(30) pic



Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?

Do you think youth should be given the right to vote? Yes? No? Maybe so? 

Yes, they should

Side Score: 113
VS.

No, they shouldn't

Side Score: 114
3 points

Coming from a young person, I think that youth should be given the right to vote. I know more responsible youth than irresponsible. I would trust most of my friends with a voting ballad. In fact, a lot of my friends are more politically involved than most adults are! Also, youth are bound to be more informed than adults because youth are constantly using social media where news sources and politics advertise and post to.

If we can trust youth to drive cars, make their own purchases, support the economy and work, why can't we trust them with a ballad?

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

Age limits are VERY, VERY crude and inaccurate way of determining how informed someone is. The whole idea that which youth comes ignorance, while it has some merits, is not true for the majority of the people I know.

-

Of course this is never going to happen simply because of misconceptions about youth. And giving voting rights to youth would then require politicians to give a shit about young people. Republicans would never stand for it.

-

Finally, why can't those under 18 with a job vote? They are taxed but have no representation in their elected government. Whatever happened to "No taxation without representation."

In general, young people need to shut up about having more power and rights. But on voting, we deserve some type of representation.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
6 points

Most people under the age of 18 do not have the correct understanding of politics and lack the responsibility and maturity of selecting the leader of a nation.

I HIGHLY, HIGHLY, HIGHLY (I can't emphasize this enough) disagree. You severely underestimate the knowledge of some youth.

Also, as iamdavidh has said, most would vote for which ever candidate their parents/guardians were voting for.

And most adults vote for the same candidate as their parents, as well.

Not to mention youth are more easily manipulated by what sounds good to their ears.

And adults aren't?

All the things people bring up against this are true just as much for college students and even some adults. Age is a terrible judge.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

How young? I agree they should be allowed to vote at a younger age. In fact voting should be done online so that more people would participate in elections. Below a certain age, kids just aren't interested and they are very impressionable. A cleverly crafted internet campaign could persuade young voters to vote for someone that they otherwise wouldn't if they knew all the facts. Generally though, they should be able to vote at a younger age. In Canada, the voting age is 18. I think 16 or 17 would be reasonable.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
4 points

I think those youth who are civically aware would make no worse a choice than an adult. If adults make better choices, why did W get elected? Besides, many adults shirk their civic duty and we need more people involved in the election process. Why not get the youth involved at an earlier age?

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

But don't you think that the internet is the great equalizer? So what if a super PAC lobbies for one person or another, in the end it doesn't matter. Young people tend to be rebellious and that's what we need to shake up the status-quo.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
-1 points

First of all, when you swear, it's a sign that you do not have the vocabulary skills to express your feelings differently. So, if you want to present a reasonable argument and look smart, don't use curse words.

Secondly, youth are IMMERSED in information every day through social media. Yes, adults are involved in social media however, youth are native to websites like Facebook and Twitter so they are prone to discovering information through that media.

Third, discriminating against someone because of their age is like discriminating someone because of their race or sexual orientation. In 1960, it was the people like you who would say "People of color need to shut up about having more rights." Do you really want to be that person?...didn't think so.

Forth, politicians should care about youth! Youth are the future of this country, don't you care about the future? And if you don't, you're the one who is being ignorant!

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

There is clearly a large amount of individuals--of all ages--who do not comprehend the rights they have as a citzen, how their government functions, how legislation is drafted and dealt with, how the voting system works, ect. Of___all___ages. Just to make it clear there.

And for that reason alone, I do not understand why youth would be immediately left out. ESPECIALLY the youth which are coming into young adult life in their near future, who can start working, paying taxes, and learn about our governmental system. I do find the thought of a small child voting on a tax measure or our next president to be very silly. However, I believe if we can conjure up a comprehension test to analyze an individual's ability to comprehend such subjects and their outcomes; I do not see issue.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
3 points

That is the problem, its just an assumption that youth would vote as their parents would.

Given a good education, you should see a good amount of ideological variance within families, even between teenagers and parents. For example, I'm radically of a different ideology than my parents and have been since my mid teens. This is due to the different material conditions I experience from them, my father is an veteran and police officer, where as I'm the youngest of 4 and grew up in the suburbs. These different life experiences can quickly cause ideological differences despite parental influence.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

Most youth that I know get their news from the internet, and fact checking is only a few clicks away.

This trend away from corporate media should continue, with the youth demographic using alternative media then most. If you combine this with increasing standards on education, to the point where current college level political science courses are being taught to 16 year olds; they should then be more than well informed on the issues.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
3 points

Adolescence is an artificial creation of modern society, in more primitive societies a 13 year old was considered a man/women and allowed to live on their own. It isn't the case anymore due to the amount of training we have to go though to be productive in our society, however economic productivity should not be the measure of the ability to vote. Youth below 18 and above 15 certainly are capable of understanding the world around them and their best interests, and to not allow them to vote is to create a marginalized group where there need be none.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
6 points

If you're old enough to be tried as an adult for killing people at the age of 15..then you should be able to vote at the age of 15.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

Well, if they're responsible enough. sure. Don't see why not really.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should

"it's somewhat harder to argue for the restriction of adult voters who have insufficient understanding. (Which at the end of the day, I would probably be for as well"

Liberty and equality are the pillars of democracy, being in favour granting some the right to vote, whilst denying it to others is a form of authoritarianism, after all, who is to be the judge of who has "sufficient" understanding?

I agree with many of the arguments in favour letting well informed minors have the vote, but I'm not in favor of actually giving it to them, so in that sense I agree with you.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should

You fact check what is in your best interest, and vote for those that are more likely to vote according to that interest. For example, you look up how progressive taxation affects society and decides if that is what you believe society should have and vote for the candidate that agrees with your position. Its nothing difficult.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

yes becouse the youth is the new adults so if they can vote for who they want to be president/prime-minister and it will also effect the youth

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should

Congress understood what it would do to the internet, they just didn't care.

The great majority of politics are pretty simple, rarely do the finer points have much significance.

I find it interesting that you attribute homework and political awareness as being similar.

I also find it interesting that the same rational you are using to justify the disenfranchisement of a demographic from the political process is one that applies to just about every demographic.

You also underestimate the power of social media, which is more than capable of spreading the details when they do have significance. Congress and its actions are only an app away, and that information can be integrated into various forms of media that can easily inform people of things they are interested in. Political groups wanting more supports can use targeted adds, designed to grab people's attention while their opponent's can do the same but to counter their attempts at recruitment, meanwhile more objective sources of information are only a few micro seconds away. Even youth that are not politically active will unintentionally be intrigued by a friends post on some bill and perhaps spurned to action.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

The youth are smarter than for which you may give them credit; and in fact, it isn't impossible for one to have an influence before they can register to vote. You are never too young to stand for what you believe in and again never too young to call your representatives. Political awareness ought to be advocated. So many agendas try and shape opinions for them, and I'd like to see a society in which personal research and informational recources are advocated as a good countering force towards these influences.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

Some children display intellegence while some do not. Adults display intellegence while little do not excluding the crazy adults.

Ever watched on Youtube "The Girl Who Silenced The World For Five Minutes?" Great video and you should check it out. This little girls display intellegence and care for the world that she is mentally capable of making a just decision.

Am i wrong to say that mostly children are not intellegent? Am i wrong to say that not all adults are intellegent? We need intellegent people to vote. If statitics state that mostly children cannot vote, i understand, but don't leave out the ones who mentally can.

I think we need to change our voting system a little. I think those who want to vote should provide a reason. They should either "talk" it out if they can't write it out.

There are adults who voted for Obama because he is black if what i read on the internet is true. That is why i think people should provide a written reason to vote for their president.

This is my opinon.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

So you're saying that society should just forget the opinion of our young? Come on! Children and youth are part of this country also, therefore, they deserve a voice! Plus, in Canada, we are having difficulties convincing our adults to vote. If you do not immerse children in the opportunity to have a political opinion, the amount of voters will not incline for the next generation, but do the opposite.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should

Would you support a test on the basic ability to rationally think for those in between 16-18 to be able to vote? The test could be designed by logic professors and psychologists.

The youth seems to me to be more rebellious than compliant.

At least the ones that are about to graduate that is, so 16 or 17 year olds. They begin to look at their future around that time, and many realize they are inheriting a world that they wish was dramatically different. They can typically see that both the main parties don't have viable solutions, and most recognize that neither party truly represents their interests, or at least don't represent enough of them. This results in apathy and disillusionment when it comes to our political process, and non-participation becomes a means of rebellion. Well lowering the voting age won't fix this, it will help lessen such disillusionment and establish a way for people to advocate for changes to a system they will soon inherit, before they become busy trying to work with in the system.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

Can you justify your opinion? Prove why they shouldn't and prove why they should. Show us why you're on the fence!

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

I agree! Youth are very smart and their intelligence is only increasing as years go by. Youth are open minded and innocent. Sure, there is the odd rebellious adolescent. However, there are rebellious adults as well (and they have the right to vote)! We're having problems getting our adults to vote, so why don't we introduce the opportunity to our youth, maybe politics will become the latest trend and voting will come back into style!

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

You're the kind of person who leaves a negative effect on democracy. Voting is defiantly NOT a mindless activity. I remember when an election was approaching, my parents would spend hours and hours researching the current platforms of the candidates running in our electoral ridding. And I plan to do the same.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

If only there were more people like your parents. It seems so many people today vote based on associations and feelings rather than policies.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

Not true. I know a youth who has parents who are very liberal (they are educators) and he is a strong conservative. Today's youth are open minded and are not afraid to have a different opinion than their influences.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

I would like to add to my previous post:

A lot of the opposition tends to lean towards an argument about how the younger generations do not seem to care too much about politics anyway.

If that's true, then what will it hurt to lower the voting age? Do you really think if they're given the opportunity to vote before 18, that they'll all the sudden start caring about politics?

And is that such a bad thing if you really believe that would happen?

As for other claims, like poor sources for information: so what? So do a various amount of people who are allowed to vote because they are 18+.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

considering how easily persuaded and influenced they are by mainstream thought trends, it may serve to hurt more than it would help depending on what those trends entail.

Does this argument imply that this likely malleable slave to trends type of mindset seems to disappear by age 18?

I find that a considerable enough of an argument to look beyond the age of the individual and determine based on their mental capability when they are interested in voting.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

It is the same how the government takes taxes from children. If children's money hard earned money is going to the government, i think the children have the "right" to vote what their money should go to.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

Yes and no.

I agree that if you are old enough to be tried as an adult you have the right to vote. If you are also old enough to fight and die for our country you have the right to vote. But some kids are just immature and have no idea what the political process is…let alone know about the issues. Possibly all those under a certain age would have to take a class…to get approved. But then many adults don't know squat about it either. Last election people voted on color alone…did not even know what Obamas stances were.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should

Open to mass media? We all are open to mass media. As I said in my earlier response…in the last election adults voted for Obama simply because he was black they had no idea what he even believed in. They wanted change…..but change? What kind of change did they think they were going to get? Howard Stern did something that proves what I am saying is true. If you google Howard Stern….harlem interviews…you will hear people standing for Obama but the interviewer presented Obama with McCains stances.

Example. "Do you support Obamas pro-life stance…do you care that he is against legalized abortion?" "Do you accept that Sarah Palin is Obamas running mate"? etc. People who were for Obama had no idea that they were agreeing to John McCains beliefs. This goes to show that people vote alright…but for reasons that have nothing to do with policy.

All politicians lie…to get votes. They use the media to their advantage and it is where we get most of our information. In the next election it is said that Obama (the so called representative of the poor mans party) will spend over …get this…..ONE BILLION DOLLARS to get elected. He is a mega money machine…and will do anything to get votes.

I don't think it matters what age the person is actually. It has to do with knowledge of the process and studying and getting to know the issues. My husband does not know anything about the stances or positions of the two parties. He relies on me for information for the most part. He hates politics.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should

I don't like the poll. It has several problem with it, primarily that it is too general and lacks cohesion on the labels. A better version would of been asking actual parents and kids their views on several issues along with a test to see the particular type of political ideology parents have and their children have. It also assumes that 2 people have the same political persuasion, the parents. It doesn't ask how often politics is discussed in the family, so there is no gauge of accuracy on the perception of political positions, etc etc...

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should

Its just a potential compromise, meant to eventually be overturned itself.

Its kinda like the don't ask don't tell policy, it would create the environment for teens and others to eventually expand the voting age fully without such tests, due for some of the reasons that you mentioned. Ideally it would also have a clause about high performance and turn out on the test allowing for the abolishment of the procedure and full voting rights for all at the younger age and be used as a gauge of how well our school system is doing.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should

There should be no age limit on voting. If you want to vote you should be allowed to vote no matter how old you.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

I agree. If one is smart enough to have an interest in politics, one is smart enough to make an X on a ballad.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

I find that a considerable enough of an argument to look beyond the age of the individual and determine based on their mental capability when they are interested in voting.

I agree; age is not an accurate measurement or connection of an individual’s mental capability. Instead, it’s a very easy way to group people in order to determine who in what group has stronger or more developed attributes than in other groups. On average, the youth (I would even extend that to mid 20s in this day and age) exhibit much less concern for politics and as a result are less likely to be informed or think outside of what is the current trend. On average.

Sure we shouldn’t expect young people who are easily manipulated by societal trends to just grow out of it by age 18; there are people that grow out of it earlier, later or sometimes never. It’s just that the current method and age is an easy way to group people and enact legislation. I’m not for it, but I’m not particularly against it either.

If there were another method in determining who should vote out of a population of 300million plus, I would consider its effectiveness, but my current position is that I see no reason to think that lowering the voting age or even eliminating it entirely would help things. Especially considering how ineffective voting is anyway.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
0 points

But not youth in the 21st century! We don't just care about the present! - We care about our future! Youth today, are extremely mature. We want to stand up, raise our voice and make a difference. And just to let you know, you are being extremely ignorant; youth today are powerful and strong. We deserve the right to cast a ballad for our future, we are citizens too!

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

(As a 17 year old with a decent understanding of politics as well)

So, wait, what stops adults from being too open to mass media? I mean, Obama or a member of congress can come out and say something and the DOW could go up or down hundreds of points simply based on what he says. It could be (and usually is) a mass of crap that is unenforceable or illogical, yet people still believe it just so he can get more votes (such as new legislation that bases teacher salary on testing scores). Not only that, but also looking at the voter turnout in the 2012 election skyrocketed because of president Obama (and we see how that turned out). Teenagers are just as gullible as adults are.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/ archives/voting/cb09-110.html

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

So technically you’re saying young people should have a voice; however people should just ignore it. If you want us to share our opinions, give us a ballad and we will!

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

You are absolutely correct! Plus, youth are part of the country too, we deserve to be treated like citizens!

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

Yes! If one is intelligent enough to have a political opinion, one should be intelligent enough to put that opinion to use!

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

I see where you are coming from. However, if we give the opportunity to vote to our youth, then they will become more familiar with politics and will be seasoned and experienced voters by the time they turn 18!

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

I believe that the simple requirement to vote is age based has become impractical. There are people over the age of 18 who never finished high school beyond halfway through their 10th grade year. Now I'm not saying that means you are an idiot for dropping out (there are plenty of reasons for this). However, if a young adult is allowed to drop out of high school at the age of 16, than young adults should be allowed to vote at the age of 16. Why should a citizen who has a greater education than an older person allowed to vote, be denied the right to vote. They might be younger, however they are most likely as smart and as well informed as the 18 or 19 year old who dropped out at the age of 16.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

How does this problem escape adults but not youths. You can never get around this problem unless you want to go back to poll tests/literacy tests.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
3 points

You might be correct when talking about children under the age of 13, however, the people most affected by the future, are also the youngest. Sure it affects adults as well, however, it only affects people who are 100 years old for only a couple more years. Youths can drop out at the age of 16 and join the workforce. Maybe it is illogical to allow a 5 year old to vote, however, youths in high school have brains that are fully developed enough to chose their future.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

How could you fairly make certain votes carry a lower weight? Assuming anyone of any age is allowed to vote, and a highly intelligent and mature 8 year old votes, should their vote count less than that of a uninformed and immature 9 year old? I think trying to "weight" votes is just telling people that just because someone is older than you, their opinion means more.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should

True, but its meant as a temporary compromise .

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
0 points

And what justification do you have that individuals 18+ generally have "enough knowledge about politics." And "have enough information and experience to make decision."?

At the age of 18, do people overall, magically know enough about politics to vote?

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
2 points

16 is the age when most people start thinking of bigger issues, a good age to vote. I think the voting age should start at 16. In Australia, it is compulsory to vote from the age of 18. I think though that it should be voluntary for 16-17 year olds.

I don't think the conservatives would be too happy with more younger voters he he.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

Yes, definitely they should! Example, in an election, the youths in the country are also going to be ruled by the minister who wins the election. Get what I mean? If the minister is bad, they are going to feel the pinch too. If the minister is good, they are going to reap the benefits too. So basically, they are part of the country and they have the rights to vote as well.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

I know enough about politics to vote, and I am a child. The fact that I am not as old as some of those who can vote is irrelevant. i think that your ability to vote should not be based on your age, for I asked an adult who the Prime Minister was the other day, and there was a peculiar reply.

I think to have the ability to vote everyone should take a test to make sure they know the basics of politics.

Children are being penalised because they are looked down upon and are commonly seen as being less intelligent than others. According to a test I took the other day I am far above the average adult intelligence. According to Radio Four, the average adult has a similar capacity in Maths to a child of 11. We should not be penalised for our age. We have a right to vote and a right to be heard.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

I know when each election is, and I know a nebulous background of most politicians in my country and I know a fair bit about politics. My parents have encouraged me to be open-minded and I have never been told who to vote for.

I am 13.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

I know up from down, left from right, etcetera. I know enough about politicians to vote, and I am being penalised for my age.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

I do not think that we should be penalised for our age, especially when a lot of us are more knowledgeable than the average adult. It is a discrimination made by the government that believes in a right to be heard. Any government who does not agree that youth should be able to vote should not have the right to say the words "freedom of speech".

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

It's a free country for crying out loud. Youth have personal rights and as legal citizens they should be able to vote.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

If someone understands enough about politics they should be allowed to vote at any age. Some young people understand more than older people about politics. I think people should take a test, and if they pass then they can vote.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

I am 13, I know a lot about the politics in my country and some of the people I see on a daily basis haven't even got a clue how to spell politics.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should

If you can form your own views on politics then you should be allowed to vote.

1 year ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

It is unfair that somebody can't vote because of who they are. why do adults think that all kids are trouble makers and vandals?

1 year ago | Side: Yes, they should
4 points

What's your definition of youth? I'm assuming younger than 18, and not refering to many States' trying to surpress youth vote by not accepting a student ID and other documents those in a college are more likely to have than a gun license (fucking Texas).

I think it's fair to assume those too young would vote automatically as their parents with little individual thought, and that one should not get essentially "extra votes" based solely on having litters of children.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

Of course not. Most people under the age of 18 do not have the correct understanding of politics and lack the responsibility and maturity of selecting the leader of a nation. Also, as iamdavidh has said, most would vote for which ever candidate their parents/guardians were voting for. Not to mention youth are more easily manipulated by what sounds good to their ears.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
6 points

As a 17 year old with a decent understanding of politics, who knows his stance on most issues pretty well, no.

Most people under the age of 18 would simply be too open to mass media. Already, especially in the US, advertising, and super PACs, have come under a lot of fire. Putting millions more voters, who often don't know much about the issues or the players in them, who's main source of information is mass media, would simply further this reliance.

It's a shame, there are definitely thousands of us who know enough to vote. But the overall reliability of the vote system would be greatly diminished by decreasing the age limits.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
3 points

*Most people under 18 who don't know = understanding of some youth.

Though this is likely the case with not only youth but all citizens, it's somewhat harder to argue for the restriction of adult voters who have insufficient understanding. (Which at the end of the day, I would probably be for as well.)

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
0 points

No, when I swear, I feel like its the best way to express myself at that moment. I don't give a shit about "looking smart". It doesn't mean I don't have the vocabulary skills to express my feelings otherwise.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

when you swear, it's a sign that you do not have the vocabulary skills to express your feelings differently.

You can't judge a person's linguistic ability on whether one swears or not. Furthermore, you have a very warped idea of debate anyway. Debating is not about "expressing your feelings". It is about expressing one's opinions and/or thoughts. What one feels or does not feel about an issue cannot be used as justification for one's view.

So, if you want to present a reasonable argument and look smart, don't use curse words.

In any case, you don't seem to be able to present reasonable arguments (and, arguably, you don't appear to be intelligent at all) even without swearing. Every single one of your criticisms are merely attacking straw men.

Apollo has not said that youth should not be given the right to vote. In fact, he espouses the opposite view! Read his arguments carefully. Your criticism of him is unjustified and I think that you owe him an apology.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should

I think you're right but I think some chances need to put right?

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
5 points

Are you saying that super PACs have no effect?

And that doesn't mean that the status quo needs to be shaken up. Yes, I believe change does need to happen, but I don't think that millions of votes to those that often don't know what they're talking about is the way to get there. I do think that those with serious ideas worth considering need a platform to be heard, we do need to be involved in politics, but, I think, at our age, it should be something we earn and are not given.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
5 points

How can you fact check 'who should I vote for'? There are many who follow politics, and many many more who simply read one news article on a candidate and have their mind set.

Yes, I have no denied the fact that there are some who do know exactly what they're talking about with political science. But that's a minority.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

So could Congress when voting on SOPA, but they still have absolutely no idea what it would have done to the internet, only that people didn't like it.

There's a big difference between what people could, and should do, and what they would do. And I do not trust 16 year olds who don't even do homework to research the finer points of fiscal policy.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't

No, voting is a mindless activity anyway. Besides 99% of all youth younger or older than 18 to 30 don't really care. Heck, I love Economics, and I don't care. WHY? Because it is usually between a TURD SANDWICH or DOUCHE.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't

Most of congress had no idea. Obviously, the video is overedited, but I've seen longer clips on Jon Stewart or something, it's not too far off the truth.

The great majority of economics is simple, but that doesn't mean to say that politicians won't put in place laws that do the opposite of what they say, and even think, they will.

Yeah, in my own life, and the people I see around me, it's a strong correlation.

Yes, but adults, in my experiences, are more rational, most of the time.

Of course, as I've said before, there are many who will be interested, and will make good decisions. I just feel that that group will be a minority.

Congress' understanding of SOPA

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

No. I'm a teen and I can tell you straight up that some teens don't give a hoot about politics. We don't pay taxes or anything. All we do is play sports and sit back and laugh. We don't give two cents about poitics.

I personaly like studying politics. However, must teens don't. 18 is the right age.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

First of all, when you swear, it's a sign that you do not have the vocabulary skills to express your feelings differently.

You are completely correct. My feelings toward politicians cannot be explained without explicit language.

Secondly, youth are IMMERSED in information every day through social media. Yes, adults are involved in social media however, youth are native to websites like Facebook and Twitter so they are prone to discovering information through that media.

Again, this is a VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, crude and inaccurate measure of intelligence. I don't have a Facebook. Why should I (not me but in general) be banned from doing something for reasons not applicable to me? And why should someone else who does use Facebook (an adult) be allowed to do it?

Third, discriminating against someone because of their age is like discriminating someone because of their race or sexual orientation.

Exactly.

Forth

Fourth.

politicians should care about youth! Youth are the future of this country, don't you care about the future? And if you don't, you're the one who is being ignorant!

You clearly misread my comment. I never said they should't, in fact, I expressed my anger that don't (I even used descriptive language--you took objection to it).

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

Children should be stay children. And to give them a permission to vote its bad idea. They brain not so developed to make the adults' decisions. And their knowledge not so deeply known like others population. To vote to somebody means that you are choosing your future and all your doings will affect on you and everybody. We should stay in that position like now and don't do any mistakes.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
3 points

look lets be honest. all of us on here are pretty smart and nerdy. not saying were all nerds but were all at least a bit intellectual. so to the kids on here saying "I'm responsible enough to vote" aren't considering what most teens are like. YOU may be responsible enough to vote but most of your classmates are not. I'm 14 and say no way should we be allowed to vote

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

Young people should have a voice. However, I don't think that their vote should count. They don't understand everything about that country yet. Most adults don't understand anything about the country. I think young people should have a voice, state their opinions, but not vote for a future leader.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
3 points

I see what the crowd of friends my nieces and nephews talk about of Facebook (juniors and seniors in high school) and it still follows mainstream media trends. The only difference compared to when I was in highschool is now they also talk about mainstream internet trends such as YouTube viral videos. Kids will be kids it seems, and politics is just not something that interests the majority of our youth.

I totally agree that the trend away from corporate media should continue, but the more access a youth has to the internet doesn’t necessarily mean they will not be easily persuaded by the advertisement/entertainment industry and be able to make critical and informed decisions. There is indeed the heightened ability to cross check and fact check political and economic issues through the use of the internet, and I also agree that the younger generations are becoming more and more internet and technology savvy every year. But you’re getting into a ‘cum hoc, ergo propter hoc’ type of fallacy if you think that the youth’s ability to reason on political issues or even them just being informed will be any better just because they use the internet frequently.

There would have to be some sort of interest in a high school course for it to be any success. Personally I think a critical thinking course should be a part of mandatory high school curricula along with math, science, and history. Political science seems too specific, but sounds like a great idea and might make for a good elective, one that a high school student could even choose to pay for so it could count towards a college credit (something they did at my school for AP classes). But for electives to remain on the school’s curriculum, they would have to get a certain number of students interested in taking it. I regret to admit that political science (as well as critical thinking unfortunately) is just not something the youth is interested in. :/

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

There are many adults who are not rational, critical thinkers. But many more youth that are not rational, critical thinkers. There are many adults that are persuaded by rhetorical mainstream media. But many more youth that are persuaded by rhetorical mainstream media. It’s a problem with the current society model; the government doesn’t want a nation of people capable of critical thought (how threatening THAT would be). Too much individualism and rational thinking leads to too many questions of why. Why are we going to war? Why do corporations count as people? Why should I believe in your god? But as a person gets out of public education and sees the world in a different light (often times strengthened with certain college level studies) a person is more likely to break free from the dull malleable state that the department of education puts us in.

I am disillusioned enough to see that the majority of people are uninformed dimwits, and there appears to be even more uninformed dimwits the younger you look. I don't think the "youth" being given the right to vote (as broad as that statement is) would help in changing things, as compliant and naive as the youth are compared to the older crowd, it would probably create more problems.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
3 points

There are exceptions within the average naive, malleable youth. But these exceptions, as beneficial as it would be to hear their insight, are very few and far between. The whole of the youth should not be given the right to vote due to a few exceptions of them who express interest and informed thinking in political issues.

Given that the majority of the youth are not interested in politics, it may not matter if they are given the right to vote or not, but considering how easily persuaded and influenced they are by mainstream thought trends, it may serve to hurt more than it would help depending on what those trends entail.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

I think part of the reason why youth lack interest in politics is because they are disenfranchised from any sort of effective participation. Its a bit of a catch 22.

The internet won't alone make students informed enough, but it is a powerful tool that grants them more opportunity for it and makes it easy. They are also becoming increasingly important once they hit 18 as this country becomes more politically divided and more and more people become disenfranchised with the 2 party system. So parties should start to focus on the youth vote more, spurring them into political activity and research younger.

I've noticed a trend in my old high school, my senior year they introduced duel credit college/high school courses that were taught by a visiting professor from a community college. They have since introduced more of these duel credit courses. My high school government and economic classes were jokes, and I hope that the trend I mentioned fixes that. The government does a lot to piss people off, and our economic systems would likely make more people angry if only they were knowledgeable on the subject. Lately people were forced to become more knowledgeable due to the "great recession", and we have seen more political action due to it. So simply better education should help spur the youth into being politically active and interested. Another catch 22 though, in order for those classes to be offered there has to be interest in them. Hopefully the desire to get more college credits earlier will be enough of a drive.

I think the lack of a required class or classes on logic, computational science and philosophy is a disservice that needs remedied. If we would study more of the classics and read the actual writings of political theorists and scientists a lot of the bullshit we see today could be avoided.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they should
1 point

you shouldn't I'm a little on both sides they should and shouldn't

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

No, 1 out of 1000 kids probably know whats going on in the government. They don't care much for bills and documents.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

well...even if today's youth is given the right to vote, i don't think that we should vote... I guess that applies specifically to the youth of India...given our political condition and corrupt political leaders... Why should we be compensated by being given to choose from bad, worse and worst?...??

Apart from that...today's youth mainly concentrates upon figuring out their own lives...which is the best that can happen i guess... If everyone is right in their own place...then everything has to be alright at the end of the day...

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
3 points

... the grey word up there ^^ annoys me greatly .

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
3 points

That is the problem, its just an assumption that youth would vote as their parents would.

It's not really an assumption at this point, when we have statistical data to support it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14515/teens-stay-true-parents-political-perspectives.aspx

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't

Congratulations on your triumph!!-----------------------------------------

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

I see where you are coming from. However, what about youth with developmental disabilities such as down syndrome or autism who are not always capable of completing a formal test? Plus, is it fair that the youth citizens would have to complete a test for the right to vote and not the adults?- Because, there are many adults who would fail.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

I never said all youth share their parents political views but the overwhelming majority do, this much is supported by the Gallup poll that I cited.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

Youth couldn't tell up from down, at least most of them. This is simple foolishness a folly that would lead to some absolute moron getting elected, worse than the ones we already get.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

Yes, of course that's all true. But typically, the more education you have, the longer you've lived, the more time you have to research the varying policies, the more developed your opinions will be on the issues. Not allowing the youth to vote is a very rudimentary, and simple, way to improve the knowledge base of those voting.

Interestingly enough, there have been various attempts to stop this from happening in the past. Germany, in the 1600s I think, gave those with a degree two votes. Almost every single European country had a minimum income that you had to earn to vote. As the education of the youth increases, and ease of access to information increases as quickly as it has, I would expect the youth to be able to vote in maybe as little as 20 years, allowing for such a radical idea to gain popular political representation.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

Age is the appropriate judge in some circumstances. And as you can see, I said 'Most' so technically you have proven me right by saying 'SOME YOUTH'. And I see you haven't addressed their level of responsibility and maturity. I know that some teens are aware of what's going on but overall most just aren't interested in politics. Most of us just don't care about what they are really saying underneath their words. Most don't even know what being Republican or Democratic means. Picking a leader for our country is something that should be in the hands of people who have expierience in the real world, now more than ever. Most adults have the freedom to do what they want, to vote for whomever. Teens don't neccessarily have that leisure. Most of us want approval, attention. So, naturally, we would support our parents. And I'm not saying adults aren't manipulated by suger-coated words either. I'm just saying most of us lack the understanding of those words and what the intentions are of the candidates.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

should youth votes below an age before certain developments occur carry a lower weight?

After all, a toddler would just push buttons.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

Youth are idealistic and easily swayed by passion, rather than thought or reason. If you talk to most adults over 40, they will tell you that, for all their knowledge in their early years, they didn't have a clue until 25 or thirty, and then continued to revise their understanding as experience molded them. My theory....18 is too young.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
0 points

This is based completely on my opinion and experiences with America's youth, but absolutely not. First of all, kids tend to be very easily manipulated by the media and pretty much any other source of information for that matter. Yes, kids can have a decent understanding of politics and government but they also tend to want to vote for politicians and bills that would directly benefit them in the shortest amount of time. Kids tend to not want to delay benefits for the good of the nation but want to see immediate results. If the youth were given a right to vote I think this country would have went completely socialist back in the 1960's.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

So, wait, what stops adults from being too open to mass media?

Nothing. It's not a definite science, I simply feel that the older you get, the more defined and developed your beliefs are, and therefore the less likely you are to just accept what you read in the newspaper.

yet people still believe it just so he can get more votes

And unfortunately that is what we call politics. But showing that the current system is broken does not, in itself, advocate this change. Change, I agree, is necessary, but not this.

Teenagers are just as gullible as adults are.

I don't maintain that adults aren't gullible, simply less so.

And to your link, I'm hardly surprised. People are more likely to vote for things they feel strongly about. To minorities all over the country, the first black President is something to feel strongly about. If anything, I'd expect it to be higher (especially as it didn't adjust for population growth).

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't

I never claimed that it was exclusive to youth, simply that it was more present in them.

Poll tests go against the idea of democracy more than age restrictions do though.

I support a resemblance of democracy, not pure democracy. I mean, would you like children to post on this website, people who have no basis in their arguments, no logic, simply their influenced opinions? It's not the same, but it's similar.

It's a controversial topic, especially among Libertarians, which many people on this website are.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

Youth are going to vote emotionally/subjective. I'll throw out a guess that most people do not ask for a copy of a measure before voting on it and those that do may not read key words that may render a measure opposite of the intention.

Most adults vote subjectively and most vote by soundbytes, party line, ads and biased media (either side).

I guarantee you that I can go onto a college campus, hand out free marijuana and get students to sign petitions or vote the way I want. Free X-boxes are too expensive to use as bribes.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
0 points

In my opinion, youth should not be given the right to vote, because in the age under 18, the most of the young people does not have enough knowledge about politics. They do not have enough information and experience to make decision. Their minds did not develop yet. That is why it is impossible to give them such right.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
0 points

The right to vote should be based on education level, basic knowledge about the government, and criminal record

To vote you should have a GED or High school Diploma and be able to answer some fundamental questions like: who is the current president/pime minister? What is the capital of the country? Circle one - secularity is fundamental to all laws and government policies because - ethnocentrism is non universal by definition or policies should be based on religious ideals?

People who get 4 years of college should count for 2 votes, and PhDs should get a 3x value to their vote.

I understand that this idea is unrealistic, but it makes sense in a world that is supposed to be meritocratic and is important because stupid people are breeding lol.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't

I got a counter argument...

Because children can be tried as adults, then the law must not forbid a child having sex with an adult.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

What you're saying is not something we can just snap our fingers and do! The govt. can't just do that. Besides 18 is an appropriate age- students can drive alone, own there own home and be in university so I think the currently voting age is appropriate- there also is student vote, which is the experience for youth

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

that is a good point, because I saw the results from our student vote and a lot of kids voted communist (in Ontario) and other random parties just for the heck of it. At 18 people are past the party and bad ass way of life and are looking to the future (for the most part) I'm 14 and am pretty much on the same page. Canada is one of the most free countries in the world and yet some people still complain! We should be thankful-USA and Canada

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
0 points

Are you saying the generation that changed the world didn't look at our world our ancestors shaped it and they fought to give us a country where we at least can vote. Not to be snippy but I just don't understand your point of view

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

But really when you are older you at least have a broader sense of the country you live in- does an 8 year old know about issues in their country?

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
0 points

how many children know about president elections? not that many so therefore youth should not have the right to vote unless they personally know whats going on. most youth parents probably tell them who to vote for.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

I'm 13 years old and the way i see how my 17 year old friends act they still are very childish, Eg. the smoke and spar=(fighting 1 to 1) even gossiping about other people and etc so Ya .So what do you think, should the get the right to vote.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

I believe, that only adults have to vote. Children are not enough informed about politics.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

No,the majority of youth are not mature enough, or don't look into things. If they could give us a maturity and intelligence test, anyone that passes should be allowed to vote.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
0 points

Sorry, but that is a resounding NO. Zero life experience gives youth nothing but hearsay to base a vote on. Most people don't get a clue until 25 or older.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

the youth should not be given the right to vote , for the youth nowadays are not patriotic what they think of now is parties and immoral practices of the highest order so giving the youth the chance to vote would certainly produce ineffective leaders.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
2 points

Kids of my age, 16 are extremely ignorant of politics. I cannot have a rational debate with any of them regarding politics and quite frankly, they're just stupid.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't
1 point

Speaking as a high school student, I would say no. Most do not understand politics and only agree with somebody because their parents do. I personally believe that when they are old enough (some time from 15-17 years old), they should be given a quiz on politics regarding the current leaders, the government, and the candidates, and if they score far enough above average, they should be allowed to vote. Most youths, though, should not vote.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't

As a 16 year old junior in highschool I believe that youth should not be able to vote. Voting is an act of electing the leader of a new generation that will carry put that movements ideals and motivations. I believe the voting age should actually be extended until over 21 years of age. This accounts for maturity and growth in the minds of the people whose votes count the most. The new voters are the most important and the older the less important. Tragically, younger people vote less, statistically, and this only hurts them because they are the ones who will take over the country in the next decade or two.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't

I agree with your claim that the youth are r new adults but et are not adults yet. Voting at 16 years old will not affect them directly for the next four years when the turn 20 and it's time to vote again. Voting is a privilege that must be respected and understood. Most teenagers do not understand what they are voting for. When voting starts to directly affect an individual is in their early adulthood around the age after college when entering the workforce becomes a large part of life.

2 years ago | Side: No, they shouldn't


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.