Why Debate a Teenager?

[brewer]

Most teenagers are reprobates. Of course they need de-bating.

[Goosebump]

But honestly? If we're going on this basis, why don't we put other restrictions on voting? Why do people with an IQ below 80 get to vote (for example)?

Quite simply, because most of us live umder nominally democratic systems we value government by the collective consent of the governed.  Disenfranchising the.governed is anathema to that end.

I for one would not want to live under a system where officials had this sort of power.

Even stupid, ignorant people are entitle to have a voice.

I agree with everything you said, however there is science behind brain development. Would raising the age be unrealistic or undemocratic? 

This is an OLD poll but it shows that as first time voters, 71% young people in 2005 voted their parent's party.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14515/teens-s...tives.aspx

I'm having trouble simply googling some more recent results.

[Goosebump]

At 16-18, I was still completely under the control of my fundamentalist parents.  I was reasonably bright and necessarily hard-working (I had a part-time job at 15 and straight-A grades) but a debate?  If anyone challenged what I had been taught about religion, or creationism (my parents were young-earth creationists who actually believed that dinosaur fossils were planted on earth by demons) I just avoided them.  I did not dare question.
    If you challenge a teenager who is in this situation, I think that you are doing more harm than good.  I would suggest waiting until they are self-sufficient, and then simply opening up possibilities for scientific education.

I don't think self-sufficiency is necessary. Once you reach your 22-25 age range your fully capable of all the higher reasoning and decision making. You'll be able to weigh correctly how much you depend on a provider and how much that should influence your own understanding of things.

You'll also be able to drawl the lines of description to play nice with the parental providers but change your views freely on anything within your own self and peer groups out-side the influence of a financial helper, even your parents. It's the white lie and placation done out of reason of familiar love rather then teenage angst.

[drfuzzy]

At 16-18, I was still completely under the control of my fundamentalist parents.  I was reasonably bright and necessarily hard-working (I had a part-time job at 15 and straight-A grades) but a debate?  If anyone challenged what I had been taught about religion, or creationism (my parents were young-earth creationists who actually believed that dinosaur fossils were planted on earth by demons) I just avoided them.  I did not dare question.
    If you challenge a teenager who is in this situation, I think that you are doing more harm than good.  I would suggest waiting until they are self-sufficient, and then simply opening up possibilities for scientific education.

I don't think self-sufficiency is necessary. Once you reach your 22-25 age range your fully capable of all the higher reasoning and decision making. You'll be able to weigh correctly how much you depend on a provider and how much that should influence your own understanding of things.

You'll also be able to drawl the lines of description to play nice with the parental providers but change your views freely on anything within your own self and peer groups out-side the influence of a financial helper, even your parents. It's the white lie and placation done out of reason of familiar love rather then teenage angst.

That's fine, Goosebump, and logical thinking.  But I was describing parents that could not be reasoned with.  I wasn't talking about just minor household strife or losing monetary support.  In my case, when the little white lies and placating were done and over with, so were the parents.
There are still parents out there who (due to the EVIL that is religion) will completely disown a child who does not follow their religion.  That's what happened to me.  -- Just for debate and reason, you are correct, self-sufficiency is not necessary.  But in extreme cases, I think it's required.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Looking over the Wikipedia article on the matter, one of the main factors in why voting age is 18, and not 20 or 21, is because most countries, when they have wars, need 18-year-olds to fill out their military ranks, and there is a fundamental sense of unfairness in sending someone to die without at least giving them a nominal say in the matter.  Many nations lowered voting age post-WWII.  In the USA, it took not only WWII but the (exceedingly unpopular) Vietnam War to bring about the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution, putting the age at 18 instead of 21.

I didn't know this before reading the article, but in the US there are 20 states that let 17-year-olds vote in the Primary election if they will be 18 on or before the general election.  Interesting.  Additionally, localities are free to regulate their own voting, and some have lowered the age to 16 for things like municipal elections.

Wikipedia Article on Voting Age

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Looking over the Wikipedia article on the matter, one of the main factors in why voting age is 18, and not 20 or 21, is because most countries, when they have wars, need 18-year-olds to fill out their military ranks, and there is a fundamental sense of unfairness in sending someone to die without at least giving them a nominal say in the matter.  Many nations lowered voting age post-WWII.  In the USA, it took not only WWII but the (exceedingly unpopular) Vietnam War to bring about the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution, putting the age at 18 instead of 21.

I didn't know this before reading the article, but in the US there are 20 states that let 17-year-olds vote in the Primary election if they will be 18 on or before the general election.  Interesting.  Additionally, localities are free to regulate their own voting, and some have lowered the age to 16 for things like municipal elections.

Wikipedia Article on Voting Age

That actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for posting it!

[Aegon]

As Americans we have the right to vote. I think it's crucial for 18-year olds to be politically active in order for their representatives to actually give a shit about them. The government has no reason to care about young people if the 65+ demographic outvotes them by nearly 50 percent in every election. Young people need representation. Whether they're informed or not is irrelevant to the basic principle.

This, plus (like TRJF brought up) sending 18-year old kids to die in a war without letting them have a say in the matter politically is a really shitty thing to do. It's as if that entire generation is just dispensable to the government.