I'll be on Fox News Tomorrow

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Explains why you still have problems with philosophy.

He's smarter than you.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by The diplomat
So it is just to get more democrat votes. You figure 16 year old will probably support gay marriage and abortion and the likes, since they have a "fresh mind".

Frankly, that's a good thing. Think - would you rather people who attack thing with a fresh perspective, or people who won't be convinced by any argument, vote?

What you call a "fresh perspective" is simply a lack of understanding of the issues. Most young people will either have a poor understanding of the issues or will regurgitate their parents' positions. How is that good?

That's not entirely true. Politicians still pay attention to youth issues because they know the youth care about these issues and will vote on them when they reach 18.

Besides, if you give 16 years the right to vote, politicians will pander to get those votes. You'll weaken important issues like national security because politicians will have to pay more attention to silly youth issues.

That's your problem, you assume 16 year olds are complete idiots. Personally, I know a good number of people my age who would make much more intelligent posts than yours and politicians already pander very much to senior citizen votes.

I never said that 16 years old are idiots. Being uninformed is not the same thing as being an idiot. I think 16 years old lack the life experience and knowledge to vote responsibly. That does not mean that they are idiots.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by MrFun
I will never understand the argument: "Because stupid adults are entitled to the right of vote, we should make a bigger pile of sh*t by allowing teenagers the right to vote."

Lets see if I can make a successful jump to a new situation to see it in a new light. Lets say roller coasters are physically designed for people who are 5 feet tall and above. Anyone below that doesn't quite fit in the seats well, or strap down well and pose a danger of flying out.

The reasonable thing would be for the amusement park, seeking to keep people safe (and cut down on lawsuits), to simply prevent all individuals who are shorter than 5 feet from riding the ride. Instead they figure that most children under 12 (lets say) are shorter than 5'0, so they will just ban all children under 12.

This policy is stupid, counterproductive, abstract, and discriminatory. This policy bans children under 12 who are over 5'0 and allows adults under 5'0 to ride the coaster. This policy ignores completely that an 11 year old who was 5'2 is perfectly safe riding the coaster, and an adult who is 4'8 is in danger riding the coaster.

This policy is as absurd as the voting age.

If we are concerned about people intelligence or education (height) then we should simply test for that. If, as we have it now, we don't care if stupid people vote then why pretend that is a reason for denying youth?

[Jaguar]

Wow. That's a good analogy.


The combined score of this debate so far:
Ozzy: 24
Kuci: 13
Diplo: 13

Total score:

37-13 Youth Rights side.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Wow. That's a good analogy.


The combined score of this debate so far:
Ozzy: 24
Kuci: 13
Diplo: 13

Total score:

37-13 Youth Rights side.

How did figure those numbers?

[OzzyKP]

Cause he is cool, smart, and uses a subject in his sentences.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by The diplomat


How did figure those numbers?

They are completely and totally arbitrary.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Hmmm...I'm not sure more people voting is a good thing. I'd rather discourage voter turnout than increase it, on the rationale that increasing voter turnout disproportionately increases the number of morons who vote.

Arrogant

[Nubclear]

Without reading the arguments above:
If we allow youth to vote, then perhaps some intelligent children will vote and make a good, informed decision, but the vast majority of them will be subject to the wills of peer pressure and parental pressure. If they dont want to vote, their parents will likely force them to vote for the candidate they are going to vote for, which gives essentially an extra vote.
The argument that "Well, most people who go to the polls ANYWAY are stupid, so theres no harm done!" is not a good one - while a small portion of intelligent voters will be introduced, the vast majority will not be and it will only compound the problem.
A teenager is not going to know what its like to pay taxes or have children or anysuch because they likely have not experienced these things - they haven't even passed high school yet!
There would just be too many ignorant people who will become echoes of their parents that it just is not worth it. Yes, a small percentage of them are intelligent, but introducing 99 ignorants just to include the 1 intelligent person is not a good trade off, in my opinion

[David Floyd]

The trouble with IQ tests is that Democrats would insist that it's a way to disenfranchise Black people.

What, are Democrats saying that blacks are less intelligent? That's pretty racist

TS,

Arrogant

So you actually want the opinions of stupid people and the mis-votes of people too senile to know what they're doing to affect your life? I'm not talking about some ridiculously high IQ requirement. An IQ of 95-100 might be good, and that's not unreasonable.

If we have to determine things by votes, let's at least limit the number of potential voters to those who are less likely to vote like *********.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by David Floyd


What, are Democrats saying that blacks are less intelligent? That's pretty racist

Nah, just that IQ tests don't measure intelligence without significant skews for social and cultural reasons (amongst others).

[David Floyd]

Nah, just that IQ tests don't measure intelligence without significant skews for social and cultural reasons (amongst others).

Well, I've found that people with high IQs are generally pretty intelligent, and people with low IQs generally are not. Besides, if IQ tests are skewed towards mainstream US culture/society, I don't see that as being a bad thing if IQ scores are used as a voting criteria in the US

[Ted Striker]

So you actually want the opinions of stupid people and the mis-votes of people too senile to know what they're doing to affect your life? I'm not talking about some ridiculously high IQ requirement. An IQ of 95-100 might be good, and that's not unreasonable.

If we have to determine things by votes, let's at least limit the number of potential voters to those who are less likely to vote like *********.

You are wrong on so many levels I'm not even going to go into them all. I can't honestly believe you are taking this seriously. Maybe you are just trolling by wanting to play devil's advocate.

Sometimes someone may do something you don't agree with, it's not that they are dumb, they just have different motivations and experiences than you do.

So give me your criteria for who can vote and who can't?

Disgusting.

[OzzyKP]

Sometimes someone may do something you don't agree with, it's not that they are dumb, they just have different motivations and experiences than you do.

Exactly
Ted Striker
Lowering the Voting Age
Shameless plug

[MrFun]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


If we are concerned about people intelligence or education (height) then we should simply test for that. If, as we have it now, we don't care if stupid people vote then why pretend that is a reason for denying youth?

I'm not a snobbish, elitist -- I am not concerned about someone's intelligence as a qualification for a RIGHT to vote.