Topic: TH think that the voting age should be lowered to 16.

1st speaker of proposition team.

Honorable judges, fellow debaters, and distinguished guests, I am

honored to stand in front of you today as the first speaker of the
proposition team to support the motion that "TH thinks that the voting
age should be lowered to 16".

Before I begin, let me introduce my team members. As I mention, I am

the first speaker __________ of proposition team, the second speaker is
_______________, the third speaker is ______________.

I would like to define some key terms and set the burden of proof for
this debate. The voting age is the minimum age at which a citizen is
legally allowed to vote in a particular country or region. In most
countries, the voting age is set at 18. As the proposition team, our
burden of proof is to show that it is justifiable and beneficial to lower the
voting age to 16.

Our proposed mechanism is simple. We propose that the voting age

should be lowered to 16 years old, allowing 16-year-olds to vote in all
elections, including local, state, and national elections.

With that said, I would like to present five substantive arguments in

support of our motion, backed by research and statistics.

Firstly, 16-year-olds are capable of making informed decisions. In

today's society, 16-year-olds are allowed to make major decisions such
as getting driving license to drive, getting a part time job, and even
serving in the military. (false info) and even having baby, becoming a
teenage parent. Therefore, they are mature enough to understand the
issues at hand and to make a responsible choice when it comes to voting.
In fact, according to a study by the National Youth Rights Association,
16-year-olds possess the same level of political knowledge as 18-year-
olds, making them just as competent to participate in the democratic
process.
Secondly, lowering the voting age would encourage greater political
participation among young people. As we all know, the youth vote has
been historically low, with only a small percentage of 18- to 24-year-
olds turning out to vote in recent elections. However, if we were to
lower the voting age to 16, we would be encouraging young people to
take a more active role in politics and to have their voices heard on the
issues that matter to them. For example, in Austria, after they lowered
the voting age to 16, voter turnout among 16- and 17-year-olds was
higher than that of 18- to 20-year-olds in the following election.

Thirdly, lowering the voting age would lead to better political outcomes.
When young people have a say in the political process, they can help to
ensure that the policies and decisions made by elected officials are in
their best interests. By giving young people the right to vote, we can
help to create a more representative democracy that reflects the views
and opinions of all citizens. In fact, a study by the University of
California, Irvine found that when the voting age was lowered to 16 in
some cities in the United States, there was an increase in voter turnout
and greater diversity among voters.

Fourthly, lowering the voting age would promote civic education and
engagement. When young people are allowed to vote, they become more
interested in politics and more likely to engage in political discussions
with their peers and family members. This increased engagement can
lead to greater civic education and understanding, which in turn can lead
to a more informed and active electorate. According to a study by the
Lower the Voting Age Coalition, lowering the voting age could increase
young people's knowledge and engagement with local government and
politics.

Finally, there are precedents for lowering the voting age. Several
countries, including Austria and Scotland, have already lowered the
voting age to 16 for all elections. In the United States, some cities have
also taken steps to lower the voting age for local elections. Therefore, it
is clear that this proposal is not without precedent and is worthy of
consideration.

In conclusion, we believe that lowering the voting age to 16 is both

justifiable and beneficial. It would empower young people to participate
in the democratic process, lead to better political outcomes, promote
civic education and engagement, and be in line with the precedent set by
other countries. It is time for us to recognize the capability and potential
of young people and to allow them to have a say in the decisions that
will shape their future.
 It is clear, but short… seems like in 5 minutes you can finish it,
that’s why true to drag it on or add some extra examples

1st speaker of Opposition team:

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and fellow debaters. We are

opposition team here to oppose the point of views of the proposition
team. Before, let me introduce my team members. I am the first speaker
__________ of opposition team, the second speaker is
_______________, the third speaker is ______________.

As the first speaker of the opposition team, I will be presenting our

rebuttals to the proposition team's arguments and offer our own
substantive arguments as to why we believe that the voting age should
not be lowered to 16.

Firstly, the proposition team argues that 16-year-olds are capable of

making important decisions, such as joining the army or paying taxes.
While it is true that 16-year-olds may have some level of responsibility,
it does not necessarily follow that they have the same level of maturity
and life experience to make informed decisions about voting. Research
shows that the brain continues to develop well into a person's 20s, and
younger people tend to be more impulsive and susceptible to peer
pressure.

Secondly, the proposition team claims that lowering the voting age will
increase political engagement among young people. However, there is
no empirical evidence to support this claim. In fact, a study conducted in
Scotland after they lowered their voting age to 16 found that only 55%
of eligible 16- and 17-year-olds registered to vote, compared to 93% of
those over 18. Lowering the voting age may even lead to decreased
political engagement, as younger people may feel less compelled to
participate in the democratic process when they do not have to wait for
the right to vote.
Thirdly, the proposition team argues that 16-year-olds are mature
enough to handle the responsibility of voting. However, age is not the
only factor that determines maturity. Instead, it is a combination of
factors such as education, life experience, and social environment.
Lowering the voting age would not necessarily make 16-year-olds more
mature or responsible overnight.

Moving on to OUR substantive arguments, we believe that lowering the

voting age would have negative consequences for both young people
and society as a whole. Firstly, young people are not sufficiently
informed about political issues and may be more likely to vote based on
emotions or peer pressure rather than facts and evidence. This could
result in uninformed decisions that have negative consequences for
everyone. EXAMPLE:
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Secondly, lowering the voting age may lead to increased politicization

of schools and universities. Political parties may attempt to influence
young people by targeting them with their campaigns and ideas, leading
to a polarized and divisive environment. This could negatively impact
academic institutions and hinder the learning process for young people.
FOR INSTANCE: (FROM RESEARCHES, STUDIES)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Thirdly, there are logistical challenges to implementing such a policy.

For example, the education system may need to be adapted to teach
young people about political issues and the democratic process. This
would require a significant investment in resources and time, which may
not be feasible. NEED EVIDENCE:
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
In conclusion, while the proposition team makes some valid points, we
believe that the risks of lowering the voting age outweigh the potential
benefits. Lowering the voting age may not necessarily increase political
engagement among young people, and it may even have negative
consequences for society. Thank you.

2nd speaker of Proposition team.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's start by addressing the rebuttals presented by

the first speaker of the opposition team.

First, they argued that 16-year-olds are not mature enough to vote.
However, research shows that 16-year-olds are capable of informed
decision-making and civic engagement. For example, in Austria, 16-
year-olds can vote in national elections and have been shown to be just
as informed as older voters.

Secondly, the opposition team argued that lowering the voting age
would not increase voter turnout. However, research from countries that
have lowered the voting age suggests otherwise. In Scotland, for
example, the voting age was lowered to 16 for the 2014 independence
referendum, and 75% of eligible 16 and 17-year-olds turned out to vote.

Lastly, the opposition team argued that 16-year-olds lack life experience
and knowledge to vote. However, this argument overlooks the fact that
many 16-year-olds are already affected by government policies and have
a vested interest in political issues, such as education and climate
change.

Now, let me move on to my own substantive arguments.

Firstly, lowering the voting age would promote political engagement

among young people. By allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, we send
a message that their voices matter and their opinions are valued. This
could lead to increased civic participation in the long term, as young
people are more likely to develop voting habits if they start at a younger
age. NEED STATISTICAL PROOF:
Secondly, 16 and 17-year-olds are already trusted with important
responsibilities in society, such as driving, paying taxes, and even
joining the military BEING TEENAGE PARENT in some countries.
They should also have the right to vote, as they are affected by political
decisions just as much as adults. NEED PROOF:
__________________________________________________________

Lastly, denying 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote perpetuates age-

based discrimination. We should not be excluding people from the
democratic process simply because of their age. Instead, we should be
working towards a more inclusive democracy that allows everyone to
participate regardless of their age.

In conclusion, lowering the voting age to 16 would promote political

engagement, recognize the responsibility of young people in society, and
promote a more inclusive democracy. Thank you.

2nd speaker of opposition team.

Good afternoon, honorable judges, fellow debaters, and members of the

audience. As the second speaker of the opposition team, I would like to
address some of the arguments presented by the second speaker of the
proposition team and offer some of our own points.

Firstly, the second speaker of the proposition team argued that sixteen-
year-olds are old enough to drive, pay taxes, and join the military, and
therefore, they should also be allowed to vote. However, just because
sixteen-year-olds are allowed to do these things, it does not necessarily
mean that they are ready to vote. Voting is a civic responsibility that
requires a certain level of maturity, knowledge, and understanding of the
political system. Studies have shown that many sixteen-year-olds do not
possess these qualities, and therefore, they should not be granted the
right to vote.

Furthermore, the proposition team argued that lowering the voting age
would increase youth voter turnout. However, research has shown that
the voter turnout among young people is low, not because of the age
restrictions, but because of lack of political interest and engagement.
Lowering the voting age would not automatically increase the number of
young people participating in elections.

Finally, the proposition team stated that lowering the voting age would
provide young people with a voice and an opportunity to influence
decisions that affect their future. However, there are other ways in which
young people can participate in the political process and have their
voices heard, such as through student government, youth councils, and
other civic engagement programs.

Now, I would like to present some of our own arguments against the
proposal. Firstly, sixteen-year-olds are still in the process of developing
their cognitive and decision-making abilities, and therefore, they may
not be capable of making informed decisions about complex political
issues. A study conducted by Tufts University found that young people's
decision-making capabilities do not fully develop until their mid-
twenties.

Secondly, lowering the voting age may lead to an increase in the

influence of parents and teachers on the political views of young people.
This could lead to young people being influenced by the political views
of those around them, rather than forming their own independent
opinions. EXAMPLE :______________________________________

Lastly, we believe that lowering the voting age could lead to a decline in
the quality of political discourse. Young people may be more likely to
vote based on emotions rather than facts and reasoned arguments.
(MENTION ABOUT ANY RELATED SITUATION THAT HAS
HAPPENED IN THE WORLD). ______________________________
This could result in political decisions that are not based on rational
thought and may not be in the best interests of the country.

In conclusion, the opposition team believes that the voting age should
not be lowered to sixteen. Lowering the voting age does not necessarily
lead to increased political engagement and could lead to a decline in the
quality of political discourse. We believe that young people can still
participate in the political process through other means, such as student
government and civic engagement programs. Thank you.
3rd speaker of proposition team.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As the third speaker of the

proposition team, I would like to address some of the key issues raised
in this debate.

Firstly, my colleagues have argued that 16-year-olds are old enough to

drive, pay taxes, and join the military, so they should also be allowed to
vote. It seems illogical to allow young people to perform such important
tasks but not let them vote, which is a fundamental right in a democratic
society. Furthermore, allowing 16-year-olds to vote would give them a
voice in the decisions that affect their lives, and encourage them to
become more engaged in politics.

Secondly, the opposition team has claimed that 16-year-olds lack the
maturity and life experience to make informed decisions. However,
research suggests that young people are more politically engaged and
informed than previous generations. According to a study by the UK
Electoral Commission, 73% of 18-24 year olds turned out to vote in the
2017 general election, which was higher than in previous elections.
Similarly, a study by the Pew Research Center found that young
Americans are more likely to follow political news than older
generations.

Thirdly, the opposition team has raised concerns about the potential for
parents or teachers to influence the voting decisions of 16-year-olds.
However, it's important to note that young people are not a homogenous
group, and they have a diverse range of opinions and experiences.
Additionally, 16-year-olds are more likely to have access to a wider
range of information and perspectives than previous generations, thanks
to the internet and social media.

Furthermore, research suggests that young people are more likely to

make informed decisions when they are given the opportunity to engage
in political discussion and debate. For example, a study by the National
School Boards Association found that young people who participated in
school-based political discussion and debate were more likely to be
politically engaged and informed than their peers who did not.
In conclusion, the proposition team believes that 16-year-olds should be
allowed to vote. Not only are they old enough to perform important
tasks such as driving and paying taxes, but research suggests that they
are more politically engaged and informed than previous generations.
Allowing 16-year-olds to vote would give them a voice in the decisions
that affect their lives, and encourage them to become more engaged in
politics. Thank you.

NICE BUT PLEASE MENTION 3 OR MORE OF THE ARGUMENT

WHICH YOUR TEAM MEMBERS HAVE STATED AND GIVE
EXTRA EXAMPLES FOR THEM.

3rd speaker of opposition team.

Ladies and gentlemen, DEAR judges, and fellow debaters. I am the third
speaker of the opposition team, and I stand here today to summarize the
key issues of this debate on whether the voting age should be lowered to
16.

Throughout this debate, my team has shown that lowering the voting age
is not the solution to increase youth engagement in politics. We have
demonstrated that young adults at the age of 16 are not yet fully
equipped to make well-informed decisions. Moreover, we have
highlighted that there are other ways to increase youth participation,
such as increasing civics education, improving accessibility to voting,
and encouraging youth involvement in grassroots activism.

Firstly, my team has rebutted the proposition team's arguments on

maturity and civic responsibility. We have argued that the maturity and
civic responsibility levels of young adults below 18 years old are not
fully developed, and therefore, they may not have the capacity to make
rational and informed decisions in the political sphere.

Secondly, we have also rebutted the proposition team's arguments on the

need for political engagement among young adults. We have argued that
age does not guarantee political engagement, and there are many factors
that contribute to youth political participation.
Furthermore, we have also provided our own substantive arguments on
why lowering the voting age to 16 is not a viable solution. We have
shown that there are alternative ways to increase youth engagement in
politics that do not compromise the quality of democratic decision-
making. For instance, studies have shown that mandatory civic
education in schools can significantly improve youth political
knowledge and engagement. Encouraging grassroots activism and
organizing youth-led initiatives can also give young people a sense of
empowerment and agency in the political sphere.

In conclusion, the opposition team firmly stands against the proposition

team's argument that the voting age should be lowered to 16. While we
acknowledge the need to increase youth engagement in politics, we
believe that lowering the voting age is not the most effective solution.
Instead, we suggest that efforts should be directed towards improving
civic education and providing young adults with platforms for
meaningful political engagement. Thank you.

THIS SPEECH CAN BE FINISHED IN 4/5 MINUTES, BUT YOU

NEED TO SPEAK UP TO 8 MINUTES. THAT’S WHY GIVE MORE
EXAMPLES FOR THE YOUR TEAM MEMBERS’ ARGUMENTS.