DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
@Sonofason I honestly don't think there should be a voting age because everyone's mental age is different at different ages. I don't believe in being too young to do anything
@theinfectedmaster Well you're right about the mental age of everyone being different, nevertheless, the science behind this type of decision does a great job, while we can't affirm that a certain mental age is sufficient to make political decisions, we try to create bounds by estimating this age to have enough confidence in population's decisions, that is to say, yeah sure there should be some kids that would be more mature than 50 years old people, but this excpetion is too small to be considered for a greater generalization, and guess what, it would be incredibly complicated to verify this, I mean to know if someone is mature enough you should know him for at least several weeks, whould would do this work, we can't even trust families or education stafff to certify this since they could have some influence in children to vote as adults wish, so yeah it's just not realizable, and a minimum bound should be established, and it depends on the country and its conception of it, for example it's only 16 in germany while the full legal responablility is reached at 18. for me, there should be not only a a lower bound, but also an upper one, for old people, even without talking about mentally ill people, they're still problematic, because their votes would only follow their conception of things, but that's something that constantly changes, and once you reached the retirement age, all the major economic and other important parameters wouldn't be important for you anymore, you would rather your values, to exemplify, in France, Macron won the presidential elections, and in his program, he wanted to increase the minimum retirement age from 62 to 65, unsurprisingly, the major voting population in france is the oldest one, otherwise why someone would choose someone proposing such a program, again, there are surely old people who are still interested in societal trends, even after retiring, but their share is also too small to be taken in consideration as votes that indeed reflect the global population's opinion
" I don't believe in being too young to do anything "
So you think it's fine for 1 year olds to get drunk or drive a car?
Eliminating a voting age means that those with the most children will tend to win elections, as the parents will likely vote for their children. If anything, it should be increased, as the brain is not fully developed until about 25. The last areas to develop help people make rational decisions, which is important when it comes to voting.
@OakTownA There should be a height restriction for when people can drink alcohol. I don't think their should be an age restriction do to the fact that there is gigantism. The reason I say this is because it would be bad to give a person with severe dwarfism alcohol.
@OakTownA A person doesn't have to have a fully developed brain when making good decisions voting. Our cognitive capacity typically reaches adult levels around 14-16.
"There should be a height restriction for when people can drink alcohol. I
don't think their should be an age restriction do to the fact that
there is gigantism. The reason I say this is because it would be bad to
give a person with severe dwarfism alcohol."
Nice non sequitur. There's a big difference in development between an adult with gigantism or dwarfism and a child, regardless of height. Alcohol consumption before the age of 15 can adversely affect the development of the child's organs, including the brain, liver, and bones.
There is not a different risk in adults who consume alcohol based solely on the person's height.
"Our cognitive capacity typically reaches adult levels around 14-16."
It's usually 16, but, yes, this is true. However, there is not a universally accepted way to measure cognitive capacities or psychosocial maturity. Also, psychosocial maturity occurs years later than cognitive capacity, usually around 25. As psychosocial maturity traits include impulse control, future orientation, and resistance to peer influence, among others, which are very relevant to voting.
No voting age means that new born infants who just begun to develop the basics of language and communication should be able to vote. You seem to think that anyone can do anything at any age. This is demonstrably not true.
@Sonofason I honestly don't think there should be a voting age because everyone's mental age is different at different ages. I don't believe in being too young to do anything
Maybe you're right, perhaps age shouldn't have anything to do with it. Perhaps there should be a test on American History and the Constitution of the United States. You don't pass the test, then you don't vote.
People under 18 have no reason to vote. They are still controlled by their emotions, have never actually had a life, and are still in school. Voting should be a thing that only wise people should partake in. People under 18 are not wise.
A literacy test was racist because blacks weren't allowed to have the same education, today that's not true so I wouldn't say that is racist anymore.
Answering the question to whether iq or educational standards should be required is difficult for me to answer as there isn't a fool proof to measure that especially without potential corruption being part of the standard. This is why I think age is in place. It's seen as a reasonable way to measure that a person has a high level of understanding of what they are voting for without large discrimination.
I heard someone in college ask "why doesn't the government just print money and hand it out to everyone". In my opinion they shouldn't have a vote but I don't see an easy way to exclude them.
Things I think we could improve on:
1. You should only get a vote if you pay taxes (assuming everyone has equal opportunity to participate).
2. No one in government positions should be allowed to vote...you shouldn't be allowed to vote to increase your own power.
3. In should be substantially easier for congress to decrease the size of government than to increase its size or regulatory power.
"A literacy test was racist because blacks weren't allowed to have the same education, today"
That's a fair point. I will need to think about that more.
"This is why I think age is in place. It's seen as a reasonable way to
measure that a person has a high level of understanding of what they are
voting for without large discrimination."
Agreed.
"1. You should only get a vote if you pay taxes (assuming everyone has equal opportunity to participate)."
What kind of taxes? Almost everyone pays some sort of tax, including those that are under age (sales tax, for example).
"2. No one in government positions should be allowed to vote...you shouldn't be allowed to vote to increase your own power."
Allowed to vote at all, or allowed to vote for themselves? Regardless, you may be onto something here.
"3. In should be substantially easier for congress to decrease the size
of government than to increase its size or regulatory power."
This seems like a non sequitur, as the topic at hand is voting age.
1. Well I guess it depends on the way a nation's taxes are set up, but at a minimum the taxes citizens are expected to pay in the u.s with a job: income, sales, social security. If you are not contributing to the system I do not see why you should get to vote how the money is spent.
2. I don't think they should be able to vote at all.
3. More of opinion. I agree it is slightly off topic of this thread.
"Well I guess it depends on the way a nation's taxes are set up, but at a
minimum the taxes citizens are expected to pay in the u.s with a job:
income, sales, social security. If you are not contributing to the
system I do not see why you should get to vote how the money is spent."
I see what you are saying here, and I think it is important to remember that almost everyone pays some sort of taxes. Would you have an age restriction as well? Like many people, I entered the work force as a teen, and payed taxes. Should a 15-17 year old be able to vote? I was laid off at the beginning of 2020, and received unemployment benefits. Taxes were/are taken out of that check. Food for thought.
" I don't think they should be able to vote at all."
My initial response is to agree with you. I'm going to think about this, as you may be onto something here. It's nice to see we can agree on something!
@OakTownA You realize a person's experiences in life are what up a person's maturity level though, which the amount of them varies from person to person.
Does experience contribute to a person's maturity level? Yes. Is it the only or primary contribution? No. The primary contribution to maturity is brain development, which is not complete until a person is in their 20's. A 10 year old can live a life time of experiences, but their maturity level will still be around that of a 10-13 year old due to brain development.
The age should remain the same. It's voting which should be abolished, because it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference one way or the other. In no way is the present system conducive to any type of choice about how society organises itself or functions. At least, not in places like America and most of Europe.
Debate topic : American infants should be allowed vote in USA
I actually think this should apply in the USA as 3 year old Americans surely cannot be as idiotic as parents who voted the brain dead turd Trump into office
@OakTownA The reason I haven't believed that a person's brain development defines maturity is simply because a 3 year old has a similar brain structure to that of an adult's.
The reason I haven't believed that a person's brain development defines maturity is simply because a 3 year old has a similar brain structure to that of an adult's.
Hello the:
Think of your brain as a structure that houses a supercomputer sans data. It has potential to process boatloads of data.. But, without data, it cant do anything.. Learning how to upload data fast is what it's all about. So, it oughtn't be surprising that 3 year old brain doesn't have the data that a 10 year old brain does...
This would simply result in children voting the same way as their parents, giving disproportional shares of votes to families with a large number of children. Which is grounded in *some* reason, but I do not think that this outcome is what you had in mind.
Assuming, on the other hand, that a vote is an expression of one's preference, we run into serious logical issues. In what sense can a 1 month old infant have a preference between the Republican and the Democratic party? There is a reason such infants have legal guardians acting on their behalf, rather than doing everything themselves. A 1 month old would have a hard time working a full-time job to support himself, shopping for groceries, cleaning his house, et cetera.
Regarding maturity, do you seriously think that a creature that came out of a womb yesterday can be as mature as a 30 year old adult? What is your definition of "maturity"?
"Does it mean that a 3 year oldest brain functions differently, and that
it isn't developed enough to be able to vote"
Yes; that's exactly what that means. A 3 year old and a 23 year old's brains may look similar, but the neural connections have not completely formed in the 3 year old, especially in the frontal lobe, which is the reasoning center or the brain.
Putting let's say 5 year olds to vote is really irresponsible. That would lead to powerplay and manipulation. Ofc anyone can be manipulated but children are more easy to manipulate.
The fact remains that someone as young as 5 does not have the same level of understanding that someone aged 25 would have.
Putting let's say 5 year olds to vote is really irresponsible.
Hello Kekee the Squid:
The question is NOT about responsibility.. The question is about rights.. There was a time when we tested people to see if they were smart enough to vote.. For the same reason we threw that out, we should throw out ANY impediment to vote.. And, I mean ANY.
Voting should be impossible for those under 18. This is just plain common sense. You wouldn't want some 12-year-old's vote to change an election, it'd be idiotic. Plus, to get the right to vote for them, they'd have to do things like actually be in the military and work, and you know how child labor went, right?
"I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
You wouldn't want some 12-year-old's vote to change an election, it'd be idiotic.
Hello L:
Actually, I would.. I'm pretty much an absolutist regarding the Bill of Rights.. A 12 year old can be as wrong about Trump just as much as an adult can.. Frankly, I think we'd be BETTER off if we listened to children more.
Freedom is scary. Deal with it.
I don't call you names. Never have.. But, I can start...
Freedom is far from scary as a fact / whole truth. It is
something without cost and all things as a united state without cost are
secure. Liberty can be frightening, calling liberty freedom is not only scary
it easily becomes terrorism.
"Bill of Rights."
Describes the introduction of cost of liberty
from a zero station of free without cost to liberty which describes all cost
after freedom.
Keep
in mind a lawyer / legal counsel, a witty and mindful person cannot sell freedom,
it is impossible. Why? Is it impossible meaning charging a payment is always
negating the principles of freedom the get go. They the people cannot achieve
freedom by practices of civil liberties. Not possible. It is a lie.
You are arguing a grievance
set around taxation, inflation of cost (not economic growth inflation) without
representation, plus a cost applied to living outside of money related now to
Federal Reserve Notes and inheritance of property. Inherited Constitutional
Right to Vote, this is the original stander of the Federal voting process constitutional
Right as a United State in America. The question being not does a right
to vote exist but is the path taken better or for less connection to
established justice. Sadly, the answer is clear despite “Civil Rights” no it is
not the better connection.
Did Civil Liberty need to be
the better connection to established justice as a general welfare concern
during its use and introduction? No, it did not. The right to remain silent in
any and all grievance between Civil Rights and Civil liberties is set be the
entirety of the 1st Amendment held in a united state. Not a partial self-evident
truth broken by a practice of law both public and privately, by hired or by self-representation,
which is under Constitutional Right by order of Authority in the delivery of
all that is "Right."
For the record. A child
under 18 years votes in a chain of command. It is not that they do not vote,
the grievance of fact is they have less representation due to the chain of
command. Nothing else.
A variation of this question
is how do we best server representation by taxation for people of all ages as a
Constitutional Right. How then might the right be written into a well standing
law?
Not perfect, bad things happen, but it's still pretty damn good, back in those days kids had something productive to do, and they made money for their poor families, banning child labor is keeping poor people (the ones wo don't like being poor) poor, plus it's leading to the children growing up to be lazy and very undisciplined adults.
What is that logic there? Keeping children safe from incidents like the picture I showed (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, 146 casualties) is keeping poor people poor? And also, why force children to work rather than adults for their families? Plus, the reason why child labor was so "successful" was because they could just not pay them at all or pay them very little. Also, most children still do work, just for their families, i.e. chores, so saying they'll grow up "lazy and undisciplined" without child labor is just plain wrong.
"I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
What is that logic there? Keeping children safe from incidents like the picture I showed (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, 146 casualties) is keeping poor people poor? And also, why force children to work rather than adults for their families? Plus, the reason why child labor was so "successful" was because they could just not pay them at all or pay them very little. Also, most children still do work, just for their families, i.e. chores, so saying they'll grow up "lazy and undisciplined" without child labor is just plain wrong.
I was joking when I said it was glorious, in all seriousness it was pretty bad. However with proper regulation it could be helpful, of course children shouldn't be doing dangerous jobs for little or no pay, however there are a few simple jobs that children can do, they can be paid to do cleaning, or maybe yardwork if they're old enough, Sometimes there's not much choice about it, sometimes having the adults work isn't enough, the sad reality is that some people are barely managing to put food on the table, and if sending their kid off to work will help them feed Their family, then it's ultimately preferable.
back in those days kids had something productive to do
Child labour isn't productive for children. It's only productive for the adults who put them to work.
I have to say I'm a little surprised to discover that you're pro-child labour.
I don't think kids should be doing "something productive" in the first place. They should be being kids. They are going to spend the rest of their entire lives being exploited for profit, so I think they should at least get a few years to enjoy life before the wage slavery begins.
I don't getting wanting to be a kid, I hated being a kid, but you're not the only one who's said such things so I assume that it's important for most people, that's why I don't actually support children doing fulltime jobs, in ideal conditions doing very little work in light jobs, such as doing some yard work or cleaning for a neighbor for a few days during the summer, for the purpose of giving them training for being in the workplace that doing chores for your parents might not fully replicate, their boss might not let them get away with doing a bad job because they had a hard day at school for example. But in the end it all should make up very little of one's childhood, like you said, let them enjoy being children, if that's what they're into.
However that's the case in ideal situations, lot's of people have no choice but to send their kids to work, the alternative might mean not being able to feed themselves and their families, it's unfortunate that this is the case but it is none the less, and allowing these people to make a little extra income through their children might help them get out of poverty, or at least make their poverty less extreme would certainly be good.
I was joking in the post where I said that child labor was glorious and the one following that.
@theinfectedmaster Not sure that 5-year-old children would constitute an effective and rational voting populace. If voting age restrictions were to be abolished, then those with children would essentially get a second hand in the voting system as they heavily influence the voting choices of their children. Children cannot make their own choices, especially around important matters like this, so giving them a vote can only advantage their parents to an unfair level.
So, you are saying all
children hold their parents in a united State of superiority regardless of them
being a good or bad parent? In truth there are legal burdens that come as a united state with voting and crimes children are not capable of being charged with in a
court of law.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't understand the argument for no age limit on voting. What is the rationale given?
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.64  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.46  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
People under 18 have no reason to vote. They are still controlled by their emotions, have never actually had a life, and are still in school. Voting should be a thing that only wise people should partake in. People under 18 are not wise.
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
A literacy test was racist because blacks weren't allowed to have the same education, today that's not true so I wouldn't say that is racist anymore.
Answering the question to whether iq or educational standards should be required is difficult for me to answer as there isn't a fool proof to measure that especially without potential corruption being part of the standard. This is why I think age is in place. It's seen as a reasonable way to measure that a person has a high level of understanding of what they are voting for without large discrimination.
I heard someone in college ask "why doesn't the government just print money and hand it out to everyone". In my opinion they shouldn't have a vote but I don't see an easy way to exclude them.
Things I think we could improve on:
1. You should only get a vote if you pay taxes (assuming everyone has equal opportunity to participate).
2. No one in government positions should be allowed to vote...you shouldn't be allowed to vote to increase your own power.
3. In should be substantially easier for congress to decrease the size of government than to increase its size or regulatory power.
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
1. Well I guess it depends on the way a nation's taxes are set up, but at a minimum the taxes citizens are expected to pay in the u.s with a job: income, sales, social security. If you are not contributing to the system I do not see why you should get to vote how the money is spent.
2. I don't think they should be able to vote at all.
3. More of opinion. I agree it is slightly off topic of this thread.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The age should remain the same. It's voting which should be abolished, because it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference one way or the other. In no way is the present system conducive to any type of choice about how society organises itself or functions. At least, not in places like America and most of Europe.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 52%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Assuming, on the other hand, that a vote is an expression of one's preference, we run into serious logical issues. In what sense can a 1 month old infant have a preference between the Republican and the Democratic party? There is a reason such infants have legal guardians acting on their behalf, rather than doing everything themselves. A 1 month old would have a hard time working a full-time job to support himself, shopping for groceries, cleaning his house, et cetera.
Regarding maturity, do you seriously think that a creature that came out of a womb yesterday can be as mature as a 30 year old adult? What is your definition of "maturity"?
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Putting let's say 5 year olds to vote is really irresponsible. That would lead to powerplay and manipulation. Ofc anyone can be manipulated but children are more easy to manipulate.
The fact remains that someone as young as 5 does not have the same level of understanding that someone aged 25 would have.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Hello nitwit
Voting should be impossible for those under 18. This is just plain common sense. You wouldn't want some 12-year-old's vote to change an election, it'd be idiotic. Plus, to get the right to vote for them, they'd have to do things like actually be in the military and work, and you know how child labor went, right?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Freedom is far from scary as a fact / whole truth. It is something without cost and all things as a united state without cost are secure. Liberty can be frightening, calling liberty freedom is not only scary it easily becomes terrorism.
"Bill of Rights."
Describes the introduction of cost of liberty from a zero station of free without cost to liberty which describes all cost after freedom.
Keep in mind a lawyer / legal counsel, a witty and mindful person cannot sell freedom, it is impossible. Why? Is it impossible meaning charging a payment is always negating the principles of freedom the get go. They the people cannot achieve freedom by practices of civil liberties. Not possible. It is a lie.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You are arguing a grievance set around taxation, inflation of cost (not economic growth inflation) without representation, plus a cost applied to living outside of money related now to Federal Reserve Notes and inheritance of property. Inherited Constitutional Right to Vote, this is the original stander of the Federal voting process constitutional Right as a United State in America. The question being not does a right to vote exist but is the path taken better or for less connection to established justice. Sadly, the answer is clear despite “Civil Rights” no it is not the better connection.
Did Civil Liberty need to be the better connection to established justice as a general welfare concern during its use and introduction? No, it did not. The right to remain silent in any and all grievance between Civil Rights and Civil liberties is set be the entirety of the 1st Amendment held in a united state. Not a partial self-evident truth broken by a practice of law both public and privately, by hired or by self-representation, which is under Constitutional Right by order of Authority in the delivery of all that is "Right."
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
For the record. A child under 18 years votes in a chain of command. It is not that they do not vote, the grievance of fact is they have less representation due to the chain of command. Nothing else.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
A variation of this question is how do we best server representation by taxation for people of all ages as a Constitutional Right. How then might the right be written into a well standing law?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"It went gloriously"
Such perfection, amirite?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
What is that logic there? Keeping children safe from incidents like the picture I showed (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, 146 casualties) is keeping poor people poor? And also, why force children to work rather than adults for their families? Plus, the reason why child labor was so "successful" was because they could just not pay them at all or pay them very little. Also, most children still do work, just for their families, i.e. chores, so saying they'll grow up "lazy and undisciplined" without child labor is just plain wrong.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
However that's the case in ideal situations, lot's of people have no choice but to send their kids to work, the alternative might mean not being able to feed themselves and their families, it's unfortunate that this is the case but it is none the less, and allowing these people to make a little extra income through their children might help them get out of poverty, or at least make their poverty less extreme would certainly be good.
I was joking in the post where I said that child labor was glorious and the one following that.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Not sure that 5-year-old children would constitute an effective and rational voting populace. If voting age restrictions were to be abolished, then those with children would essentially get a second hand in the voting system as they heavily influence the voting choices of their children. Children cannot make their own choices, especially around important matters like this, so giving them a vote can only advantage their parents to an unfair level.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, you are saying all children hold their parents in a united State of superiority regardless of them being a good or bad parent? In truth there are legal burdens that come as a united state with voting and crimes children are not capable of being charged with in a court of law.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra