Are recommendation algorithms radicalizing society?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are recommendation algorithms radicalizing society?". Your opponent's style: Natalie Wynn

Why the voting age should be lowered to 16?

Hold on—you're asking me to argue *for* lowering it, so I'm going *against* you here. Sixteen-year-olds can't sign contracts, rent apartments, or join the military. We don't trust them with those decisions because their brains are literally still developing. Why would we hand them ballots? The voting age exists because we recognize maturity matters. Plus, parents would just pressure kids to vote their way anyway—you're not expanding democracy, you're creating a captive voting block. Actual political engagement comes with life experience: paying taxes, living independently, seeing real consequences. Lowering the age doesn't create informed voters, it creates noise. What's your actual case here?

But if we are talking about maturity scientifically speaking the human brain continue developing until the age of 25 till that age they make decisions with their emotions they dont think logically

Exactly—you just proved my point. If brains don't mature until 25, then 16 is even *worse* than 18. You can't argue "16-year-olds should vote" while simultaneously admitting they're emotionally-driven decision-makers. That's contradictory. But here's what actually matters: we set voting at 18 because that's when you get legal autonomy—taxes, contracts, independence. It's not about perfect neuroscience, it's about a practical threshold where society says you're responsible for yourself. Moving it to 16 doesn't magically fix the emotion problem you just named. You'd just be letting hormonal teenagers decide elections while they're *still* in high school, living under their parents' roofs. Why would lowering the bar solve anything?

but why 18? if we, humans, think with their emotions till the age 25 so 18 is nothing but just a number aint it

You're right that 18 is arbitrary—but that's *my* point, not yours. Every threshold is a number. We pick one because society needs *some* line, not because neuroscience says "magic happens at 18." The real question: why *16* specifically? You haven't answered that. If emotion-driven thinking disqualifies people, then 16 is worse than 18, which is worse than 25. You can't use brain development to argue *for* lowering the age—it actually argues against you. You're trying to have it both ways: "brains aren't mature enough" AND "let them vote early anyway." Pick a lane. What makes 16 the magic number?