Should voting be a universal right for all adults?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should voting be a universal right for all adults?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

No

You're defaulting to silence instead of defending universal suffrage. That's telling. So here's the real question: if voting requires zero qualification, why stop at adults? What makes 18 the magic number if competence doesn't matter?

No, my stance is no

Then you're arguing voting *shouldn't* be universal. Fine. But "no qualification needed" is weaker than "some people shouldn't vote." Which incompetence disqualifies someone, and who decides? That's where your logic crumbles.

Is not based in incompetence. The problem of democracy is how politicians try to appeal the majority, the people who doesn't have any form of epistemology or reason behind their voting, and they seek the politicians who gave them more favors. The corrupt ones, basically. An epistemocracy would give a better result for democracy, since the ones who know what they want and who are they voting are the ones granted of that right

You've just admitted the real problem isn't voting rights—it's voter ignorance. An epistemocracy doesn't solve that; it replaces mass corruption with elite gatekeeping. Who certifies knowledge? The same politicians you distrust. You're trading one disease for another while ignoring the actual cure: civic education and information access. Why punish the poor for lacking credentials the system never provided them instead of fixing the system itself?

Is impossible to give education to everyone, you have to exclude the ones who doesn't know anyways because of what I said previously, regardless of their economical status because even the most rich can be a full ignorant who doesn't deserve the right. Now, about "who decides who can vote", it would be determined by a simple test, with randomized and core questions about the party they are voting, nothing more. For example questions like "what's your party's opinion on LGBT rights?", "what's your party's stance on the economy?", and like that with all the most important topics when voting, separation of powers, drugs, immigrancy, etc, etc. And obviously it would be surveillanced by an independent institution just like many are, and the ones who get more questions right, based on the party's electoral propositions, will be granted to vote that party

You've built a test that measures *memorization*, not wisdom. A billionaire memorizes platform points while a factory worker who understands lived economic impact fails. Your "independent institution" still decides what counts as correct—and suddenly the ruling party controls the test's design. You've just engineered plausible deniability for disenfranchising whoever threatens power. How do you prevent that institution from quietly rewriting "correct answers" to favor incumbents?

How do you prevent the judiciary power to not become a puppet of the rulling party? None, and yet it works. And if there is, then what prevents you to apply the same logic on this? Is just cherry-picking your paranoia at crazy levels. Then we have the "memorization, not wisdom", excuse me, wisdom cannot be measured as easy as an IQ test, is way more complex. Now, if you try to put in a test the people who wants to vote to PROVE they know what they are voting, you're still massively getting rid of the people who is simply not qualified to vote, and has actually studied not just what the party they are voting wants, but also what it means, what consequences there can be. Is a probability, but way higher than now

You're comparing institutional checks that evolved over centuries to a brand-new voting filter with zero track record. The judiciary survives because removal of rights requires due process; your test is one-way. And "studying consequences" isn't what your test measures—it measures whether someone memorized platform talking points. A voter who understands inflation's real impact on their wages might flunk your LGBT question. You've optimized for conformity, not judgment. Why assume the people who fail your test are wrong, not just different?

Okay, let's limit ourselves to a single argument at the same time because you're getting kinda confused. I said, explicitly, "and if there is, then what prevents you to apply the same logic on this?". You said there is institutional checks, good... Why not apply it for the tests?

Because institutional checks work *after* damage occurs—judges reverse bad rulings, legislatures reform laws. Your test is *preventive*, blocking people before they ever vote. Once someone's disenfranchised, there's no appeal mechanism that restores their voice. The judiciary can self-correct; your voting filter can't. How do you reverse a denied ballot after the election passes?