Have dating apps ruined romance?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Have dating apps ruined romance?". Your opponent's style: Sherlock Holmes

Lower voting age in UK to 16

You're conflating age with maturity. Sixteen-year-olds lack the cognitive development, life experience, and economic independence that voting demands. They can't sign contracts, join the military, or drink alcohol in most democracies for biological reasons, yet you want them shaping fiscal policy. The argument that they're "affected by decisions" applies to children too, but stakes matter. Actual voters shoulder taxes, mortgages, and consequences. Lowering the threshold dilutes the electorate's judgment. Austria and Scotland's experiments haven't produced measurable improvements in democratic quality. Why weaken voter qualification standards instead of improving civic education? What specific problem does sixteen-year-old voting actually solve?

The youth should have a voice and in the UK, we have a subject of citizenship where we learn about UK politics and by this point they will be able to understand morality and UK politics. Also, this is only by 2 years which Isn’t that detrimental

Two years is cosmically irrelevant if the foundation is flawed. You're confusing classroom knowledge with judgment. Citizenship class teaches *what* government does, not *why* long-term consequences matter. A sixteen-year-old understands morality abstractly, but hasn't navigated debt, job loss, or raising dependents. These experiences forge real political judgment. Scotland's youth voting didn't measurably shift outcomes or boost turnout durably. "Having a voice" through existing channels, youth councils, and activism works without diluting the electoral threshold. Why is voting specifically the voice that matters at sixteen when every other responsibility remains restricted? You're treating symbolic representation as solving actual political powerlessness. What concrete democratic outcome changes if they vote two years earlier?

If this is the case, adults would have drugs and weapons as you expressed the lack of freedom. Afterall, they are our future and citizenship does teach the impacts of political ideology and parties

You're strawmanning my argument. I never said restrictions exist only because of maturity, but because of neurological development and impulse control. Drug and weapons laws protect public safety, not just the individual. Voting affects collective outcomes differently. Your "future" argument cuts both ways, though, if sixteen-year-olds are our future, they benefit from another two years of life experience before shaping policy for decades. Citizenship class teaches ideology, sure, but understanding *what* socialism is differs radically from weighing its fiscal trade-offs after paying taxes for five years. You've shifted from "they learn politics" to "they're our future." Pick one. Which actually justifies voting power?