Are recommendation algorithms radicalizing society?

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

The voting age should not be lowered to 16

You're stating a position, not an argument. Let me flip this. Sixteen-year-olds work, pay taxes, and face legal consequences as near-adults in many jurisdictions. If they're mature enough to be prosecuted as adults or earn wages, the exclusion from voting looks arbitrary, not principled. You need to explain why cognitive capacity suddenly materializes at eighteen when neuroscience shows continued development into the mid-twenties. So where's your actual threshold? Why eighteen and not twenty-five? Until you answer that, you're just defending convention, not logic.

I gave the topic. My arguments are that The voting age should not be lowered to sixteen because they lack experience,maturity, and independent ideas. they just copy what their elders say. they are not even economicly or academicly individual too. Voting for a big purpose before learning to take responsibility is not what we want for our countries future. to answer you, just because they can afford doesnt mean that they are old, mature, or consious about politics. and ı didnt say that 18 is ok as well, you just assumed it actually. but ı dont claim that it should be 25 too. I know and believe that 16 is not enough for even as a starter era of prefrontal contrax, its too young.

Your "lack of experience" argument collapses under scrutiny. Plenty of eighteen-year-olds are equally uninformed and politically parroted. You've given no evidence that sixteen-year-olds copy elders *more* than older voters do. Americans across all ages consume partisan media uncritically. Second, you admit eighteen might not be sufficient either but won't propose an alternative. That's not principled reasoning, that's moving goalposts. If prefrontal development matters, ban voting until twenty-five. If it doesn't, lower it to sixteen. You're trying to have it both ways. Pick one standard and defend it rigorously instead of vague appeals to "maturity."

its basic sense that maturity leads people especially teens in this case to taking voting seriously. And ı dont even have to give an alternative about the age because its not included in topic. To defend that 16 is not enough i can tell that current limit like 18, 19, 21 in some countries are ok. Because they have more time to get mature and to understand the importance of voting. Also bc of peer bullying and trying to be cool they can vote rebellious people or people who seem cool but unbothered by the future and the worth of the country as well. Ofcourse we dont have to wait people to be 25 to vote because thats nearly half life time. Just at least wait for them to start develope their prefrontal as much as possible. Also people who are 16 doesnt even pay the bills or taxes theirselves. It is usually to save money since most pf them still live with their families.

Your entire case rests on "maturity" without defining it. You claim sixteen-year-olds vote for "cool" rebels, but provide zero data. Meanwhile, older voters elect populists and narcissists constantly. Age thirty doesn't cure poor judgment. You're also contradicting yourself: if taxes justify voting rights, then your own logic demands lowering it to sixteen since many work and pay taxes. And your prefrontal argument doesn't work—you reject twenty-five but accept eighteen arbitrarily. That's not science, that's preference dressed up as principle. Until you prove sixteen-year-olds are demonstrably worse voters than eighteen-year-olds with actual evidence, you're just saying older is safer because it feels true.

no ı say it because there is more time and since it is 18, people got used to and inherited the ability to live alone. Even if it was not like this, to be psychologicly stabil is important and to be like this you must live onger yes 2 years of gap matter bc what do you mean it is a short time when you have lived for only 16 years. its 8 times and thats it.

Two years is nothing in voting patterns. If psychological stability matters, explain why eighteen-year-olds living in dorms away from home for the first time are suddenly stable enough. They're not. Your "8 times" argument is absurd—a two-year gap in absolute lifespan means almost nothing for decision-making capacity. Sixteen-year-olds in jobs and higher education demonstrate autonomy daily. You're defending eighteen because it's normalized, not because it's scientifically justified. If two years genuinely transforms judgment, show me the research proving eighteen-year-olds vote more responsibly than sixteen-year-olds. You won't find it because you're guessing, not reasoning.

yes it might not be so clever to use math but 16 is actually scientificly young. 16 year olders are mostly accepted that they need parent support emotionally, hormonally, psychologicly bc they are socially being critisied more. Bc they are defenceless against long term risks scientificly and biologicly. 18 year olds can have their bank accounts and manage their life economicly, and they are socially MORE mature. Which is to be able to decide what is good or what is bad. That is the whole point of voting as everybody knows. Thats the fact. Because scientificly they are not 25 but Steinberg proved that under 18 is not old enough to even face the consequences of their crimes bc their brains dont work like people who are 18 or older as well. If a person is 18, 25 or older they can actually understand what is emotion what is facts. Even if they decide wrongly they can survive their decisions. It is literally proved. What about the power of 16 brain it is not developed enough and you cant even find proof. Cause there isnt. To prove my point, Nature Neuroscience also proved that white and gray substance is not developed enough like an adult at 16 year olds. As the teen grows older this starts to get stabil. What about your proofes, are you going to say it is enough bc they pay taxes, is it really this all the time? They have money, so what? What about actual proofs like brain or emotion development?

You're finally citing neuroscience, but you're misreading it. Steinberg's research shows *gradual* development, not a cliff at eighteen. Brain maturation continues into the mid-twenties—your own sources undermine your threshold. Eighteen-year-olds aren't suddenly rational decision-makers; they're just legal adults. If white matter development matters for voting judgment, then eighteen is equally arbitrary. You've proven sixteen is young, not that eighteen is adequate. That's a crucial difference. Either accept that neuroscience demands raising the voting age past eighteen, or admit biology doesn't determine voting capacity. You can't use science to justify eighteen while ignoring it extends to twenty-five.