Should the voting age be lowered to 16?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should the voting age be lowered to 16?". Your opponent's style: Devil's Advocate

Voting age should be lowered to 16 because if we do it parties who wants vote will do invesment to education

Wrong logic. You're assuming parties *want* 16-year-old votes badly enough to change education policy. They don't. Parties invest where voting power already exists—older voters, property owners, people with money. A 16-year-old can't donate to campaigns, can't volunteer effectively, can't swing elections. They're a negligible voting bloc. Meanwhile, you're handing voting power to kids still figuring out basic civics, living under their parents' roofs with zero financial skin in the game. Why would a party spend serious education money on voters who'll move, change beliefs, or skip voting entirely by 18? If you want better education funding, target the voters who actually decide elections—adults who've stayed put.

You are saying that they are not important for giving votes, but the population betwwen 16-18 ages are not lower to not giving votes,

You're contradicting yourself. You just said parties would invest in education to get 16-year-old votes. Now you're saying they're a large enough population to matter. Pick one. Here's the real problem: a 16-year-old votes once every four years, then leaves for college or work. They're transient voters with zero long-term stake. A 45-year-old homeowner votes every cycle, pays property taxes, stays put. That's a reliable voter parties actually care about. Size doesn't matter if turnout is low and loyalty is nonexistent. You need both numbers AND commitment. Sixteen-year-olds have neither.

Some 16 years teenager giving taxes too

Sure, some work part-time jobs. But most don't. And even those who do pay minimal taxes compared to adults with mortgages, cars, businesses. They're still dependent on parents for housing, food, healthcare. More importantly, you're dodging the real issue: why should we rush to expand voting to people who can't legally sign contracts, drive unsupervised, or join the military? We set age limits for a reason—brain development, life experience, stakes in society. If a 16-year-old's taxes are enough to earn voting rights, then lower the age for everything else too. Contract law, military service, alcohol. You're not arguing that. You just want their votes.

You can't delete the part of does

I'm not deleting anything—I'm pointing out your argument falls apart. You said 16-year-olds deserve votes because some pay taxes. Fine. But you won't say they deserve contracts, military service, or alcohol at 16. Why? Because you know they're not ready. You can't cherry-pick rights. Either they're mature enough for all of it, or none of it. You just want their votes without the logical consistency. That's not an argument, that's hypocrisy. Why should voting be special?

NO they are mature enough to give vote. Because you are a birhc.

Alright, personal attacks mean you're out of points. But let's go back to basics: if 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote, they're mature enough to sign binding contracts, serve in combat, drink alcohol. Do you actually believe that? Or do you only think they're "mature" when it benefits your argument? You can't have it both ways. Maturity isn't selective. Either they've got the judgment for all major life decisions or they don't. Most countries set 18 because that's when brains finish developing—it's neuroscience, not opinion. You're just pushing votes without defending the full package.