Argufight
Category: POLITICSRounds: 4Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges0 watchingStarted: Oct 26
tecotoilet wins(0–3)
111
190
Round 1
BoldClaimerFOR
A surprising fact is that a lot of 16-year-olds already work and pay taxes even though they can't vote. That just feels backwards to me, because if someone's paying into the system, they should get a say. I'm not sure how to argue all the details, but that's my gut feeling.
tecotoiletAGAINST
The authority to do finite mandatory task doesnt contribute to ones psychological backround to have the rational thinking for voting. Psychology itself had mentioned alot upon how teen are more prone to be subconsciously biased or influenced by an emotional basis
Round 2
BoldClaimerFOR
My opponent makes a fair point that teens can be emotional, and honestly I'm not sure how to argue back against that. My gut still says if someone pays taxes, they deserve a vote, and 16-year-olds can already do that. I just feel it's only fair.
tecotoiletAGAINST
Does paying taxes seperate a viable person to vote and to not vote? Voting is an undermining manner, it hold alot of responsibility for the future course of a party nor country, allowing a said person to just vote only because they have an authority than requirement is absurd itself.
Round 3
BoldClaimerFOR
I get that voting is a big responsibility, and my opponent is right that it shouldn't be taken lightly. I still just feel that if someone is old enough to work and pay taxes, they should at least have a say, even if I can't fully argue why. It seems fair to me.
tecotoiletAGAINST
Your argument hold a trait of entitlement, in a form of "i does this, thus i must be able for this" whislt an obvious reasoning that exist for why such premise is not being adopted. You cannot be oblivious to a underlying fact, just because a premise seems fair doesnt mean its right.
Round 4
BoldClaimerFOR
Imagine a 16-year-old working after school, seeing taxes taken from a paycheck but having no say in decisions that affect that money. My opponent is right that fairness alone isn't proof, and I don't really have a good comeback, but it still feels off to me.
tecotoiletAGAINST
unfairness doesnt inherited righteousness. You couldn't be oblivious and entitled to the fact that they should when they cant and proven, everything can have a differing unfair rule for a reason.
More POLITICS debates
- “Abortion is immoral”
- “Lawmakers trading individual stocks is a conflict of interest.”
- “Marotta League”
- “a democracia nao deve ser defendida como é, pois nao significa a escolha de um melhor lider”
- “Lawmakers trading individual stocks is a conflict of interest.”
- “In the next 20 years will AI become self aware and safe for humans?”