1. Biologically, in the vast majority of cases, 16-year-olds aren't fully developed. Meaning, not everything that humans physically require to make decisions is not yet fully grown. It's not just the brain but also many different organs and processes, from hormone regulation to digestion, etc. From this fact alone, it logically follows that these people are making decisions different from their fully developed state. 2. Mentally speaking, it's the case that decision-making requires information. In order to gather knowledge, wisdom, experience, etc., access and contact with other people is necessary, which primarily needs time. It logically follows that since 16-year-olds have had less time to gather this crucial information than older people, their decision-making can be negatively affected. 3. Voting isn't just fundamental to the principles of democracy; it's an extremely important and consequential action because it determines the future of a nation. It affects millions and even billions of people. Arguing for voting for the sake of voting, that "representation is always better", is illogical since nothing is "always good" but also irresponsible for not addressing the consequences.

I understand that there are examples for 16-year-olds that have the required physical development alongside the wisdom and credibility to vote, just like older people. However, it's still a matter of time and biology for the vast majority of humans; it's physics. What you've raised are exceptions. The law or rights can't be based on exceptions because, and addressing your last argument, by lowering the vote to 16 and protecting the rights of the exceptions you've mentioned, would also allow for all the other 16 year olds that aren't fully developed, aren't part of your example, to vote. And these would be the vast majority. The consequences of this cannot be logically argued; that would be neither "better" nor even "neutral" for society. This is the main problem with your proposition. Addressing the needs of the few does not justify causing more problems or harm for the many.

There is no inconsistency because my arguments are based on biology and what's more or less developed on average. Growth and wisdom require time, which means less is worse. It's physics. The prefrontal cortex argument might be true, but it's not what I'm arguing for or against. I'm arguing against lowering the voting age, not increasing it. You reiterated on "disenfranchisement", "Austria's evidence" and "teens are affected with no say" again without addressing consequences and always assuming that "representation is always better". First, there are exceptions and minorities that need addressing, but this doesn't justify ignoring the majority. In principle, laws or rights can't be based on the exceptions. It's obviously unsustainable and immoral when it's at the cost of the majority. Why would the needs of the few justify the suffering of the many? Second, it's not possible to have any restriction without "disenfranchising" someone. If we follow your logic, why can't 14-year-olds vote then? Why not 5-year-olds? They're just as disenfranchised as most 16-year-olds at the moment. The answer is in the restriction that benefits the most with fewer negative outcomes. Third, the Austria's evidence example isn't meaningfull because "More votes" doesn't equal better outcomes. You've hyperfixated on "representation is always better", which isn't true, but you're also making a circular argument. "More votes are good because voting is good". Fourth, "Teens affected without say is bad" is also false. It can be in some cases, but not necessarily. Assuming that all teens voting would lead to better outcomes also doesn't logically follow. Finally, people can't do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, such as not being qualified, age, etc. How does it make sense that, when it comes to voting, one of the most important decisions that affects billions, the restrictions need to be lowered? Where's the basic consideration about the negative consequences?