Should the Voting Age Be Lowered to 16?
Scotland, Wales, Austria, and Germany allow 16-year-olds to vote. Studies show they turn out at higher rates and are more likely to vote for life. Is denying them the ballot paternalism — or prudence? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Monday, November 23, 2026 · 7:00 PM EST
What's at stake
Lower the voting age and candidates must compete for young people's interests. Keep it at 18 and those interests stay structurally underrepresented for another generation.
The Matchup
The Positions
Sixteen-year-olds pay taxes, work full-time jobs, can be tried as adults, and drive cars. Excluding them from the franchise while assigning them adult civic responsibilities is a specific inconsistency, not a principled developmental line.
- In many US states, 16-year-olds can be prosecuted and sentenced as adults for serious crimes. They can drive, work, and pay payroll taxes. Excluding them from the vote while subjecting them to adult legal consequences does not track with any developmental theory; it is an arbitrary line inherited from historical practices that predate modern civic life.
- Research from Austria, where 16-year-olds have voted in national elections since 2007, shows their turnout rate exceeds that of 18 to 25-year-olds, and their political knowledge is comparable. The empirical assumption that 16-year-olds are civically less capable than young adults does not survive scrutiny when both groups are given the same civic education opportunities.
- Votes at 16 take place while young people are still enrolled in school, embedded in civic institutions, and exposed to structured curriculum about government. Waiting until 18 or 21 means the first vote happens during the most destabilizing transition in a young adult's life. Civic habit formation benefits from being anchored to stable, familiar environments.
Debater: To be announced
The prefrontal cortex, which governs risk assessment and long-term planning, is not fully developed until the mid-20s. Lowering the voting age is a deliberate policy choice to weight democratic decisions toward less-developed judgment.
- Neuroscience consistently shows that the prefrontal cortex, governing impulse control, risk assessment, and resistance to peer pressure, is not fully developed until the mid-20s. Society already accounts for this developmental reality: 16-year-olds cannot drink, serve on juries, or enter most binding contracts. Voting is a consequential decision about collective governance that warrants the same developmental threshold we apply to other high-stakes choices.
- Sixteen-year-olds are embedded in institutional environments where authority figures, including teachers, parents, and social media algorithms, have structurally disproportionate influence. Research on adolescent peer conformity shows teenagers are more susceptible to in-group social pressure than adults. Whoever most effectively reaches teenagers in school settings gains a structural electoral advantage that does not exist in a mature electorate.
- Voter turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds is already lower than any other age cohort in US elections. The problem is not that the franchise is cut off too young; it is that civic education and political mobilization fail young people who are already eligible. Expanding eligibility to 16 does not fix the underlying disengagement and adds a population whose political identity and priorities are still actively forming.
Debater: To be announced
Join the debate
Make Your Case
Record a 60-second video on either side — or make it in writing. The strongest cases get featured before the live debate.
“In many US states, 16-year-olds can be prosecuted and sentenced as adults for serious crimes. They can drive, work, and pay payroll taxes. Excluding them from the vote while subjecting them to adult legal consequences tracks no consistent developmental theory — it is an arbitrary line inherited from historical practices that predate modern civic life.”
“Research from Austria, where 16-year-olds have voted in national elections since 2007, shows their turnout rate exceeds that of 18-to-25-year-olds, and their political knowledge is comparable. The empirical assumption that 16-year-olds are civically less capable than young adults does not survive scrutiny when both groups receive the same civic education.”
“Neuroscience consistently shows the prefrontal cortex — governing impulse control, risk assessment, and resistance to peer pressure — is not fully developed until the mid-20s. Society accounts for this reality: 16-year-olds cannot drink, serve on juries, or enter most binding contracts. Voting is a consequential collective decision that warrants the same developmental threshold we apply to other high-stakes choices.”
“Sixteen-year-olds are embedded in institutional environments where authority figures — teachers, parents, social media algorithms — have structurally disproportionate influence. Research on adolescent peer conformity shows teenagers are more susceptible to in-group social pressure than adults. Whoever most effectively reaches teenagers in school settings gains a structural electoral advantage.”
How It Works
The Format
Standard SuperDebate: two people, cross-examination, moderated from start to finish
Opening Argument
PRO · opening case
Cross-Examination
CON questions PRO
Opening Argument
CON · opening case
Cross-Examination
PRO questions CON
Rebuttal
PRO
Rebuttal
CON
Closing Statement
PRO · final case
Closing Statement
CON · final case
Audience Vote
You pick the winner
~28 minutes of debate · audience vote follows closing statements
Don't Miss It
Stay in the Loop
The debate drops when the two sides are confirmed. Get the email the moment it goes live.
Premieres
Monday, November 23, 2026 · 7:00 PM EST
Get Involved
Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.
More Debates
Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.

Jordan vs. LeBron: The GOAT SuperDebate
Watch the full recorded Jordan vs. LeBron GOAT basketball debate, argued by championship debaters, then score both debaters live.

DEI: More Harm Than Good?
DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Wilfred Reilly and Armand Domalewski debate whether DEI programs move institutions toward equality, or create a new paradigm for inequality.


UBI Debate: Should America Have a Universal Basic Income?
Scott Santens (PRO) vs Malcolm Collins (CON) debate the resolution: "An unconditional basic income would be net beneficial for American citizens." — July 10, 2026, 2 PM CT.


Messi vs Ronaldo: Who Is the Soccer GOAT?
Two debaters. Assigned sides. Cross-examination. One argues the case for Messi, the other for Ronaldo — in a structured debate format with opening arguments and rebuttals.
