Skip to main content

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

Upcoming

1 registered
Contribute now

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 opposing positions

Resolved: The voting age in United States elections should be lowered to 16

PRO: Lower the age

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.

CON: Keep the age at 18

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.

Contribute now

Add your perspective

Record a 60-second take or write an argument. Your contribution can stand on its own, and the discussion stays open.

Start here

Contribute now

A 60-second video or a written argument. You do not need an opponent to get started.

Write an argument

Share only material you have permission to make public.

Optional

Exchange responses

Choose whether to be paired. An exchange starts only after both people accept.

Pairing is not available on this page yet. You can still contribute or respond to a public take.

At a set time

Live attendance

Live attendance is separate from your contribution. Check the showcase details for any scheduled session.

Check showcase details

PRO: Lower the age

CON: Keep the age at 18

Or make your case in writing

“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.”

The debate format

Follow each side’s case through questions, rebuttals and closing statements.

  1. 4 min

    Opening Argument

    PRO · opening case

  2. 4 min

    Cross-Examination

    CON questions PRO

  3. 4 min

    Opening Argument

    CON · opening case

  4. 4 min

    Cross-Examination

    PRO questions CON

  5. 3 min

    Rebuttal

    PRO

  6. 3 min

    Rebuttal

    CON

  7. 3 min

    Closing Statement

    PRO · final case

  8. 3 min

    Closing Statement

    CON · final case

  9. —

    Audience Vote

    You pick the winner

Get debate updates

Leave your email for announcements about this debate.

Debate schedule

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.

I want to…

No spam. We'll only reach out about what you picked.

More Debates

Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.

Scheduled date passed

Should the Four-Day Work Week Become Standard?

October 26, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EDT
Online
View event
Featured

Should Supreme Court Justices Have Term Limits?

November 2, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EST
Online
View event
Featured

Should Race-Conscious College Admissions Be Restored?

November 4, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EST
Online
View event
Featured

Should Organ Donation Be Automatic Unless You Opt Out?

November 9, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EST
Online
View event