Students argue the age to vote should not be lowered to 16

Boston Grammar School went head to head with a team from King Edward VI Academy in Spilsby to deliver their cases ‘Pro’ and ‘Opp’.

In spite of arguing for the voting age to be lowered and winning the debate on content and delivery, Boston Grammar School team members admitted afterwards they agreed with their opposng team.

One member said: “I think the voting age should remain as it is.

"It’s how it has worked for a long time and no point in changing now.

"If the age was lowered I think I would know how to vote.”

Another joked: “I’d vote for a party that said I wouldn’t have to go to military school.”

A King Edward VI Academy team member added: “We believe 16-year-olds should not have the vote because they are not mature enough yet.

"They are not physically or mentally developed and not able to make informed decisions, especially not with something to the scale and importance of what we are talking about.

"I think I would know how to vote if I had to but at the same time I am influenced by family members and friends.”

But are they still be interested in politics after the Election? “I think I will be but it almost seems a taboo topic to talk about with parents and it’s difficult for the younger generation as we don’t know a lot about what is going on.”

An argument used during the debate for the voting age being lowered included: “Most students would be at home doing sone form of education and have access to education on politics.”

Boston Grammar School were the overall winners of the debate, which also saw two teams from Skegness Grammar School, including two junior teams who stepped in last minute after Boston High School were unable to attend.

Other subjects debated included: ‘This House believes owning a smartphone for under sixteens should be banned’: ‘This House believes wind energy technology is the future’; ‘This House believes there should be a treaty on how many weapons all countries in the world should decommission each year’; and a humorous one on the pros and cons of pineapple on pizza.

Judges included James Proctor of Sills and Betteridge, Richard Keeble, retired Professor of Journalism at the University of Lincoln, and Chrissie Redford, Chief Reporter at the Skegness Standard.

Robert Thompson, lead on debating at Skegness Grammar School, said afterwards: “I thought it was very entertaining and informative.

"All the people involved – judges, staff and pupils – gained so much from it.

"We all got a lot of information about politics, morals, about how to communicate with humour.

"My favourite was the comedy one regarding pineapple on pizza and the science that was brought into play and the quotes from Italian chefs were the best.

"It was also heartwarming to see how well Skegness Grammar School’s junior team did. They had stepped in at the last minute did and rose to the challenge making it to the final.”