Teens Voting Age Should Change by Pankti Jain

 Right now in Britain, teens the age of 16 are given the eligibility to vote, but not here in America. Isn't Americaknown for being, ‘the land of opportunity’? Then why aren't teens allowed that voting option in the United States?

The voting age has been at 18 for a really long time, and now younger teens want to have that same voting right, and they should be able to get it. Teens have been fighting for this right for quite a while, and it should finally be the time for them to be allowed to vote. The limited voting age should be lowered so more people can vote because it lets teens be heard, there are no ‘wrong’ votes, and it gives teens their earned rights.

The first thing to consider is that lowering the voting age allows teens to voice their opinions. Vikrant Kamat, a sophomore at Upper St. Clair High School, argues that, “If I am old enough to be taxed, I should be old enough to be heard.” This demonstrates how teenagers are feeling very deeply about their right to be able to vote. Many teens like Vikrant want to be heard and want to have a say in their government, but they are not allowed to because of the restricted voting age. There are many teenagers that are in the same situation, they are getting taxed by the authorities, but are not allowed to publicly poll for who the authorities are, which denies their opinions. Vikrant Kamat also says that the government, “takes teenagers' money while dismissing their voices.” This also shows how teens are
being taken advantage of with their money but they aren't allowed to vote and aren't able to speak about how they feel politically. And this is unrighteous because it pushes away their concerns and rejects their voting input which they should be allowed to have.

Another thing to take to context is that it is not possible to cast a ‘wrong vote’ when voting. One of the main reasons that teenagers aren't given the chance to vote is because they vote according to misinformation, but don't adults also vote on incorrect facts? Vikrant Kamat states that, “Many vote based on habit, emotion or family influence. That reality is accepted as part of democracy.” This indicates that even the people that are eligible to vote right now are making unthought about votes and everyone is fine with that, but it is not acceptable if some teens might vote like that. People are being very unfair about this because they feel like teenagers will vote on the wrong side during elections, but that just simply isn't reasonable because they are voting how they want, just like everyone else, so their vote can't be ‘incorrect’. Vikrant also argues that she is, “not arguing that every teenager is ready to vote wisely. Neither is every adult. Democracy has always accepted that risk in exchange for fairness and legitimacy.” But if everyone is completely fine with adults voting ‘wrongly’, why do they care so much if teens do the same? This shows just how unfair the government is about their voting policy. And in any case, a ‘wrong vote’ is an incorrect thing to say because every vote is right, for it is each single person's choice on what they want to vote for. 

Also, experts argue that “the change could increase turnout but not necessarily sway elections, while finding that 16- and 17-year-olds were actually more likely to vote than those who got the vote at 18.” (Should 16-Year-Olds Be Allowed To Vote?). This proves that if the government changes the voting age, it won't be much of a difference other than the teenagers feeling fulfilled that they made their mark in this country. Plus, this shows that their ‘wrong’ vote can't change much in the political vote because it just makes up for the people that aren't voting. This also straightforwardly shows that the younger teenagers that don't have the ability to vote are more expected to vote than the people that already have that chance, proving that they should lower the voting age for people that are more passionate about this topic.

The final reason that teens should be allowed to vote is that voting gives them their equal representation and rights. Most teens around the age of 16 have jobs, and from the money they get paid with, they are forced to take taxes out of it. Ever since the creation of America, there has always been an argument about who is allowed to vote, and something that drove that argument was a famous saying, “No taxation without representation!” This shows that even our ancestors believed that everyone should have the right to vote and everyone should have the same ability to be represented. It is completely unfair that these teens are forced to pay a fee out of their well earned money from their jobs, yet they aren't allowed to vote for the people that this money that they are giving is going to! Letting these teens vote for who should be in the government gives them their earned representation in the economy, and gives them
their rights that they should already have. In the New York Times Newspaper article by Jeremy Engle, a director of Vote16USA, LaJuan Allen, states that, “It is youth up and down this country, no matter the political party, that are pleading with adults to get these things right...Because they are most significantly impacted by the decisions that are made today.” This proves that teens are the ones that are mainly affected by the government and what they do, so they should have the right to vote who is in it. By letting teens vote on these issues that control them, it makes them actually feel equally as a part of the country and lets them present themselves while using the rights they are entitled to have.

Though some may argue that teenagers shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are not ready, many others believe that teens are actually mature enough to make voting decisions. While it is true that some 16 year olds are irresponsible and unsensible, most of them surprisingly juggle more responsibilities than you may think. For example, Vikrant Kamat argues that, “Teenagers are already entrusted with serious responsibilities, with some working, managing school and job schedules, and in some cases, taking care of their younger siblings.” This evidence shows that teens already have so much responsibility, they can also take on the responsibility of being allowed to vote. Since they already
manage all these tasks, it proves that they are mature enough to be in the ballot. Also, another thing that proves that teenagers are prepared to vote is that they are introduced to civic information ever since they are in school. The New Jersey Student Learning Standards-Social Studies declare that students must be, “civic-minded, globally aware, and socially responsible.” This undoubtedly proves that teens are mature and knowledgeable enough to be able to vote because they have the public understanding. These 16 year olds have been taught about the government and voting ever since 6th grade, and now they are in 11th grade, which shows that they have the experience to vote and they should be allowed to.
The voting age restriction has been an ongoing debate for a very long time and it is about time we change that because it helps teenagers empower their political thoughts, votes can not be ‘wrong’, and because letting teens vote provides them with the representation that they deserve. Everyone deserves the right to vote, and since 18 year olds can vote, there is no harm in giving 16 year olds that opportunity as well. It is crucial that the government should change the voting age requirement to help support our country when choosing our leaders. So in the end, the right thing to do is lower the voting age to encourage teenagers' suffrage and benefit the political vote, as well as to benefit the teenagers themselves.

Works Cited

Engle, Jeremy. "Should 16-Year-Olds Be Allowed to Vote?" New York Times (Online), 04 Sept. 2025. ProQuest;

SIRS Discoverer, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsdiscoverer/document/3274996237?accountid=64167.
Kamat, Vikrant. "The Government Wants My Money but Not My Thoughts." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 04 Jan.

2026, pp. D-6. ProQuest; SIRS Discoverer,
https://explore.proquest.com/sirsdiscoverer/document/3290996832?accountid=64167.

New Jersey Student Learning Standards -Social Studies. June 2020,
www.nj.gov/education/standards/socst/docs/2020NJSLS-SS_Grades6-8.pdf.

Movie Theaters vs. Home Streaming by Aaliyah Sharma

 Movie Theaters vs. Home Streaming

        With the rise of instant streaming services, the home viewing setup has never been more comfortable. Today, you can pause a film whenever you want, eat whatever snacks are in your pantry, and lie on your own couch without spending twenty dollars on a ticket. Home streaming defenders argue that the traditional movie theater is an overpriced relic of the past. Yet, despite the convenience of watching a movie in your pajamas, streaming at home strips away the very essence of cinema. The movie theater remains superior because it forces a rare level of single-minded focus and delivers a shared emotional scale that a living room screen simply cannot replicate.

        The fundamental issue with home streaming is the endless ocean of ambient distractions. When you watch a movie at home, you are surrounded by everyday interruptions: family members walking through the room, household chores waiting to be done, and the constant urge to check your phone. The pause button, while convenient, destroys narrative momentum. A two-hour story gets stretched across three hours of social media scrolling and snack breaks, fragmenting the plot and diluting its emotional impact. A movie theater, by contrast, is a sacred, distraction-free vault. Darkness settles over the room, the phone goes into your pocket, and for two uninterrupted hours, your full attention belongs entirely to the story on the screen.

        Furthermore, there is a massive technical and visual difference between a television and a giant theater screen. Directors build movies for scale, framing shots with fine detail, complex color grading, and dynamic sound design meant to rumble through a room. Watching a high-budget film on a small television or a laptop screen shrinks that artistic vision down to a domestic scale. The massive screen and immersive surround sound of a theater force you to absorb the film with your entire body, turning a passive viewing habit into an active sensory event.

         There is also an undeniable social magic to watching a movie alongside a room full of strangers. Laughing together at a comedy, feeling a collective gasp during a plot twist, or sensing the total silence of a tense thriller creates a shared human energy that sitting alone on a couch completely lacks. A theater transforms a movie from simple content into a collective event that stays in your memory long after the credits roll.

         Home streaming is certainly convenient for rewatching old television shows or catching up on casual background noise, but it is a poor substitute for true cinema. Movies are meant to be experienced, not just consumed between phone notifications. By demanding your complete presence, the movie theater honors the art of storytelling in a way no living room ever can.

Aaliyah Sharma

Texting vs. Calling by Aaliya Sharma

 Texting vs. Calling

        In the early days of personal phones, a phone call was the default method of getting in touch with someone. If you needed to share news, ask a question, or make plans, you dialed a number, waited for an answer, and engaged in a live conversation. Today, however, calling someone out of the blue is increasingly viewed as an unwelcome intrusion. Text messaging has replaced the phone call as the primary way we communicate, and for good reason. Texting respects time, eliminates conversational fluff, and gives both parties complete control over their daily focus.

        The primary issue with an unscheduled phone call is that it demands immediate, total attention. When your phone rings, you are forced to stop whatever you are doing, clear your mental focus, and engage on the caller's timeline. It treats the recipient's schedule as entirely secondary. A text message, by contrast, is inherently asynchronous. It delivers information cleanly without forcing an instant pause on the receiver's life. The recipient can read the message when they have a free moment, think through a thoughtful response, and reply without disrupting their current task.

        Furthermore, texting is vastly superior for logistics and clarity. If someone tells you an address, a meeting time, or a list of items over a phone call, you are forced to memorize it on the spot or scramble to write it down. Once the call ends, the details exist only in your memory. A text message creates an automatic, searchable digital record. You can refer back to the exact wording three days later to double-check details, completely eliminating the confusion and miscommunication that often follow a verbal conversation.

       There is also an argument to be made for social efficiency. Phone calls are notoriously filled with necessary social filler—small talk about the weather, awkward pauses, and drawn-out goodbyes that stretch a thirty-second question into a ten-minute commitment. Texting strips away that unnecessary friction, allowing people to state their point directly while remaining polite. For quick updates and casual check-ins, it accomplishes the goal with maximum respect for everyone's energy.

         Phone calls certainly have their place for urgent emergencies or deep, personal conversations where tone of voice matters. But for the vast majority of daily communication, demanding live voice contact is simply outdated. Text messaging provides a polite, efficient, and permanent way to stay connected without demanding that the rest of the world pause what they are doing to answer.

Aaliyah Sharma

Why The Front Seat Always Wins by Aaliyah Sharma

 Why The Front Seat Always Wins

        There is a universal language spoken by high schoolers the second a group of friends approaches a car: calling "shotgun." The scramble to claim the front passenger seat isn't just about avoiding a middle-seat crush in the back; it's a battle for control over the entire trip. While sitting in the back allows you to zone out, the front seat provides a level of comfort, visibility, and unspoken authority that riding in the back simply cannot match.
        The primary advantage of the front seat comes down to pure physical legroom and personal space. Backseats in most cars are notorious for tight quarters, especially when three people are squeezed shoulder-to-shoulder. In the front, you get an adjustable seat, your own climate controls, and enough space to stretch your legs without kicking a seatback. You are treated like an equal partner in the ride rather than luggage stored in the rear.
        Beyond physical comfort, riding shotgun carries a distinct operational responsibility that makes the drive far more engaging. The front passenger acts as the driver’s official co-pilot. You are tasked with managing the navigation map, handling the music playlist, and opening snacks. Controlling the aux cord alone gives you complete influence over the vibe of the entire trip. Instead of just being along for the ride, you are actively shaping the experience for everyone in the car.
        There is also a huge difference in the visual experience. Staring at the back of a headrest while looking out a side window feels passive and disconnected, and for anyone prone to motion sickness, it can be a nightmare. In the front seat, you have an unobstructed view of the windshield. Watching the road unfold in real time gives you a sense of direction and awareness that keeps you grounded and comfortable throughout the drive.
        While sitting in the back offers a quiet retreat, it isolates you from the core energy of the journey. The front seat gives you legroom, influence over the music, and the best view of the road ahead. Claiming shotgun isn't just a petty vehicle race, it's securing the best seat in the house.

Aaliyah Sharma

Why In Person Shopping Is Better Than Online by Aaliyah Sharma

 Why In Person Shopping Is Better Than Online

        We are constantly told that online shopping is the absolute peak of modern convenience. With a few taps on a screen, you can browse thousands of stores, compare prices instantly, and have a box waiting on your doorstep within a couple of days. Digital storefronts promise an effortless experience free from crowded aisles and long checkout lines. Yet, despite the endless algorithms and instant checkout buttons, shopping in a real, physical store provides a far superior and much less frustrating experience than relying on a screen.
       The biggest flaw of online shopping is the total gamble on quality and fit. A jacket might look perfectly structured and vibrant on a model online, only to arrive feeling like thin plastic and fitting two sizes too small. Product photos are notoriously edited, and glowing reviews can easily be padded or misleading. Shopping in person removes that guesswork entirely. You get to feel the fabric, inspect the stitching, try things on in the fitting room, and know with complete certainty that an item is worth your money before you hand it over.
        Furthermore, physical shopping completely eliminates the anxiety of package logistics. Ordering online comes with an unavoidable waiting period filled with refreshing tracking numbers, delayed deliveries, and the constant fear of porch theft. If you need an outfit for an event this weekend or a specific supply for a project tomorrow, online shopping turns into a high-stakes guessing game with shipping estimates. Walking into a store, picking up the exact item you need, and carrying it out in a bag provides a level of instant satisfaction that no tracking link can match.
        There is also a tactile, social element to physical retail that digital spaces completely lack. Endless scrolling through online catalogs quickly becomes overwhelming, turning a simple errand into an exhausting blur of options. Browsing real shelves allows for genuine discovery and you often stumble across something unexpected that an algorithm would never have recommended to you. Making an afternoon out of going to the mall with friends turns shopping into an engaging, shared memory rather than an isolating screen activity.
        Convenience isn't just about saving physical steps; it’s about getting the right result without the hassle of returns, repacking boxes, and waiting for refund processing. Online retail certainly has its place for hard-to-find items, but the reliability, immediacy, and sensory confirmation of a physical store make it the clear winner for everyday purchases.

Aaliyah Sharma

Why Physical Books Are Better Than E-Books by Aaliyah Sharma

 Why Physical Books Are Better Than E-Books

         In an age where almost every aspect of our lives has been compressed into a glass screen, reading seemed like the last remaining sanctuary. Then came e-readers, promising to revolutionize the way we consume literature. On paper, the pitch is undeniably tempting: an entire personal library stored in a device that weighs less than a single paperback, complete with instant downloads, adjustable lighting, and endless portability. Yet, despite decades of technological upgrades trying to render paper obsolete, the traditional physical book remains superior. Reading is not merely a transaction of data from a screen to your brain; it is a sensory, emotional, and physical experience that digital code simply cannot replicate.
        The fundamental flaw of an e-reader is that it strips away the physical geography of a story. When you read a physical book, your brain naturally creates a spatial map of the text. You know intuitively that a key plot twist happened near the top left corner of a page about a quarter of the way into the thickness of the volume. Turning a real page gives you a concrete, tactile sense of progress—you can literally feel the remaining story shrinking in your right hand while the history builds in your left. On an e-reader, a story is just a uniform string of glowing text with a vague percentage bar at the bottom. Without physical milestones, the narrative feels weightless, making it much harder to truly retain information or forge a lasting memory of the book.
        Beyond cognition, there is the undeniable sensory ritual of reading a real book. The texture of rough paper under your thumb, the distinct smell of an old library volume, and the satisfying sound of a spine creaking open all contribute to a specific mindset. This physical engagement signals to your brain that it is time to slow down, disconnect, and focus. An e-reader, no matter how good its paper-white screen claims to be, is still an electronic device with a battery that can die and a interface that mirrors the gadgets we spend all day staring at for work and school. It brings the subtle fatigue of screen time into a space that should be a refuge from it.
        There is also something deeply personal about owning a physical collection. A bookshelf in someone's room acts as a visible portrait of their mind, showing where they’ve been, what they’ve cared about, and the stories that shaped them. You can lend a favorite paperback to a friend, scribble notes in the margins, or find a forgotten receipt tucked into page ninety as a bookmark from three years ago. Digital files stored on a cloud server lack that personal history; you don't really own them, you just license the right to view them on a glowing screen until the device becomes outdated.
       Convenience is certainly valuable for a long flight or a crowded commute, but convenience is not why we fall in love with reading. We read to immerse ourselves, to slow down in a fast-paced world, and to connect deeply with ideas outside our own. A physical book honors that intention by demanding your presence and offering a real, tangible weight in return. Technology may continue to streamline our lives, but when it comes to getting lost in a great story, nothing will ever replace the timeless charm of ink on paper.

Aaliyah Sharma

Apple TV Streaming by Samhita adapa

 Apple TV Streaming by Samhita adapa

Almost everyone’s got Netflix and maybe even Disney+. HBO Max if they’re lucky. But I bet you that what most people don’t have is Apple TV, which is insane because Apple's been consistently pumping out quality TV for almost years now. Home to some of the most popular shows in these years like Severance and Ted Lasso, Apple TV is nowhere near the popularity of other streaming services, although it may be higher than Paramount because I still haven’t met a single person who pays for that. 

Like probably literally everyone else on the globe, I only got Apple TV to watch Severance season 2. And when my family forgot to cancel after the season stopped airing, I looked through the catalog and realized to my surprise that there was an insane amount of TV shows that all looked extremely promising. Aside from Ted Lasso, which I think is also both extremely popular and good, Apple is knocking it out of the park with their TV, particularly their sci-fi shows. Silo, starring Rebecca Fergurson is great, and For All Mankinds is definitely worth a watch as well. And more recently, Pluribus, from Vince Gilligan, is absolutely fantastic and probably worth subscribing to for a couple months when the second season comes out. Aside from sci-fi, Pachinko is a great drama about Japanese occupation of Korea, and if you haven’t seen it already, Ted Lasso is awesome too. Aside from popularity and fans, their TV shows have been getting a lot of critical acclaim as well. Severance has gotten 41 nominations and 10 primetime Emmy wins. Ted Lasso has won 13 emmys as well as winning outstanding comedy series back to back in 2021 and 2022. So clearly, quality is not the issue here. They’ve been consistently producing good entertainment so what is the real root of the problem?

Catalog. Despite their multiple award winning shows, Apple TV does not have a good catalog. There are no seven season shows to binge watch nor does it have your favorite comfort series you rewatch when you’re sick.  Netflix has Gilmore Girls and The Walking Dead. HBO practically hit the jackpot with the amount of shows they have to watch, like Veep, GoT, Friends, or The Wire. Disney has practically all of their sitcoms, including the ones from Hulu now. Paramount’s got Avatar: The Last Airbender and Spongebob, I guess. Their catalogue just isn’t big enough and to be honest, the interface is a nightmare to navigate too. They have nothing to fall back on. $15 a month isn’t an amount you can just forget about either. And with the breaks between seasons now reaching almost two years, people don’t want to keep a service that has nothing to offer, especially with the amount of streaming platforms there are in general. To simply put it, the subscription isn’t worth the money. No matter how badly I wanted to watch the Studio, there was no way to justify the price to my parents. It’s more of a “get the 3 month free trial after buying a new phone and watch everything you want to before it runs out” type of service. That being said, if you ever end up getting the subscription or meeting someone who actually pays for it and is willing to share, I recommend watching Presumed Innocent.