You initially proposed an "argument" for age 16 voting by attempting to shift the burden of (dis)proof to the reader, by framing it in the form of a question.
I just did the same thing to you, to expose your lazy argument technique. (I know, I know, you are just a pigeon, shitting on the board and claiming victory.)
In response, you seem to be attempting to dismiss my argument by saying that I employ reductio ad absurdum. Is that what you were saying?
Of course, I'm not using reductio ad aburdum. If I had said, "Allowing 16 years olds to vote would lead to mass hysteria, dogs living with cats, total apocalypse," then you may have had a point (if your point was that I was using false conclusions as part of a legitimate r.a.a. attack). But, I didn't try to reduce your argument to absurdity. I merely proposed a new argument in the form of a question. I should have left it at that, but I ended up providing a few reasons to support it that I think are better than "they can drive." But, I didn't use a fallacy. Actually, by dismissing my argument as absurd or outrageous (without support), you are using fallacious argument: the fallacy that because you find a proposal to be outrageous, then the proposal must be wrong. You may be right that I'm wrong, but you are using a fallacy, and you haven't shown me to be wrong.