Explain any controversy surrounding the 26 amendment including both sides of the argument

The controversy surrounding the 26th amendment, which basically states that anyone 18 or older has the right to vote and cannot be restricted by anyone of any state of the U.S. is as follows:

Pro-26th Amendment people:

Anyone who is old enough to fight should be old enough to vote.
18 is a reasonable and significant age for people to vote.
18 is considered to be of adult age, they are mature enough to make decisions about their country.
Voting should not be restricted by anyone because they make their own decisions as adults, so for anyone to want to restrict their lawful rights is wrong and should be prohibited.
More people need to vote, especially those who are younger, so 18-year-olds should be able to vote along with the rest going up.

Anti-26th Amendment people:
18 is too young, the age should be extended to a point where they are real adults and can make better decisions for our country.
18-year-olds' brains are not fully developed -- they could make really stupid decisions.
If anyone feels the person is too irresponsible, authority should have the right to limit their rights of voting, if they cannot convince them into not voting.
18 years old is way too young of an age -- they need more experience before making such big decisions to contribute to our country.
There should be an age limit on who is voting in our elections, older people do go insane at some point -- not taking a risk!

lol that last one was a possibility that someone out there is probably thinking, so you exclude that one

Opposition to the nra came to a head in 1935, when the conservative supreme court declared the agency unconstitutional, claiming the nra gave the executive branch regulatory powers that belonged exclusively to congress. this decision began a series of court decisions that overturned key elements of the new deal.