Instigator / Pro
Points: 11

America's constitution is vitally flawed

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
It's a tie!
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Con
Points: 11
Description
America's constitution. The longest standing government charter. The longest standing government flaw.
Round 1 - state your arguments
Round 2 - clash, and provide counter arguments
Round 3 - clash, and provide counter arguments, along with a closing
Round 1
Published:
Thank you Paul for accepting this debate. I plan for this to be a fun one. Without further ado, let's jump right into it!



Burden of Proof

By pointing out all of the flaws in America's constitution, I will have then successful argued for this topic. I expect my opponent to prove why the Constitution isn't flawed, and to also clash against my points.



I. The constitution is outdated

The constitution was written in a time when castles were a valid system of national defense. 230 years is a long time, and without any major changes, that becomes a problem. Take for example guns. Back then, a gun could shoot 3 rounds per minutes, and if you were standing if front of me, maybe I would hit you? Now days a gun can empty a mag in 3 seconds, killing a lot of people in a short period of time.

Another example would be technology. Society's changing. Fast. With newer and better advancements in AI, and faster and smarter cars, the constitution simply just can't keep up with all these developments.

And let's say that the Constitution does get a change. Great! Now it has to go through the Senate, and it must have 2/3rd of the votes of the House of Representatives and by the Senate. And just to give you a heads up, once an amendment is proposed, then it becomes official in a very short time. Roughly around a couple years. The record by the way is 202 years and 223 days. Wait a minute, humans only live up to 79 years...

Oh, and did I mention that the constitution was designed for people when they were still living in castles?

II. The constitution fails the American people

Doesn't guarantee US citizens food, housing, education, or even healthcare! The piece of paper also allows filibustering in the government! Also the rights to privacy and body integrity are left out, not to mention that its misses some vital right for sexual orientation related topics. The list goes on and on.

And by the way, the constitution was written by

a narrow group of exclusively white patrician men, many of them slave holders ...
Oh, that doesn't sound right. And I'm pretty sure one of them (James Madison) counted slaves as 3/5th of a person.

And to prove my point even further, some of the Constitution's outlines are, well, forgotten.

Congress shall have the power to ... declare war.
Wait what?

Oh, and by the way, this was written at a time when surprise attacks of 1000 foot soldiers armed with nothing but iron swords were common. I don't know if you guys keep up with current technology now days, but we now have something called a nuke. I'm not sure if you heard those before, but they can destroy like, I don't know, the whole world. Congress alone should not be able to make decisions on behalf of the entire world.



Conclusion

In my speech, I have talked about how the Constitution is outdated, and how it fails the American people. In my next speech, I will clash with my opponent, and reinforce my previous contentions. That is all from me now, and I wish you the best. Good luck!



Published:
The constitution of the United States is guilty of not being perfect . It is flawed, but not fatally so, it is outdated , but that is not the fault of the constitution but of the men and women tasked with interpreting it. The constitution is organic it is a living document , the flaw lies not in the document, it can be amended, that is proof of the intent of the founders that they expected as times changed the document would. Over the years Supreme Court justices who had the authority, interpreted the meaning of the document  to fit the modern era that broke down as the process became ever more politicized by people who wanted to freeze the document in ether or revise accepted history. The flaws lie not with this wonderful document , so much as those who deliberately pervert its purpose .
Round 2
Published:
Hello and thank you for following up.

Clash

It is flawed
Correct.

it is outdated
Again, correct. You know you're on Opposition, right?

it can be amended
Actually it can! It's an extremely easy to do process (as I have stated earlier), and will generally take around a couple of years, no big worry there.

 the founders [...] expected as times changed the document would
Example please.

wonderful document
Yet you have not stated how this document has helped society, or is better than a society without such document.

broke down as the process became ever more politicized

deliberately pervert its purpose
That is also a reason why the Constitution is flawed. The process that belongs to amending the Constitution is terribly flawed. Keep in mind that we are also talking about the direct ties to the Constitution, since the amendment process is arguably one of the most important things about the Constitution.


III. The Constitution is outdated

Did I already say this? Well, there's more. According to professor Rosa Brooks, 

I ask [my students] how they would feel if their neurosurgeon used the world's oldest neurosurgery guide, or if NASA used the world's oldest astronomical chart to plan space-shuttle flights
She then goes furthur to campare the Constitution with a

piece of paper [...] handed by God out of a burning bush
Not my words, hers. But I do definitely agree. Compare this with the constitutions of other countries. A constitution has one third of a chance to be revised in any given year. America on the other hand is

... bragging about the fact that we're running Windows 1.0
Those were the words of David Law, a professor in Public Law at the University of Hong Kong.

Mary Anne Franks, another professor, but this time at the University of Miami School of Law, gives here own opinion:

The founders didn't want to throw it off for slaves, and they didn't want to throw it off for women
As you can clearly see by now, numerous experts have pointed out the clear flaws of the Constitution, and how it's outdated.

Oh, and did I mention that the Constitution was written at the same time when Windows 1.0 was developed?


Conclusion

The Constitution is outdated, and that might be the stem of all it's flaws. My argument has been supported and reinforced by numerous experts, and my opponent has yet to argue with this claim. None the less, I thank him, and all of you for joining me today, and I await my opponent's speech. Thank you.
Published:
Again the founders expected the document to become outdated, to remedy this there is the amendment process, that process itself can be amendment
if the document is flawed if it is outdated in some way there is an easy solution that can be  found with in the document, the amendment process


how the document is interpreted is not a flaw in the document itself but in those that are presently on the Supreme court, simple as that
Round 3
Published:
Hello once again and thank you for following up.

Clash

Let's break down your text word by word, and analyse everything you said.

Again the founders expected the document to become outdated,
Okay, I'll take your word for it.

to remedy this there is the amendment process, that process itself can be amendment
So you're saying that to combat outdatedness, there is an act called "amending". Correct. However there is a flaw to this, in which I will later discuss. Then you said that you can amend the amending process. Please explain.

if the document is flawed if it is outdated in some way there is an easy solution that can be  found with in the document, the amendment process
You repeated yourself once again, but I'm more interesting in your part when you said "easy solution". Let me tell you how this process works. It all starts with the Congress proposing an amendment. Then the head of the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA, not to be confused with the NRA) is tasked with recording this proposed amendment accordingly using the United States Code. He or she then submits the proposal to the States after the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) approves it. After at least 38 states have ratified the proposal, then it goes through a check for the finishing touches. This process can take anywhere between a few months to 202 years. This all of course, isn't the full guide as it would be way too long. Quite a simple solution, isn't it?

how the document is interpreted is not a flaw in the document itself but in those that are presently on the Supreme court,
Hmm... I like how you said that "those that are presently on the Supreme Court". Like I have stated earlier, the amendment process, along with how it's interpreted are all vital parts of the Constitution as a whole.

simple as that
Yes, as simple as that.


Summary

In my speech in its entirety, I have talked about how the Constitution is outdated, and how it fails the American people. I have also refuted many of my opponents argument, along with supporting an reinforcing my own. In the end, I wish the best of luck to my opponent in his final speech, and good luck! Thank you.
Published:
you seem to feel the flaw here is that the constitution is not easily amended.. it is hard to amend. is that a flaw/ or is that the safeguard they built into it?
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
You're welcome.
#8
Added:
--> @SirAnonymous
Hmm... that is a good point. My bad then. I have now changed my metaphor. Thank you for fact checking me.
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
You're forgetting about cannons. Yes, you can always make some kind of fortress regardless of what weaponry you're facing, but stone castles were rendered almost totally useless by cannons. Also, that article contains a significant inaccuracy. It treats the idea of individual ownership of cannons under the Second Amendment as a joke. In reality, private citizens could not only own cannons but an entire warship loaded with them.
#6
Added:
--> @SirAnonymous
I'm not saying there were any active castles at the time, but I don't know about you but ...
https://www.ranker.com/list/firearms-in-1791/rachel-souerbry
... a castle doesn't seem so bad.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
Castles hadn't been a useful form of defense for two hundred years before the Constitution was written. They had been going obselete since the 15th century when the Ottomans used cannons to batter the walls of Constantinople.
#4
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
I'm a little confused. Organic as a living breathing organism? Or organic as a metaphor?
Instigator
#3
Added:
the constitution was not flawed from the beginning as society changed it often failed to keep with the times however that is why we have amendments, and a Supreme court to interpret the meaning of the document to apply to the society of today, much of the confusion over this great document is that it is to be strictly interpreted as if it is set in stone, that was NEVR THE INTENT it was written to change and adapt to times
Contender
#2
Added:
i contend the constitution is organic is is alive it grows and changed with the ages it is not as some contend static, that is why we have amendments
Contender
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This was a genuinely giggle-worthy debate for me to read. Both sides thought they had the other cornered but both had gaping holes in their cases.
Pro didn't actually point out a single flaw in the constitution. Declaring war doesn't mean the decleration need be executed by the Executive Branch, nor that they can't be held accountable ASAP for fallacious justification for war, by the Judicial Branch. Con says 'but you can amend it, it's organic and that's the beauty of it the flaws are with those interpreting it.' and what I liked was that he allowed the flaws in his case to become the flaws in Pro's. Here is how Con won the debate:
Con said that the one(s) interpreting the Constitution are flawed by default. When and if they come up with a decent enough flaw in it, it has covered its own bases because when they amend it, they are obeying it. Pro says this is a ridiculous concession to make but how else was Con supposed to win? Pro says 'vitally flawed' but what was so vitally flawed, when it can all be amended and still remain true to itself?
Con didn't even lift a finger after Round 1 but it was hilarious to me because Con was pointing out that the interpreter of the resolution (Pro) is either flawed or is supposed to suggest an amendment to the Constitution and either way would be obeying it. Pro had to explain why the flaws were 'vital' but never did so in any explicit manner.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Frankly, Con concedes just too much. He agrees that the constitution is flawed, and that it's outdated. Con states that it has just been interpreted poorly which doesn't substantiate at all. The only other point Con brings up is the fact that the constitution an be amended, Pro states that this is faulty because it is very difficult to amend the constitution, leaving the document as too hard to edit for flaws. Con never touches this.
In short, Con drops/concedes all of Pro's points. Cons 2 points were unsubstantiated or sufficiently rebutted. Pro must win seeing how his case is valid and untouched.