America's constitution is vitally flawed
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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
a narrow group of exclusively white patrician men, many of them slave holders ...
Congress shall have the power to ... declare war.
It is flawed
it is outdated
it can be amended
the founders [...] expected as times changed the document would
wonderful document
broke down as the process became ever more politicizeddeliberately pervert its purpose
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
piece of paper [...] handed by God out of a burning bush
... bragging about the fact that we're running Windows 1.0
The founders didn't want to throw it off for slaves, and they didn't want to throw it off for women
Again the founders expected the document to become outdated,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if the document is flawed if it is outdated in some way there is an easy solution that can be found with in the document, the amendment process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
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.
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.
You're welcome.
Hmm... that is a good point. My bad then. I have now changed my metaphor. Thank you for fact checking me.
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.
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.
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.
I'm a little confused. Organic as a living breathing organism? Or organic as a metaphor?
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
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