Instigator / Pro
11
1566
rating
29
debates
56.9%
won
Topic
#1596

America's constitution is vitally flawed

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
11
1337
rating
26
debates
9.62%
won
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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.