Hey, apologies, I've been in hospital, but am back now. Could I suggest, with your agreement, that we get an Admin to delete this debate and we start again, copying the arguments we've already made into a new duplicate debate?
I did chuckle at "I never thought I would see someone criticize Obergefell and Dobbs in the same breath." - It's why I used the examples of different perspectives showing that my point wasn't about the outcome but was about process and procedure - it was intentional that they were opposing perpectives! :)
Its a debate between the United States and United Kingdom constitutions. You could if you wanted completely ignore the codified/uncodified distinction but I will certainly bring it up as one of my core arguments :)
Referring to the fact there isn't a single source of the constitution, like there is in the US. The British constitution exists through Acts of Parliament, legal precedents, conventions and sources of authority etc. instead.
Hey, back from an extended break from DA, and whilst I personally agree with you I think I also could give opposing you a very strong go as this is (related to) my area of academic study but if anyone who actually believes it would prefer it, please accept but if nobody else does, I'd be happy to.
I'd like to apologise to my opponent for not publishing an argument in R1 - I thought I had another day left. I'll publish a full R1 debate with rebuttal of my opponent's R1 for R2
I agree with the statement but I can think of some pretty good arguments against - I'll take it on if nobody else with a genuine belief that they shouldn't doesn't
As a British Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism supporter, I believe more in the policies of Bernie Sanders, but Joe Biden would probably be best suited to beating Pres. Trump at this point.
I do give my full apologies to RationalMadman for abandoning this debate. I am the local Youth Officer for Yvette Cooper's constituency which is now one of the most marginal seats in the country and so was very busy over the election.
He's no angel, I'll agree there. If I was American, I would find it hard to vote for either party, but I would vote Democrat to try to stop Trump. Complying with a lawful subpoena should have nothing to do with liking the President. They are civil servants. We are all bound by the law of the land.
Apologies for the delay, however, I have now published my argument.
Hey, apologies, I've been in hospital, but am back now. Could I suggest, with your agreement, that we get an Admin to delete this debate and we start again, copying the arguments we've already made into a new duplicate debate?
Hey, welcome. I will go first, and as soon as my argument is published, there will be a button under the timer for you to publish your repsonse.
what are you waiting for?
Apologies, only just seen this!
I did chuckle at "I never thought I would see someone criticize Obergefell and Dobbs in the same breath." - It's why I used the examples of different perspectives showing that my point wasn't about the outcome but was about process and procedure - it was intentional that they were opposing perpectives! :)
Do you want to put it into a Google Docs and put the link in the comments? I'll add the link to the top of my response and respond
So done :) I added a bit to the vote rationale as Pro's argument is slightly different at end.
Its a debate between the United States and United Kingdom constitutions. You could if you wanted completely ignore the codified/uncodified distinction but I will certainly bring it up as one of my core arguments :)
Referring to the fact there isn't a single source of the constitution, like there is in the US. The British constitution exists through Acts of Parliament, legal precedents, conventions and sources of authority etc. instead.
So done Novice
Then let the debate begin :)
I'll just ask a clarifying question before accepting then:
Are we debating de jure sovereignty or de facto sovereignty - or both/is it up to our discretion?
Hey, back from an extended break from DA, and whilst I personally agree with you I think I also could give opposing you a very strong go as this is (related to) my area of academic study but if anyone who actually believes it would prefer it, please accept but if nobody else does, I'd be happy to.
I'd like to apologise to my opponent for not publishing an argument in R1 - I thought I had another day left. I'll publish a full R1 debate with rebuttal of my opponent's R1 for R2
I'd like to give my utmost apologies to Undefetable - I thought I had more time than I did.
I agree with the statement but I can think of some pretty good arguments against - I'll take it on if nobody else with a genuine belief that they shouldn't doesn't
Really interesting argument
Kudos, my friend, kudos.
The motion lied
Completely agree with you
As a British Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism supporter, I believe more in the policies of Bernie Sanders, but Joe Biden would probably be best suited to beating Pres. Trump at this point.
It is possible to become President with just 22% of the popular vote. By getting half +1 in the states of 39 (+DC).
The argument only works if the assumption that states are important - my argument is they shouldn't be.
The idea of faithless electors is also indefensible.
I believe that people should have a say proportionally - not states. States should not have rights like these.
That's a problem with many systems in the USA.
Are your arguments grounded in morality or practicallity?
America really does have a lot of issues!
Changed for the voting and rounds. Put charectors at 15,000 as I don't want the debate to be constricted by the limit.
Thanks! It's the first non-FF vote I've done on the site.
I do give my full apologies to RationalMadman for abandoning this debate. I am the local Youth Officer for Yvette Cooper's constituency which is now one of the most marginal seats in the country and so was very busy over the election.
Why do you think that?
Infographics Show did a good comparison:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBapU_C76t0
Like I said in my argument, it would give them voting representatives and senators.
It's, for this reason, I don't support elected Heads of State and prefer our British Westminster system.
Pie chard method?
Presuming my opponent raises that issue in R1, I will address it in R2.
Why not?
It's undemocratic!
Thanks for leaving it blank - I'm really sorry for not getting an argument in!
By massively reducing military spending and abolishing the policy of being able to fight in two major conflicts at once.
We should be giving them more funding, not less. All of the US needs funding, starting with a nationalised health service!
I am arguing that Puerto Rico should apply and be accepted as the 51st State under the New States Clause.
I completely agree with #1
I'd take this debate on, but I couldn't do though enough responses in just two days.
Forgot to @ you for comment #5
I'd be happy to have this debate with you, with the motion specifically ignoring military use.
He's no angel, I'll agree there. If I was American, I would find it hard to vote for either party, but I would vote Democrat to try to stop Trump. Complying with a lawful subpoena should have nothing to do with liking the President. They are civil servants. We are all bound by the law of the land.
Are you going to come back to this debate?
Is there another explanation for non-compliance other than the one offered by Schiff?
This is the longest I've ever spent on a DA/DDO argument!