The Instigator
Kawurairee
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tylergraham95
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

3 P's in a pod.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
tylergraham95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 382 times Debate No: 51556
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Kawurairee

Pro

I challenge my opponent to come up with absolutely any political, philosophical or psychological resolution. They can also dictate which side I take on the resolution.

Note: Philosophy does not include religious scripture debates that require specialist knowledge of scriptured texts.

It must be given with fully written definitions and must not be a troll debate of any kind.

If I can prove the resolution to be too bias to one side, my opponent shall forfeit all 7 points unless they can substantially prove it to be a fair one.

This is a twofold debate as there is one attack on the resolution my opponent and another on the side I have been assigned on it, once I accept it.

This can get as crazy and as unfair to my side as my opponent wishes insofar as there is a plausible way for me to win it within the constraints of the resolution's wording and the definitions my opponent provided.

If specific words are not defined by my opponent, I withhold the right to dictate whatever definition I wish in round 2 and my opponent must accept it. If they post a definition in round one that is sourced to a valid dictionary of some kind (i.e. not Urban dictionary or some other troll dictionary site of that kind) then I am obligated to accept their definitions of key words. Defining connectives and conjunctions is not required, only the key words for the debate that are of significance to the resolution and how to interpret it.

Best of luck, opponent.

P.S. amending the resolution is illegal.
tylergraham95

Con

I accept your challenge! I choose to debate a political resolution.

The resolution is as follows:

"For the Sake of Her People, The Constitution of Alabama Ought to be Replaced"

My opponent must take the Con (negating) side on this topic, and I will debate for the Pro (affirming) side of this topic.


Definitions

"For the Sake of Her People" - Essentially, this statements means that all arguments must be created in order to yield highest net benefits for the people of Alabama.

The Constitution of Alabama - The current constitution of Alabama (a state of the U.S.A.) ratified in 1901.

Ought - for this debate, what is ought is what will yield the highest net benefits for the people of Alabama.

Replace - "to put something new in the place of" (Merriam Webster)
Debate Round No. 1
Kawurairee

Pro

If it worked fine so far, it will keep working fine.

Pro has BoP.
tylergraham95

Con

First of all, the BoP is obviously shared. The system is not inherently good. My opponent must be able to prove that the constitution ought to remain. My opponent is not allowed to simply state that the BoP is on the pro. R1 rules established by pro never state that the contender must clearly state who has the BoP. The BoP is implicitly shared.

"If it worked fine so far, it will keep working fine."

This is a non-sequiter; a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, this would only be a legitimate argument if the constitution had ever worker.

But it hasn't.

The Alabama Constitution is ineffecient and ineffective and therefore ought be rewritten.

The Encumbrence of the Constitution

"At 340,136 words, the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 40 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, and is the longest still-operative constitution anywhere in the world.[1] (The English version of the Constitution of India, the longest national constitution, is about 117,369 words long, a third of the length.)"(1)

The constitution of Alabama is colossal, and unecissarily so. What many people don't realize about the constitution is that most every piece of legislature made in Alabama requires a state constitution. This is the primary reason why the constitution has become so large. This system is ineffective, because it requires a large amouont of laborious work in order to pass simple legislature.(2)



The Constitution and Local Affairs

With the currents design of the Alabama constitution, local matters become a voting point of the whole state. Because all matters put up the vote require a constitutional amendment in Alabama, many affairs that deal only with one county or city. In fact, 75% of all of the 856 amendments affect only one county or city. When voting time rolls around, though (because these laws require a constitutional amendment), voters in Mobile, Alabama could be voting on how much the coroner of Huntsville, Alabama ought to be paid. The inability to create localized legislature effectively is one of the massive weaknesses of the Alabama constitution.(1)(2)


Summary
The constitution of Alabama is ineffecient, and cumbersome. This means that legislation is passed slowly. Local legislation can be affected by non-local voters. The state spends too much money on elections. The constitution must be rewritten.

VOTE PRO!


Sources

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. "It's a Thick Book" A 45 minute film on constitutional reform in Alabama
Debate Round No. 2
Kawurairee

Pro

Kawurairee forfeited this round.
tylergraham95

Con

Forward all points.
Debate Round No. 3
Kawurairee

Pro

Kawurairee forfeited this round.
tylergraham95

Con

Forward all points.
Debate Round No. 4
Kawurairee

Pro

Kawurairee forfeited this round.
tylergraham95

Con

Forward all points.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
I thought you would recognize psychology if it was presented to you.

http://allpsych.com...

That's beginner's 101 on psychology.
You are debating this on the false premise that you know psychology in all of its aspects, while you most probably have narrowed it down to behavioral science.

How disappointing. I was hoping to finally find someone with a pro background in psychology.
Posted by tylergraham95 2 years ago
tylergraham95
BTW I cannot control how much time you have to research. You are the one who designated how long each debater would have to prepare each round.
Posted by tylergraham95 2 years ago
tylergraham95
Good luck.
Posted by Kawurairee 2 years ago
Kawurairee
Give me time to research it
Posted by Kawurairee 2 years ago
Kawurairee
That is not psychological, that is biological.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
I propose a psychological topic:
"The development of motoric abilities in human infants is most probably genetically programmed."
Posted by Kawurairee 2 years ago
Kawurairee
Okay then.
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
I mean, my philosophies and political views are my own. I think for myself sooo... Yeah.
Posted by Kawurairee 2 years ago
Kawurairee
anything philosophical, political or psychological.
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
So, what are we debating about?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by daytonanerd 2 years ago
daytonanerd
Kawuraireetylergraham95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF