The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should we re-create our Constitution to better reflect the people's interests?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 198 times Debate No: 91833
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




From the Very beginning, the people who created the constitution were looking out for themselves. While many of the people are looked back upon well, there are parts of their life that are looked over. Many were white, rich, and had slaves. Currently, slavery is abolished, the Rich have more power than ever, and the fact that Trump is nearly voted into Presidency shows how racist the general populace still is. The Current constitution is broken at its roots and has had to be re-worded multiple times through the amendments, and even had an amendment that abolished a previous amendment. This document has been around for over 200 years and does not accurately reflect the Internet culture that the world has developed. At the time of the constitution, technology like a mobile phone that can access news from China at a few clicks , wasn't even close to thought of. People are currently smarter than ever and are able to push the country to even farther extremes than before. America has gotten even more acceptable to different cultures, whether it be homosexuals or mental diseases, yet some of the biases that were shown from the dawn of the constitution. While there are some who will protect the constitution because of a feeling of patriotism, it will be better for the country as a whole to re-create a constitution that better helps the entire people, not just the 70+ million who control about 20% of the wealth. Under the current law, Business, economic entities, have the same rights given to people, this law only helps those who have enough money to control large entities, and hurts those who try to do what is right and stand up to immoral entities. The fact that something like this can happen is just broken. Also, just because we change the Constitution, does not mean that this country has to be any less of a democracy. Currently, your vote is not important as a political leader who has a majority of a vote can still lose because he is not wanted by the small percentage who decide. Also, the current all in system means that if a country is split, and one side has just enough to win, the hundreds of thousands of people who voted for the losing side are ignored, so that the majority of people vote for a democratic party member but the Republic nominee wins because "swing states" decide who wins. The people should have more incentive to vote and the reason they don't is they realize that this system is so broken, that the interest of the people is not in the Governments best interests, so why should they support a Government that does not care for them. This just proves that America needs a change that better reflects the best interests of the majority.


"From the Very beginning, the people who created the constitution were looking out for themselves."

To say such an amazingly ignorant thing is to demonstrate you are a victim of the government school system. While some people may be smarter today, you are not one of them.

Please explain these changes to this new Constitution you would make?
Debate Round No. 1


I will show you what types of reforms are needed to better the Populace

First we need to recognize Business as what they are, corporations and not as people
Second we need to allow every-one born within the United States to have an equal right to preform well within this economy if they are willing to work hard enough, as many people are forced out of schooling to just survive
Third The "currency of democracy" must be the votes of the people, and the government officials must be re-elected purely based of of what they have done while in office
Fourth When people leave government offices they cant work for companies effected by their bills or anything they helped pass, meaning we the people will have to be okay with giving them enough of a salary to survive
Fifth there should be a limit for lobbying as over 3 billion dollars are spent for lobbyists, forcing people to either research, which many people don't do, or vote based on the biases of these commercials, and the ones who spent the most will get their message more across

Finally, it appears my opponent in this debate fails to understand what this type of debate is. This debate is an intellectual debate where two people debate the pros and cons of an idea and the one with the better support for either side wins, this type of debate does not involve slander, because lets just say i could think of a few things to say based on his last comment, but i am more interested in the idea, now please, if you will, try to talk about the cons of this.


But business are nothing but collections of people. People do not give up their rights just because you do not like how they organize themselves and collectively do things you do not like.

There is no such thing as an equal right to perform well. There are the actual rights to assembly, contact and property that you do not like. But your disliking them does not make them go away. Indeed, no one is forced out of schooling, but make a choice to leave because of their circumstances. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that you favor free education, but to make that happen you must steal and/or enslave others, which are unconstitutional. You may want the state to steal and enslave others, but the Constitution is against you, praise Jesus.

And it is the people who choose who holds office, but they. An do it on any basis they want. Donor tell me how I am to determine my vote. You are not my mommy.

Again, who people work for is none of your business. Get government out of business, and no one will hire government employees to influence government.
Debate Round No. 2


Starting off, while it is true that Businesses are nothing but collections of people, Is something that can not die human? i believe not, so why then are many rights that are given to humans given to Corporations. This law is the same as giving a ladder or a billboard rights. both are objects that are not able to die like a human can.

Also, when it comes to equal right to schooling and work, there really is not a choice for those who are too poor. Let me give you a situation that would help you understand better. I will let you choose one of these two options, either 1) leave your education and help your family survive, condemning you and your family to a low income, barely able to survive. Or 2) continue your education and watch as your family dies around you. All i am asking is that if a poor kid works with a drive that surpasses even Olympic Athletes, he should not be forced to look for his next meal inside of a trash can. Finally, steal/enslave people for free education? we already pay taxes that go towards education, what would a few more be to allow people to actually have a chance in this world. It worries me that you would go straight into slavery before looking for better options.

As for the next comment, if i can understand you correctly, what you meant to say was "And it is the people who chose who holds offices, and they do it on any basis they want. Don't tell me how i am to determine my vote, you are not my mom". Now if i translated that correctly, Sure you can vote for anyone you want, but voting with no clue who you are voting for is how people like Stalin and Hitler get elected, they get fooled by the persona that people put on and vote based on silly things that have no basis on a political race. And no, i am not your mom, that would be horrible.

Finally, you are correct, you can work for whoever you want, but the fact that you CAN work for whoever is the problem, as many people are forced into jobs that pay minimum wage jobs because they cant afford to complete schooling. Also YES your final comment is what i have been saying, get Government off the track from business affairs and Companies will no longer effect how people's day to day lives are. We should embrace this so that the Government is truly "For the people, by the People". The whole goal of Changing the Constitution is so that the Government works to better the lives of the average person, and if Companies no longer hire the Government as the equivalent of their spokespeople, then we will create a better life for all of us


Businesses do not have rights per se. The people have the right to speak through their business organization. But the solution to businesses being involved in government is not to take away the God-given right to freedom of speed of people who you do not like, but to get government out of business. I guarantee if you get the fascists/socialists out of government, the involvement of business in politics would dry up overnight. Take, for example, Microsoft. Before the government sued them to tell them what they had to do with their software, Microsoft had not one lobbiest. Now, they have a whole team dedicated to it. Believe me, Microsoft (and ever other company in the US) would rather use the same money to build a better product or make more profit, but because of busybodies like you who want to tell them what to do while not buying any stock in the company, they are forced to waste money on politics.

Yes, everything in life in a choice. It is losers who think they are victims. But let us assume you are right. Your sob story does not give you the right to take from me the fruit of my labor. As I said, the Constitution reconigzes my God-give right to property and being free from slavery. You cannot take that away. In fact, for one who claims to oppose force and slavery, you sure do advocate for it.

I have no problem limiting voting to male landowners, clearly away the ignorant moochers who think everyone owes them a living.

No one is forced in to a job paying mimimum wage. And minimum wage should be abolished.

Now, as to paying more, I have no problem if you want to dig into your pocket and pay more. In fact, we have many charities that allow you to do just that. I have a problem with you wanting to dig into my pocket, making me your slave. No thanks.

And government is the problem, not the solution. We need to return to the Constitution and maybe even you can see that.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
>Reported vote: HomelySherlock// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con hardly made an argument, and started off the debate with an insult.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter needs to do more to justify awarding arguments. Merely stating that Con did a poor job of providing an argument doesn't justify awarding these points to Pro " the voter needs to assess Pro's arguments as well, and assess what Con provided, however weak it was. (2) Conduct requires more explanation. While I can see how the opening statement can be perceived as an insult, the voter should clearly demarcate where the insult is in order to substantiate their view that a conduct violation occurred.
Posted by Darckshadow 4 months ago
cant wait to see what people think. would vote myself but that would be foul
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 4 months ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither left a source. Con had condescending things to say to pro that was not necessary. Con also didn't really debate. He didn't do a whole lot of defending the con position, rather he just said, in a very complex way "no, you're wrong".