Should we re-create our Constitution to better reflect the people's interests?
Debate Rounds (3)
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
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".
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.