The Instigator
WrickItRalph
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Country-of-dummies
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should we redraft The U. S. Constitution?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,384 times Debate No: 120423
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (48)
Votes (0)

 

WrickItRalph

Pro

My argument is simple. The U. S. Constitution was written too long ago. Much like VCRs, It is beginning to become obsolete in our nation. Don't get me wrong. The founding fathers did an amazing job, Considering the socio political views that surrounded them at the time. But over the centuries, The checks and balance systems that kept us safe for so long have finally been chipped away and now the corrupt politicians now hold the key to the secret backdoor entrance to our laws. I'm saying we should throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm not saying that we do what the founding fathers do. We find the best representatives possible [not the ones we have now, I cannot stress that enough. ], Lock them in a room and redraft the whole thing. We rewrite the bill of rights using updated language that is comprehensive with modern society, Civil rights can be added to the bill of rights in accordance with modern politics, We throw out the cancelled amendments and the amendments that cancelled them, And we create an updated checks and balance system that addresses known problems with our current checks and balance system (such as limitless terms, Lifetime terms, And unchecked powers that have been demonstrated to lead to circumvention of the checks and balances themselves). If done correctly, We can have a Constitution that gives us all the freedoms we have now [looking at you 2nd amendment people, I don't want to take your guns] and gives use a healthy process by which to update our laws. I know change can scare a lot of people. But this country was built on change. When the kings told us to stick with the norm, We said what kings? We changed our whole way of thinking and showed them that a king is nothing and people are everything. I await my opponent. Don't be gentle.
Country-of-dummies

Con

Alright, This might get rough, So buckle up.
My first reaction to this topic was OMG, Traitor. My second reaction is, What the heck would you change? As someone who
studies law, Daily in college (criminal justice degree) I really love the law, Regardless of what everyone says. I think the constitution and bill of rights lay out exactly what we need to know. The constitution was based on implicit knowledge, Knowledge that every American should know (whether they do, Not my business). I would like to ask, What exactly would you like to add to the constitution that is not already present? There are no grammar errors. No false statements. Nothing under the law that is irrelevant. If you mean that you would like to add things to the constitution, That is what amendments are for. You act as if the constitution can have different versions, Like a book! This is not a dime novel! Making it have "modern" language is, I have to say, Something that actually makes you look ignorant. I have never heard anyone say before that they had a hard time reading the constitution. Virtually everyone knows the bill of rights by heart. So, My question is, What about the constitution does not work? How is it not good enough? Most laws are left up to the states, Which provides
individual freedom within states. This is a union, Not a dictatorship. See, This is the beauty of out country, That our founding fathers were so incredibly brilliant that they came up with a government that could function then, Until now, Relatively unchanged. The basic values that the constitution represents should be obvious, To anyone who graduated from 6th grade. I know, When I was in high school, I studied the constitution and the bill of rights and recited them to the best of my ability. Actually, When you look at the original version of the constitution, Besides prohibition, Everything else applies, As far as my knowledge goes. It is kind of like the Bible, When they came out with a bunch of new "translations, " NONE of them were as good as the original king James version. I think this is the same thing with the constitution, You are talking about coming out with a new translation. I think the constitution is what other countries look at and envy. We have something they can't touch. I think this goes back to the old phrase, "if it ain't broke, Don't fix it. . . " I know you have good intentions, But, Here, I think you dig a hole of no return. The constitution secures justice, Liberty, And equality for all. That is all it is supposed to do. That is the basic goal. Now, If you would like to add another document to the constitution, Possibly footnotes or in-text commentary, That would be different. However, Changing wording in the constitution is out of the question. I also think that this should not be used in courts of law or as "our country's constitution. " Thoughts?

Also, It is very important that you decide who alters the constitution. Normal representatives do not have the jurisdiction to change the constitution. This would have to be done by Supreme court justices, Quite possibly. However, Not even the supreme court actually has the power to "change" wording in the constitution, Only amend. The reason being, Is to preserve the sanctity of the constitution and the union. However, Altering the constitution taints the union. This grants the power to, Not only change it the first time, But do so again in the future, As many times as necessary. This would lead to chaos, And the eventual destruction of the sanctity of the union as we know it. Thoughts?
Debate Round No. 1
WrickItRalph

Pro

Law student huh? Well fork my life. I'll try anyways.

So I would like to start off by saying, That I wouldn't dream of throwing out the bill of rights. As for modern wording. I don't see any problem with this as long as the message is the same. I'm not talking about changing functional language. I'm talking about talking out any type of gender specific text or anything else that presents an apparent problem or loophole that destroys the whole system. This part of my argument is negotiable, Since my goal is not to smuggle new laws with language tricks. As for additions. My focus isn't to smuggle laws in here either. What I really want is thorough and complete system of bi laws specifically designed to give us a better definition on how to punish crimes and limitations on what we can even allow to become a crime in the future. This is very important for my argument because this failsafe ensures that corrupt politicians can never add laws that are damaging, Such as the laws that made the war on drugs happen. It's not that I think The Constitution itself doesn't work, Rather, The systems surrounding the constitution need to be improved. When we get down to it. Most of the document would probably remain unchanged and everything we take out would be either arbitrary (can't imagine what would be arbitrary, But I'm trying to be all inclusive, Just in case). Or if something was in there that caused the problems with the intended functionality of the constitution and the systems surrounding it (Again, I don't know exactly what these would be, But I'm being all inclusive)

The last major point is that I believe that we could take this as a chance to add to the bill of rights. There's only one thing that needs added in my opinion, More civil rights. Our understanding of civil rights has grown dramatically. Amendments that protect civil rights could be overturned in the future. I don't see any reason to let this happen. By including them in the bill of rights, We can make them inalienable rights. I think this is a noble cause. I know you would disagree with including abortion in the civil rights. I have conflicting opinions about abortion. But I have enough confidence from what I've learned to say that at very least. There are times when abortion is okay. We can't let a mother die just to birth a baby that's also going to die either way. In general, If the mother's life is threatened, It is only humane to allow an abortion. There's no good way around it. In the case of rape pregnancies, I could go either way. On the one hand, Forcing a woman to have such a baby could have a huge psychological effect on the mother. That puts it in the same boat as life threatening pregnancies because now we might be adding a suicide risk. On the other hand, Rape pregnancies are quite rare and should not be the broad standard for our decisions on this matter by any means by any means. The remainder are what one might call convenience abortions. Women who had consensual sex knowing the risk before hand. This is where I fall into a huge moral gray area and I become indecisive. I think killing a child needlessly is wrong. So the question becomes, Is it needless. The best conclusion that I am currently able to arrive at is as such. We live in a society that necessitates abortions. I hate to bring this up, But a chunk of the blame for this is Christianity. Poor sex education has led teenagers or even teenagers who make it to adulthood, To engage in unhealthy sexual practices. Sometimes this gets them raped. Sometimes this get them molested, And sometimes it gets them pregnant. Even the teenagers that are having consensual sex are poorly educated on the subject. This leads to bad birth control practices and more premarital sex. This gets worse in some states that teach abstinence and don't even bother to teach teenagers about birth control. I'll get off this now cause this wasn't suppose to be an abortion debate, But I realized during my argument that it was part of my argument, Lol.

As for who redrafts the constitution. There is no way to know who the best people for the job are. I think the best thing to do is give the meeting news coverage so their actions are candid. I think having a clear goal going in will make the process less subjective and I don't think the views of any specific political party should touch the parchment. I don't agree that changing it once logically follows that we will just change it again. We haven't redrafted the original for over 200 years, So I think we're good. If it makes you feel better, We can put in a clause that says they can only redraft after 200 years. Lol. Your floor
Country-of-dummies

Con

In principle, And as a matter of principle (which is what this is, ) it would not be a good idea to alter the constitution under any circumstance except in creating amendments. There is a question that there is a gap of the constitution that does not represent certain people in the republic. So, The answer for this is progressively filling the gap by political actors through amending the existing constitution? I don't think so. I think you are talking more about state constitutions and/or set punishments for crimes. You are talking about taking away discretion, Which I like. However, This is not a constitutional problem. First of all, The constitution does not deal with criminal prosecution in the way you might think. Judges, Prosecutions, And the defense has more discretion than you realize. Why? Because, Although the actors in court are just citizens (like us) they do not have a constitution to govern their actions. There is a specific "code" that they must follow, But it is ALSO on a discretion basis. I could go into more detail here, But for sake of time, I think that might not be a good idea.
The constitution is not a theory, It is a written document representing a republic of people.
The constitution is upheld by principles, Limitations and procedures that the country would fall apart without, Changing those would make our country unoriginal. There is no optimal theory, Model and principle that you could replace wording with within the constitution, It just does not work that way, (and I again bring up the different translations of the bible). The idea that there are definite faults within the constitution and that the constitution is defective is not only an unprecedented thought, But also presents a logical conundrum. The existing situation of our country is not represented by the constitution, And can not be based on its every changing structure. If we change the constitution based on society's status, Then we fall into a never ending trap, Because society's status is never static. The constitution represents human and democratic rights that the entire world admires, Not because we have "changed with the times" but because America's strength is found, Not in an wishy-washy whims, But in the solidarity and fortitude of time. The constitution is time tested. It has proven time and time again that it can and will stand, Regardless of the status of the republic it represents. With every word and amendment, The constitution has tried to give entrenchment and provision to every citizen, Not through modern forms, But through the old fashioned principle of morality, Law obeying, And freedom. Changing the constitution might just prove to weaken American resolve and government responsibility. The constitution was written for the people, By the people. However, I am not sure that our modern governing body is responsible enough to alter the constitution, Or ever will be responsible enough. Based on those reasons, I am not sure that it would be a logical idea to have our constitution changed. The American law system is seen as fair and just for the majority of the time, Which is a fundamental truth that cannot be denied.
We live in a body politic where the people are supposed to rule. However, We elect people to represent us in government, That is just how it works. Basically, The founding father's logic was this: this can be a free country, Where the people rule, And the government does not rule over people. This can be the strongest country on earth due to this. There is only one catch. The people must live under the constitution, Thereby limiting the amount of endless power that the citizens can have. What the citizens must not do, Is overthrow this constitution and change it to what they want it to be: that will be their downfall. What people want, Is to be in complete control over everything, And that is not always a good thing. 100% people rule does not work, Look at history. (aka pilgrims for example). People must have a never changing limit on what they can do, Can't do, And what they can change. If people had the power to change everything they wanted to, It would be endless. No one will ever be 100% satisfied. It does not happen. Someone, Somewhere is going to be left out of anything and everything we change. Therefore, Trying to make a utopia, May not be the best idea. Making it "as good as we can" would be a never ending task because we will never get to the point where it IS as good as we can get it. People do not
like the constitution the way it is because it limits people's opportunities to do whatever they want to do, And be in control. Why is it that humans feel they have to be in control over everything? That is why people hate authority, Because it controls them. The constitution controls people. That is why they would like to change it. However, There are ways of making our country better, (opposed to the constitution, But still, There are ways). You bring up some really good points, But I think you are mistaken in the way you think about the constitution, As if you can change it, And everything in the justice system will be good again. I reject the idea of altering the bill of rights. I think everything we "need" is laid out in the bill of rights, Anything else would pertain to "law. " Yeah, I just read through your last paragraph again, And you are definitely talking about making law. I hope you will not think that I am being a know-it-all, But I do study law, So just bear with me. Thoughts?
Debate Round No. 2
WrickItRalph

Pro

I do not study law. I point that I posit is done so through practical thought.

I would like to point out that you're misrepresenting my position a bit. You make it sound like I want to throw out the constitution and tear up the bill of rights. That is not even close. I want a system that works before you plug a single person into, Plain and simple. I want to complete the constitution. Our understanding of society has grown juristically over the centuries and so is our technology. It is simply impractical to make modern day judgements with a 200 plus year old document. I am no talking about set punishments for crimes, That is so very far from what I want. I want a code put into place that is specifically designed to determine if any given action at all is a crime. That means, I plug situation A into the system and I can tell if it's a crime by the system alone. Don't even try to say that we can't do this, Because a computer programmer would quickly tell you otherwise. I believe this is superior because no human can overturn this code. No law can be made that contradicts this code. No amendment can change this code. It would be planted solidly and work practically. I challenge you to find a problem with my system that is functionally incorrect and not just unappealing to you. I don't know where you got the idea that I don't want representatives. I very much do. I just want representatives that have term limits and I want to be able to kick that person out of office the minute that person becomes a problem under the code that I posited earlier. How dare we sit here with all of our improvements in society and not improve our government. Instead, We stick people on court seats for a million years and judge things based on court precedents (which I believe is inferior to an objective system). You also said that I want to alter the bill of rights. This is not true and I made it clear that I want the bill of rights to stand, Letter for letter. I simply want to add our most updated civil rights. I mean, It's THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Do you think that civil rights do not belong on a bill that specifically is meant to give you rights. That's like saying I'm going to store my mp4 files in the recycling bin for no reason. What if somebody deletes my recycling bin? We'd lose our mp4's (i. E rights). So either you don't want to add civil rights because you're scared of change, Or you think that the civil rights denoted in our amendments don't deserve the inalienable status of the others. If so, Then why? Do you hope that they get taken away? Is suffrage not a just right? Is gender equality not a just right? Is autonomy not a just right? In what world would we ever dream of getting rid of these and why would we even allow the chance? We fought so hard for them and we're gonna leave them in the nation's recycling bin? I think not. Your floor :)
Country-of-dummies

Con

This is getting good!

Look here, Your initial debate was about changing words and phrasing in the constitution and/or redrafting. I think you are adding to that, Which is a good thing. However, I think you are trying to take a different approach. I do not think you are attempting to tear up the constitution, But my point is, Ethically, You can't alter it. Now instead of relying on the constitution, You are talking about replacing it with a computer program that tells if a person is guilty or not, Which I am not entirely sure what you mean by that. So, We need a system to tell us what is right or wrong? As an established country, I thought we had already figured that out? We are a country with established laws. I do not know a single person that committed a crime out of ignorance that it was a crime, So that is not even a problem, As far as I am concerned.
If you are trying to prove that someone committed a crime so that you get justice, That is exactly how DNA functions in the justice system now, You put DNA into the computer and it tells you if a person committed a crime.

It is hard enough to amend the constitution "The Congress, Whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, Shall propose amendments to this Constitution. . . " two-thirds of both chambers plus three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve an amendment before it becomes law. " (see if you can accomplish that. . . ) Let alone, Re-ratifying it. In reality, This is so awesome and just because, The majority rules! It is not just a couple of people that agree and pass law. This takes a lot of work and agreement. The founding fathers seriously doubted the capacity of the people to rule judiciously in matters where they cannot agree as a whole, This is why we have a constitution. I realize that many people believe that their voice is the voice of God, And that issues should go exactly as they say. However, This is why it is the fact that when people cannot agree, When government actors cannot agree, And when people in the justice system do not agree, Things generally stay the same. If we change the constitution, And even laws for that matter, Based on different people's opinions, The constitution would look something like social media: a glob of unadulterated garbage.
I don't know about you, But, I do not see a creeping anxiety in America that our constitution is not applicable for today. Again, We live in a modern world, And we need modern laws, But the roots (constitution) that ground us in are what we base our foundation on. We grow from there, Not by changing/shifting our foundation, But building on it. When someone builds a single story house, They lay the foundation, Then start building. If they decide that they want a 2 story house, They don't break up the concrete in the foundation and pour more! They just build another level! This is the same with the constitution, (our foundation. ) We don't go back and alter the foundation! We just build on, Otherwise, We create a lot of unnecessary work that we might not be able to fix. Sometimes people refer to our justice system as a dead hand, Which could be true without the constitution. Again, That is why I say our founding fathers were genius.

You are referring more and more to law, Rather than the constitution. There have been many laws passed that are not in the constitution. However, Each state's constitution is different, Has different laws, And enforces them in different ways, But it is all rooted from the original constitution. These state constitutions are always getting updated with more laws, Better policies, And more detailed penalties. IF in the case we added all these laws to the constitution, It would be a million miles long. I am still unsure what wording in the constitution that you would like to change? What makes is a old document is its birth certificate, Nothing else. The information inside is still just as relevant today as it was 200 years ago, This being the reason lawyers lean back on it so much. I have never heard a lawyer say that the constitution needed anything beyond what is in it now. Laws are passed separate from the constitution, Basically building on the constitution. The constitution is not all that is used to govern, This being the reason there are so many courts in the land. You said we need to come up with a code that no law can overturn. We actually already have that, It is called the code of law. Also, There are becoming more and more cases that go against case precedents. Cases are becoming more based on discretion, Not precedent. (and I have many examples so. . . )
I think you are mistaken in believing that the justice system is so crumbly. Actually, The only thing we need in our justice system, Is more lawyers to handle the case-load. You seem like you might be creating a problem here that does not exist. Could we get to the point where we need to do something like this, I can't say no, But it has a slim chance of happening.
We have a country with laws, A government that is greater than any other country, And the fastest growing nation on the planet. My point is, It has worked for 200 years, So, Why change it?
Debate Round No. 3
WrickItRalph

Pro

My position is not about putting laws in place. It's about the system by which we judge crimes. Laws can work in the system but the system can also work without laws. You can conflate my meanings all day. But I've explained my position clearly several times and you keep misrepresenting my argument. If you want to show the error of my ways, You have to content with my position. Not my adjacent straw man. When I mentioned changing words an phrasing, I specifically pointed out that it was only to update the language. Maybe in your mind, Changing the definition would render it victim to a change in interpretation. I specifically said that the functioning language would be the same. By definition, If the functioning language is the same, Then it is impossible to interpret it differently. This is not even remotely close to changing it. Answer me this. What makes reading the constitution in Colonial English so good? What other paperwork do you see that is in colonial English? None, Because it's a pain to read and if you knew anything about linguistics, You would know that usages change rapidly and their words do not mean the same as our words. That's the whole point of updated language. You seem unable to attack my argument directly. You seem to only be able to conflate my definitions and then vacuously imply that the current system is perfect how it is. I guess that means you don't have a good refutation ;)

You say that we build the second floor on the foundation of the first. I'm fine with that. Now answer me this. How many architects do you see building a brand new 2nd story on top of a 200 year old house? Zero. This is because the architect knows that the old structure was good 200 years ago, But modern structures have improved.

The real root of this is that you have conservative values. Conservatives, By definition, Want to keep things the way they are whenever possible. This is no different than being scared of change. I'll tell you this. The founding fathers didn't build this country by saying "The monarchy is very old, Let's build on the very old foundation" no, They built it from the ground up the same way everybody build everything. Just cause you slap some wood tape onto an old wet piece of wood, That doesn't make the wood burn better in a fire. You grab new wood. You make a claim about DNA testing. This further demonstrates that you don't understand my argument. This isn't about prosecution. It's about what defines a crime. That is the major problem in the criminal justice system. There are people going to jail for victimless crimes. Drug users are being punished instead of rehabilitated. Why? The only good reason to lock a person up in jail is to protect society from them. That's it. It is not our job to make people suffer, Because that is pointless and more harmful to society than if had just let them stay on the streets. Don't even appeal to self victimization either. Because you cannot be your own victim since you consent to your own actions by virtue of committing them. I submit to you, There is no infallible piece of paper. You might think that your document is sound. But is has been around long enough that the politicians know how to get around it. The only thing it does is slow them down a bit. While you cling to your unchanging values, The world grows around you. Pretty soon you're gonna be the guy with the Vinyl record while everyone is walking around with VR. Metaphorically speaking. My argument basically stands or falls on whether or not I can provide at least 1 problem with the constitution that is serious enough to redraft it. I think I poor definitions of a crime meets that standards. As long as your document helps to get innocent people locked up, It will remain flawed.
Country-of-dummies

Con

Alright, You wanted cold, Hard language, So that is what you are going to get.

The first thing you learn when you go into criminal justice is there is always a victim when a crime is committed. I could give you a case for every "victim-less" crime you could come up with that would show that there is indeed a reason crimes are crimes. This could be, Crimes against men, Women, Children, Elders, Animals, Cities, States, The federal government,
on and on. You are right, There are no victim-less crimes!

You ask what makes reading the constitution in colonial English so good. I answer, Because I am allowed to see their original phrasing, Unaltered, Unfettered, And I am allowed to use that phrasing without fear of being rebuked by better laws and phrasing. This is the letter and spirit of the document. This allows me to interpret it as it was written, Knowing that what I am using is EXACTLY what the founding fathers were trying to say. (Don't even need a dictionary! )

Next, I would like to say, Plain out, That anyone who does not understand the purest form of English, Which is found in the constitution, Needs to go back to kindergarten and middle school. Because, It is not as if we are talking about another language here, We are talking about good old English. I like to ask you this, (and this is a very relevant question)
[without an answer, You have lost this debate, Because this is what your whole point revolves around] please give me a word in the constitution that you do not understand. This will give me an idea of what needs to be changed.

One thing I want to make clear. I have been intentionally saying what I have to lay the groundwork for my argument. Your whole point is that you want to change things in the constitution. What you will find with a little reasoning, Is that the constitution is only edited when it absolutely has to be, This keeps the integrity of the document. This is essential law ethics. You do not change documents like this unless necessary and proper, (proper being very important).

It is not my conservative beliefs that lead me to this opinion, But rather, Knowledge that this far from ever happening. Why? Because the court will NEVER deem it necessary to do this, Conservative or liberal. You say that you would like government officials to convene on this, To change the constitution. While I tried to dance around that, Without outright calling you ignorant on this subject, You seem to be pushing me further and further into that, Whether you realize
it or not. I could blast your whole argument out of the water, Just by resorting back to your original argument and using the word ignorance, But I do not want to go there, And I won't, Because it is irrelevant.

Okay, Maybe I will go there after all. After reading you last post, And going back over all the others, You keep going back to the same thing, Redrafting. However, I have already demonstrated to you that the constitution is not responsible for innocent people getting locked up. Now, From my prior examples demonstrating what is responsible for injustice, You CANNOT CLAIM IGNORANCE, Yet you keep going back to the same topic, Redrafting. Anyone with knowledge of the law can get on this site and tell which person has the weak argument. Actually, From what I have presented here, There IS no argument. The point is, You may want to update the language in the constitution, But changing anything else in
the constitution to help keep innocent people out of prison is not a relevant argument. I will say it again for sake of clarity, The constitution leaves it up to the states to define (take marijuana legalization for instance. ) Taking the constitution at face value, Which is a benefit of the original phrasing, The only thing that the federal government can do is prohibit the transportation of marijuana across state lines, If applicable. Under the constitution, That is all the federal government can demand. However, STATES can decide whether to legalize it or not. In law terms incidental powers do not extend to comprehensive regulation, Although many times, Incidental powers and comprehensive regulation work together in harmony between federal and state governments. That has to do with all types of crime!

I think you really need to be looking elsewhere if you want to deal with the innocents in prison problem. What you mean by innocents though, Are people that do not belong in prison (according to YOUR agenda and opinion) The rest of the world is not going to change, Just because YOU think that certain people do not deserve to go to prison for certain crimes.
I am not sure if you are new to criminal justice, But I personally realized early on that it is a dog-eat-dog environment. If you think something needs to be done, You better have a really good reason for doing it, Otherwise, You are going to waste a lot of your magic trying to accomplish something that will never happen.

You talk about the man with the vinyl record. Yeah, You might be right, But at this rate, You will be as old as the dinosaurs before you get something like this done. So, You got me beat in the age game man!
Debate Round No. 4
WrickItRalph

Pro

No offense, But you're repeating yourself so much that I barely had to skim your response.

I have demonstrated that I am not ignorant on the subject, You are making an irrational statement when you say I'm ignorant. What you're really saying is you think you know the answer and since my answer doesn't match my answer, That makes me ignorant. That's fallacious. Nice try though ;)

You said that you proved that the constitution was not the cause of innocent people being locked up. I can refute that.
Are you familiar with the crime of neglect? You being a law student, I would imagine so. The Constitution neglects certain aspects of our legal system which is why we have to use precedents and discretion in the first place. Legal precedents are errant because that is basically saying that the second person wins because the last person won last time. What if the first person was not justified to win? I'm guessing you think Rowe V Wade was a bad verdict right? Do you think that precedent is good? Discretion is just a fancy way of saying somebody's opinion.

You put the founding fathers on a pedestal. They are not authorities. They are fallible just like any representative that we would elect for a redrafting. So what you're really saying is that we shouldn't listen to anyone's opinion because the founding father's opinion were better? That's so very fallacious. The founding father's probably had IQs of like 60 or 80 by today's standards. They owned slaves and practiced in superstitions that even Christianity doesn't like. These are suppose to be your authorities?

Your comments about definitions reveals that you ignorant when it comes to linguistics. Now you're in my area good sir. You say that people should learn English in it's purest form. That is not how languages work. There is no purest form of any languages. They're constantly changing and the uses can very by town. Let my repeat that. The usages can very by town. That means that the person 20 miles from you speaks a different English. Now in modern times, This scale is bigger because of faster travel and population density, But it's just the same concept on a bigger scale. So in modern times, Languages tend to differ by state in the us, But in areas of Europe and Asia, They still maintain the same small areas do to different borders and infrastructures. So to say that we should keep it how the founding fathers wrote it is simply absurd. All of the words back then had different usages and if you heard someone speaking that way now a days. You would have a very difficult time understanding what they said. You would understand most of the words, But they would sound off. When's the last time you heard someone say "Yay, There is nary a plume in the pocket of my breast"

Your floor sir.
Debate Round No. 5
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Yeah, Privilege checking is dumb and racist. I explained it to my wife like this.

Racism is to treat or attribute someone differently based on their skin color or other birth factors.

Privilege checking treats people differently based on their skin color by telling them what they can and can't say and how they should feel about their skin color.

Therefore privilege checking is racism. Plain and simple. I don't see how people don't get this.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@Country. Can't wait till you're not busy again so we can duke it out. Lol
Posted by Country-of-dummies 3 years ago
Country-of-dummies
Yeah, I think this has nothing to do with black or white. I have no idea why that was brought into the equation. What do you have to be half black, Half white to have an opinion without feeling guilty? Ridiculous!
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Bro, Why are you so obsessed with black people. They're just people. I don't see any white or brown people problems on that list. Why is that? You think I have white guilt? Is that it? You're cute. I think the best advice I can give you in general is to let go of every pre conceived idea that you've ever had. Because every time you type something, It just reveals to me that all of your views derive from prejudice. So I'm not even sure if anyone should ever listen to anything you say. Unless you're like yelling "fire" or something. But even then, They should flip you off as they flee, Lol. STOP BEING A RACIST.
Posted by normaldude 3 years ago
normaldude
@WrickItRalph Tell me what your views on black lives matter. Affirmative action, Reparations. And black incarceration are? Do you always take the side of a black man shot by police? Please be honest because I've read lots of debates you've attempted and saw a pattern before I even commented
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@Country. Thanks man! Same goes for you.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
You say there is no issued with drug possession. If one single person is in jail for possession, Then there is an issue. I am not a black activist, Nor am I an upper middle class white person. That fact you try to categorize people like that shows why you don't think there's a problem with the way we decide what is a crime. I don't really have to look at other countries. Since I apply my logic in a fair and objective manner, I can see the problems in our system without having a better model to compare it to. I think people just turn a blind eye to the matter because our country has this bad habit of treating criminals as being less than human and it sickens me.
Posted by normaldude 3 years ago
normaldude
I'm gonna say from the gate that I'm not educated past a two year degree and have never taken a debate class so I apologize in advance for errors I may make. Ok WrickitRalph you come off to me as a person who is either a black activist or a white liberal who feels guilty for being upper middle class. From this and other debates I see a theme around incarceration and crimes that you say are victimless, We both know that you're getting at the number of blacks in prison and treatment of inmates. I don't think we have an issue with simple drug possession or under the influence being a major factor in our prison population. Sure maybe a case here and there but as a whole its not a problem, Sure being high might be the reason for the encounter with an individual but when that ends up with assaulting an officer or finding contraband we can't blame the drug or as you say victimless crime. We have the highest number of inmates correct and you used countries with a softer consequences and lower incarceration rates as a way to attempt to demonstrate a problem with our legal system but what about the countries with horrific treatment of criminals and still lower incarceration rates than us? Russia, China, Mexico, Thailand, Iran, Brazil, Greece etc, Couldn't it be argued that such conditions result in lower incarceration jut as easy? Why o we need to address civil rights in the constitution? We ended slavery and blacks no longer equal 4/5ths of a man and can vote and the same with women. You said you're concerned with the exact definition of constitutes a crime and not the punishment but I ask you if not for the punishment what is the difference? Taking a bag of chips from a store is a crime and so is murder. Should we just say all crimes are equal and give everybody 5 years in prison? Because while the murderer would be a happy man the thief would be totally screwed. Any law can and will be exploited and worked around just as you claim the constitution is now.
Posted by Country-of-dummies 3 years ago
Country-of-dummies
Thanks @wrickitralph You are a really fair dude! I appreciate your kindness and for giving an excellent debate. You are a great competitor!
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@everyone Country sent me the sources. They're not 100% accurate, But he showed me enough to say that I recant my statement about the founding fathers having IQs of 80.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.