frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





The U.S. Constitution should never be changed.

Debate Information

Even if the people hold the majority opinion and vote for change, the U.S. Constitution should never be changed.
passedbillmelefnatbaronsrandalEmeryPearsonBaconToesaarongDrCereal



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • passedbillpassedbill 80 Pts   -  
    The U.S. constitution should not be changed. The United States constitution is fundamental to the U.S. and it’s democracy.
    DrCereal
  • CDNSmittyCDNSmitty 35 Pts   -  
    If the Constitution is for the people by the people, then can it not be changed if "the people" wish it changed?
    melefSlanderIsNotDebate1995BaconToesanonymousdebaterDrCereal
  • melefmelef 69 Pts   -  
    The people, the president of the United States, law makers, etc. should be able to pass legislation, etc. to improve the United States of America. The constitution is fundamentally important to preserve the US and should not be altered.
  • CDNSmittyCDNSmitty 35 Pts   -  
    To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Constitution in it's current form should be changed. I'm merely wondering if it should be changed if the people wish it.

    Hi Melef. If we agree that...
    "The people, the president of the United States, law makers, etc. should be able to pass legislation, etc. to improve the United States of America." 
    ... then wouldn't it hold true that if the majority of people in the U.S. wish a part(s) of the Constitution to be changed, then it should be changed because the constituion is for the people, and majority rule?
    natbaronsBaconToesDrCereal
  • natbaronsnatbarons 133 Pts   -  
    @CDNSmitty , I belive that the U.S. constitution should be kept in its current form and not modified.
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    The US Consitution should and will be changed. It was made to be changed. Article V ensures this. When society changes (and it will), it will and should be changed to fit what the people want. 
    SlanderIsNotDebate1995whiteflameanonymousdebater
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • CDNSmittyCDNSmitty 35 Pts   -  
    So let's circle around the 2nd ammendment as an example of a greatly debated current topic. Now let's say 80% of American's want it changed, assuming that 80% is verified and obtained by a free and legal referendum. Shouldn't majority rule and thus the constitution be changed. Note that I'm not suggesting how the 2nd ammendment should be changed. Merlely using it is an example.
    anonymousdebater
  • CDNSmittyCDNSmitty 35 Pts   -  
    Good point Pogue. A nation's culture and values change, so will its constitution. 
    anonymousdebater
  • CDNSmittyCDNSmitty 35 Pts   -  
    Hmm... The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
    anonymousdebater
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    CDNSmitty said:
    Hmm... The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
    Yes. That is article V. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Do you not get why they are called amendments? They are changes that have been made to the constitution over time that have amended the original document. In the original constitution, there was no second amendment.
  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -  
    It depends. It shouldn’t be changed. But our government was set up for us the people to control it. So, it could be changed in the event that our government has failed us completely.
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    It depends. It shouldn’t be changed. But our government was set up for us the people to control it. So, it could be changed in the event that our government has failed us completely.
    Changing the Constitution means adding amendments. The constitution literally has an article to do this. If we could not change it, slaverly could not have Brennan’s abolished (13), prohibition could not have been added then removed (18 and 21), women could not vote, etc.
    whiteflame
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • randalrandal 67 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    The U.S. constitution shouldn’t be changed due to it being a foundation for the U.S.
    agsrBaconToes
  • agsragsr 881 Pts   -  
    @randal, I agree with you.  It's foundational and therefore shouldn't be changed. Welcome back
    Live Long and Prosper
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    randal said:
    The U.S. constitution shouldn’t be changed due to it being a foundation for the U.S.
    Changing the Constitution means adding amendments. The constitution literally has an article to do this. If we could not change it, slavery could not have been abolished (13), prohibition could not have been added then removed (18 and 21), women could not vote (19), etc. Without being able to change it, we would be able to add rights and laws. hen society changes (and it will), it will and should be changed to fit what the people want. 
    whiteflame
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    Changed? More like gotten rid of. Other nations do fine without this oh so sacred document.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    I'm honestly confused by the argument that the US Constitution should never be changed. That term never is a very harsh standard. It does one of two things:

    1) Grants immutability to a document written by flawed human beings who admitted that it was far from perfect
    2) Treats the Constitution as, effectively, a perfect document with no flaws

    For those of you who agree with this resolution, all of you presumably respect the amendments to the Constitution that came well after it was written. You accept that many of these amendments were positive changes to a document that was written in a very generalized manner, one that did not address key issues of morality that have since had to be addressed (slavery comes to mind). So I can't imagine that your goal is to treat the document as utterly perfect. The Constitution is not the Bible - it doesn't have its roots as some text written by a supposedly perfect being. I don't see why people romanticize the founders of this country to the degree that they do. Granted, many of the people involved in the founding of this country were great, but they were all far from perfect. To imagine that the Constitution is beyond reproach is to tell every other country that their legal documents are inherently flawed for not being like ours. To treat it as perfect is to pretend that no new moral issues should ever arise that require an amendment. 

    So, presumably, the people who are responding in the affirmative respect the fact that the Constitution is not perfect. Instead, they view this as an issue of foundations, where this document represents the core of what makes America a country, and therefore that its flaws are also a part of that core. The idea is also that we can effectively pass laws without changing the Constitution. I somewhat agree with the former statement, in that it is a key part of our history and that it represents something key to America as a result. The problem I have with both of these ideas is that it treats the country as remaining virtually identical to how it was in 1776. There are parts of the Constitution that bar the legislature from taking necessary action, and judges are often forced to make decisions based on that document, regardless of what other laws are passed. If the Constitution is the foundation of our country, then we need to recognize that we are no longer the same country we were all those years ago. We can respect the Constitution and our founders without enshrining this document as immutable. In fact, I would argue that we better respect both by making changes. We recognize that the steady progress of time and the resulting changes in attitudes actually matters. We treat our country as evolving instead of stagnating.
    ale5PogueTHEDENIERBaconToes
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    This is a paradox, as you would need to change the Constitution in order to prevent Amendments.

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -  
    @Pogue, I meant changing one off the original 10 amendments. Not adding amendments
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    @AmericanFurryBoy

    The first ten amendments are still amendments, they weren't in the original constitution and the 27th amendment was actually submitted at the same time - it just took a lot longer to be ratified.

    Also why would you be okay with getting rid of the ban on slavery (13th amendment) or ensuring both sexes have the right to vote (19th)?
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @Pogue, I meant changing one off the original 10 amendments. Not adding amendments
    That makes a little more sense, but it's still not clear why you're enshrining those 10 amendments as the vision of perfection. The writing is quite vague on all of them, often with no clear limitations. Even if you're talking about the First Amendment, which I think is generally treated as incredibly important by pretty much everyone, it establishes a set of rights that are very important, but also come into conflict in a multitude of occasions. Even ignoring the fact that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are often at odds, there are now far more organizations that classify themselves as religions but do not meet the standards set by the US government. Should they receive freedom of religion despite the discrepancy? It seems as though doing so across the board grants almost any belief religious status, so it has to stop somewhere. But where?

    And this is just the First Amendment. Many have brought up the Second, though I feel that even on a very basic level, it's problematic. It generalizes to a "right to bear arms," but never states what kind of arms should be allowed. Bans on some weapons exist, and many are restricted access. If everyone has the right to bear arms, why are these abridgments allowed? Again, it's the vagueness in the language. The Second Amendment requires that people have access to guns, not that that access is absolute and all-encompassing, but that vague language has resulted in a tremendous amount of discussion over what's actually allowed when it comes to gun control. And the amendment itself isn't helping to clarify.

    So, I stated this in my previous post, but will pose it directly to you as a question: why do you think the Amendments are so perfect that they should be utterly immutable?
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    I'd pose the question, and anyone feel free to to answer: Is there another example of a system that's built upon a fundamental ideology that when that ideology is removed...the system still thrives somehow?

    If you remove the foundation, does the building still stand?
    If you knock out the supporting columns, will the roof not crush the walls?
    If you take away the principle of ANYTHING...does the system survive?

    Is there an example of this...anywhere?  I'm not necessarily saying that there's not...I just can't think of one.  What's one system you can name that was built upon a Principle that, when removed, still held strong?
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk America is based on enslavement, rape, greed and war.

    I don't just mean today, I mean the history of US of A.

    You talk of 'foundation' like it's somehow the Constitution. The constitution is something a bunch of powerful men mumbo jumbod to appease the masses of the time, don't come to me telling me it's some sacred document. Even the founding fathers in no shape or form claim it to be a sacred text.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @someone234

    Who said anything about the constitution?  Exactly who are you arguing against here?  I'm not quite sure who he is...but he's not me, I never said that the constitution was the foundation of the United States and I wouldn't because it's not.  Your powers of assumption are impressive to say the least...I've not seen quite a leap to conclusion of that magnitude in a long time. 


    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • CDNSmittyCDNSmitty 35 Pts   -  
    Isn't the constitution a model for the freedoms and rights of everyone in America. Does it not include foreign nationals that visit the US? 
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @CDNSmitty

    No, the constitution is the body and letter of law in the United States.  The Declaration of Independence is the model for the freedoms and rights of everyone in America.  It is the Principle, the fundamental ideology, the bedrock, the foundation, the support and the basis for the freedoms and rights of Americans.  And while there are some legal provisions for foreign nationals visiting the United States...in actuality there are very few compared to what citizens have.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand its that same logic. Why would you take away any of the amendments unless there is a complete and immedeate need? I’m saying the second amendment should not be taken away because there is not an ultimate need to take it away. But I feel like we might be talking about two different things.
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    I'd pose the question, and anyone feel free to to answer: Is there another example of a system that's built upon a fundamental ideology that when that ideology is removed...the system still thrives somehow?

    If you remove the foundation, does the building still stand?
    If you knock out the supporting columns, will the roof not crush the walls?
    If you take away the principle of ANYTHING...does the system survive?

    Is there an example of this...anywhere?  I'm not necessarily saying that there's not...I just can't think of one.  What's one system you can name that was built upon a Principle that, when removed, still held strong?
    "Removed" and "changed" are very different terms. The former represents a loss, the latter represents an alteration, though in both cases there are gradations and there could be some overlap. I'd say that utterly removing a fundamental ideology upon which a system is built usually does quite a bit to harm that system, though that's rather theoretical. It depends what is being removed and what it's being replaced with.

    Your other questions seem to push the impression that only one kind of removal exists, one that involves taking away an essential support structure and not replacing it. Sure, if you're talking about a building, removing the foundation would knock it down, even if you somehow have a backup foundation you want to slip in afterwards. But the reason it harms the building is because the old foundation cannot immediately be replaced with the new one, no matter how fast a construction crew you have. But a system, particularly a government, is different. You can remove or alter even a very substantial part of that government and immediately phase in a new part to replace it. But all of this assumes that whatever is being removed or altered is so fundamental that it forms a necessary support structure for said system. 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    Of course it should be changed and its many flaws and omissions corrected , Americans get all moist eyed and emotional and place a sacred aura around a document written a couple of hundred years ago demonstrating beautifully another example of herd mentality in action 

    Many enlightened Americans and others view the constitution as something that needs updating and corrections that apply now for the good and benifit of American citizens , everything evolves and change's over time this needs to include the constitution 
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    @AmericanFurryBoy

    You stated the first ten amendments should be protected. That is a strange and unusual distinction that I'm querying. Why only the first ten? If you think there is no clear and immediate need to repeal the second amendment and that's why you don't want it altered, do you think there is a clear and immediate need to re-institute slavery and that's why you don't want to extend the same protection to the thirteenth amendment that you want to extend to the first 10?
  • CDNSmittyCDNSmitty 35 Pts   -  
    It was mentioned above that "removed and changed are very different terms." In fact the act of changing something involves the removal,  to some degree, of something else.

    There are a lot of excellent thoughts here. At this point, I feel that the constitution can be changed as it is a volume of laws set forth for the people. AND if the people so decide by majority, then it can be changed. 

    For example, the second amendment. Though I am in favour of firearms for many reasons, I feel that the constitution can be amended (changed) to better define what is reasonable for a person to possess and operate a firearm.

    I get that it's there as a right to bear arms and that no infringement can occur on that right. But it can be amended so that the people can still have guns, but defined in such a way as to establish reasonable makes and models of firearms.

    Think about it, if the government turned into a dictatorship or some other oppressive regime, the American people would simply rise again, and revolt as they have already proved they can do in the past. If those families that don't want guns now needed them during a time of revolt, they would find one in their hands during a time of revolution. Thats what happens in revolution. Oppressed people find a way. 

    In light of that, maybe ammed the 2nd to establish reasonable styles of firearms. If not change penalties to be extreme for misuse of firearms. 
  • CDNSmittyCDNSmitty 35 Pts   -  
    In hindsite, perhaps the constitution is meaningless when the proverbial "you know what" hits the fan. If living in tyranny, people rise and don't give a damn about a constitution the gov in power go by.

    I came to this debate wondering about the firearm problem that exists in the US. I broke it down in my mind and it always lead to the 2nd amendment debate. I wondered that if, by referendum, the people voted and wanted it changed, should it be changed?  Sure... It should. But the people must vote and do it through referendum, not through politicians as they are always under the pressure of outside influence.  

  • DebateDroneDebateDrone 12 Pts   -  
    The US Consititution is changed every time the US Supreme Court makes a ruling.

    The US has changed since the first "Landmark" ruling .... Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

    The right for the general public to bear arms was affirmed in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S.742 (2010)

    Anyone who believes our Constitution remains dormant is sadly mistaken. 
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    I'd pose the question, and anyone feel free to to answer: Is there another example of a system that's built upon a fundamental ideology that when that ideology is removed...the system still thrives somehow?

    If you remove the foundation, does the building still stand?
    If you knock out the supporting columns, will the roof not crush the walls?
    If you take away the principle of ANYTHING...does the system survive?

    Is there an example of this...anywhere?  I'm not necessarily saying that there's not...I just can't think of one.  What's one system you can name that was built upon a Principle that, when removed, still held strong?
    You don't need to look elsewhere, the US constitution itself provides the evidence as it has been altered 27 times already. Others do the same; I'm sure the Indian constitution is at its hundredth or so amendment even though it has only been around for 70ish years.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    Altering something does not necessitate removing, more specifically making an addition to a system certainly does not suggest a removal.  Since the discussion has included a repeal (Revocation/Annulment) of the 2nd Amendment...this is still relevant.

    I was very...very...VERY clear and concise with my questions being very specifically and exclusively relating to "Removal".  At this point I'm at a loss for words as to how I might convey this better so that some of our fellow members aren't so confused.  Or it could just be a case of "I didn't read it because I don't want to".


    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    Constitution isn't worth a dime. I'd sooner rather people got smacked for the sh** they say, especially bullies, rather than have a totally free populace who can at any time destroy the order that is so important to the decorum of a society.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Constitution isn't worth a dime. I'd sooner rather people got smacked for the sh** they say, especially bullies, rather than have a totally free populace who can at any time destroy the order that is so important to the decorum of a society.
    The government shouldn't have free reign over it's people. The constitution or specifically the bill of rights are the basic laws that the society made for their government. I refuse to live in a society that cannot acknowledge basic human rights.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat hahahaha, they trick you anyway and control the media so what freedom is there? Say what you say here on TV or youtube. Make a show, you will see that there is no first amendment.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited April 2018
    @Erfisflat hahahaha, they trick you anyway and control the media so what freedom is there? Say what you say here on TV or youtube. Make a show, you will see that there is no first amendment.
    I am free to express my opinions openly, YouTube allows opinions and ideas to be shared, I can protest with science on the street, there are many other ways of communicating with people.

     I completely forgot about the talking heads on the media. I stopped watching TV a while back. Once people realize that box is a brainwashing device, kicking the habit won't be hard. 

    http://www.psychmechanics.com/2015/03/how-tv-influences-your-mind-through.html?m=1



    Still, if the powers that be had complete control, I wouldn't be able to communicate freely.

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • eweber18eweber18 5 Pts   -  
    The Constitution should never be changed in a way that involves deleting things from it. If it were to come to it because of new technology of some sort, then one could justify possibly adding an amendment, but deleting one takes our country away from its roots.  
    For George Washington to have had the brilliance to create a democracy rather than a monarchy (the people were ready to elect him king), he did our country the greatest service he could have every given.  Putting the power with the people and giving them a set of guidelines, being the Constitution, was a brilliant and selfless move by a man who made America what it is today.
  • asmithmier18asmithmier18 3 Pts   -  
    I think the Constitution should be open to change.  As our society has progressed and we are in more modern times, the Constitution must be updated to fit the times we are living in.  Many parts of the Constitution apply to things that are no longer relevant in today's society, so there is no point keeping them in there.  Some parts definitely could stay in the constitution, but just need to be updated. Take the 2nd amendment, for example.  As our technology increases, the right to bear arms now includes much more dangerous weapons, like assault rifles.  The constitution was written in 1787, and AR's were not invented until 1964.  If this statement no longer applies to our society as accurately, and no longer is what is best for our country, then it is important that it can be modified to best suit the needs of the people.  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    The Constitution was written over two centuries ago, at the time when our lifestyle was drastically different, when the dominant societal views were different, when the political situation was different... The US just won a long hard war against the strongest military power in the world, and the Constitution was heavily influenced by the threat of the independence being taken away in the nearest future by the British Empire or even an alliance of multiple European powers.

    Nowadays, the US is the world's number one superpower, its relations with most countries are extremely friendly, and our technology evolves faster than we can keep up with it. While I do not think the Constitution should be changed right now (I do think there are controversial parts that could be reworked, but they are not critical), I would not go as far as to say that it will still be relevant, say, 500 years from now.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -   edited May 2018
    As our technology increases, the right to bear arms now includes much more dangerous weapons, like assault rifles.  The constitution was written in 1787, and AR's were not invented until 1964.  If this statement no longer applies to our society as accurately, and no longer is what is best for our country, then it is important that it can be modified to best suit the needs of the people.  
    This is a feeble argument.  While ARs hadn't been invented, volley guns had been, duck-foot pistols had been, and the repeating Girandoni air rifle which would accompany Lewes and Clark on their expedition had been.  The founding fathers were not , they knew the direction firearms were headed and, if anything, would likely be surprised at how little they've changed. 

    You're also wrong about the date.  The AR-15 was designed in 1956, and first overseas sales were in 1959.  The first civilian sales in the US were in 1964.

    MayCaesar said:

    Nowadays, the US is the world's number one superpower, its relations with most countries are extremely friendly,

    You should heed Lord Palmerston's advice "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."



  • Code7000Code7000 33 Pts   -  
    Only adding ammendments. Nothing else.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch