• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WANTED: Strong debate opponent

A

Antiwar

Green Party progressive
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
27,138
Reaction score
4,765
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm itchin' for a good debate.

One or both topics:
A. The Constitution is weak.
That's my position. You don't have to be in love with everything about the C, but you're taking an opposing side. I'm talking bigger picture, ethical, hows, whys, what it means; not SC cases, not many specifics on text and sections.

B. I'm a VegaNazi.
I'm taking a hardcore vegan stance.




It'd be good to find a decent referee.

Any questions/concerns?



Note 1: Sideliners can comment minimally.

Note 2: I don't want to hear opinions about this thread or the two topics. Go clog up another thread.
 
Two subjective conclusions, what precisely about these do you want to debate?
 
You need a clearer topic. What does it mean for the constitution to be "weak"? Compared to what? In what sense?

I don't think anyone has a problem with you being a vegan unless you plan to use government to force everyone to abide by your convictions. I wish I could stop eating meat. I do think it's morally questionable.
 
Re # 2,3:

My topics are fine. Details come out in the debate.
 
I quit eating meat decades ago ..... it was not a problem.

I learned that meat is not necessary.
 
Razoo said:
I quit eating meat decades ago ..... it was not a problem.

I learned that meat is not necessary.
Click to expand...

i made it three years. when my job upped my workload significantly this year due to the pandemic, i started getting exhausted and sick and went back to eating meat. since then, i have felt better for the most part, and have at least maintained my appetite. it could be that i wasn't doing vegetarianism correctly. it could also be that i just got used to the increased workload. i hope to try vegetarianism again at some point when life is a bit more normal.
 
Antiwar said:
I'm itchin' for a good debate.

One or both topics:
A. The Constitution is weak.
That's my position. You don't have to be in love with everything about the C, but you're taking an opposing side. I'm talking bigger picture, ethical, hows, whys, what it means; not SC cases, not many specifics on text and sections.
Click to expand...
Are you going to present your case?
 
I think, perhaps, we can start with the premise that Antiwar just wants to have an erudite discussion on topics of interest, rather than the typical "you suck" debates prevalent on the forum.

I'll take up the cudgel: I am a fervent advocate for both the structure and efficacy of the Constitution. It is a marvelous instrument in need of tweaks, not a rewrite. It's a brilliant blend of majority governance tempered by protection of individual interests. The fault lies not the structure, but its application by those not sufficiently wedded to its fundamentals.
 
NWRatCon said:
The fault lies not the structure, but its application by those not sufficiently wedded to its fundamentals.
Click to expand...

Methinks more a bit of both.
The 1976 film "GUS", about a failed football team that gets a mule as a kicker by exploiting loopholes in the NFL rules is a stellar example of how Trump has exploited every loophole, chink, nook and cranny in our sacred document.
If ever there was a reason to shore up these weaknesses, it's Trump.
So the structure needs at least some fortification and clarification, to prevent another "GUS" move...by ANYONE.
To the latter, it's plain old Constitutional rot, due to both crisis of operation and crisis of fidelity.
Even if the Constitution provides a remedy, many members of the House and Senate refuse to abide by them.
 
Antiwar said:
A. The Constitution is weak.
That's my position. You don't have to be in love with everything about the C, but you're taking an opposing side. I'm talking bigger picture, ethical, hows, whys, what it means; not SC cases, not many specifics on text and sections.
Click to expand...
Do you object to this amendment: "The Constitution can be weak, when her ideals are not foundational in the culture."?

B. I'm a VegaNazi.
I'm taking a hardcore vegan stance.
Click to expand...
Toward which highest good?

Collective:
Widespread Veganism can allow for higher population with lower environmental impact.
vs.
Widespread Omnivorism can allow for healthier & happier population despite higher environmental impact.

Individual:
Veganism leads to better health than omnivorism
vs.
Omnivorism leads to better health than Veganism
 
NWRatCon said:
I think, perhaps, we can start with the premise that Antiwar just wants to have an erudite discussion on topics of interest, rather than the typical "you suck" debates prevalent on the forum.

I'll take up the cudgel: I am a fervent advocate for both the structure and efficacy of the Constitution. It is a marvelous instrument in need of tweaks, not a rewrite. It's a brilliant blend of majority governance tempered by protection of individual interests. The fault lies not the structure, but its application by those not sufficiently wedded to its fundamentals.
Click to expand...
What fundamentals should we marry to the document?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Methinks more a bit of both.
The 1976 film "GUS", about a failed football team that gets a mule as a kicker by exploiting loopholes in the NFL rules is a stellar example of how Trump has exploited every loophole, chink, nook and cranny in our sacred document.
If ever there was a reason to shore up these weaknesses, it's Trump.
So the structure needs at least some fortification and clarification, to prevent another "GUS" move...by ANYONE.
To the latter, it's plain old Constitutional rot, due to both crisis of operation and crisis of fidelity.
Even if the Constitution provides a remedy, many members of the House and Senate refuse to abide by them.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more, my friend. That is also my basis for saying "It is a marvelous instrument in need of tweaks, not a rewrite." For example, the Electoral College (meeting as we write), needs a fundamental makeover, and the structure of the House and Senate - although the conception of those bodies has some merit. I'd make some changes to judicial appointment, too. We could debate the whole list, eventually. :) That could be fun!
 
Antiwar said:
What fundamentals should we marry to the document?
Click to expand...
Friend Checkerboard noted a significant one: "many members of the House and Senate refuse to abide by them." Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett are great exemplars for that point, and the non-trial of Trump in the Senate on the Articles of Impeachment. (Wedded, by the way, is past tense, so the marriage already occurred. ;) It's just some of us have strayed, those adulterous bastards.)
 
Antiwar said:
I'm itchin' for a good debate.

One or both topics:
A. The Constitution is weak.
That's my position. You don't have to be in love with everything about the C, but you're taking an opposing side. I'm talking bigger picture, ethical, hows, whys, what it means; not SC cases, not many specifics on text and sections.

B. I'm a VegaNazi.
I'm taking a hardcore vegan stance.




It'd be good to find a decent referee.

Any questions/concerns?



Note 1: Sideliners can comment minimally.

Note 2: I don't want to hear opinions about this thread or the two topics. Go clog up another thread.
Click to expand...
"The constitution is weak" to what end? It may well be weak to the ends you seek, but I believe that it is strong to the ends for which it is designed. If we can agree on the ends, I will gladly debate the means.

Our constitution's strengths are also some of the things that make the US exceptional. Only the US is constituted to prioritize the individual over the group. Another great strength is how our constitution mitigates the power that those in densely populated places have, throughout history, exercised over those in less densely populated places. Our constitution mitigates that dynamic with things like the electoral college and the senate. Lastly, I'd like to mention that only the US constitution prioritizes liberty over life. We are but a tiny fraction of a percentage of all of the people who ever lived - we who declare - "Give me liberty, or give me death."

I will concede that our constitution is weak if your end is to subordinate the individual to the group. It is weak if your end is democracy. It is weak if your goal is 'social justice' rather than individual justice.

If we are going to debate this topic, I need to be clear about the term 'liberty'. When I refer to 'liberty', I am referring to the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self.
The ultimate end to our constitution is to define a government that protects and defends individual liberty above all else, indeed, above life itself. Furthermore, individual liberty is quite different from personal liberty in that individual liberty has a mutually-voluntary nature - personal liberty does not. I will not defend personal-liberty, that's anarchy.
 
Antiwar said:
I'm itchin' for a good debate.

One or both topics:
A. The Constitution is weak.
That's my position. You don't have to be in love with everything about the C, but you're taking an opposing side. I'm talking bigger picture, ethical, hows, whys, what it means; not SC cases, not many specifics on text and sections.

B. I'm a VegaNazi.
I'm taking a hardcore vegan stance.




It'd be good to find a decent referee.

Any questions/concerns?



Note 1: Sideliners can comment minimally.

Note 2: I don't want to hear opinions about this thread or the two topics. Go clog up another thread.
Click to expand...
Well you keep losingh the science debates so why are you looking for a harder task then the average level of interlect that the Skeptics have? I mean thay just use facts. No juggling of perceptions, just plain facts and that seems to flaw you.
 
Earlier you said
Antiwar said:
A. The Constitution is weak.
That's my position. You don't have to be in love with everything about the C, but you're taking an opposing side. I'm talking bigger picture, ethical, hows, whys, what it means; not SC cases, not many specifics on text and sections.
Click to expand...
I disagree! ;)

Moreover, I think it is imperative to discuss some of the particulars with reference to the document. For example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, explicitly states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States[.]" I firmly believe the Constitution meant it when it started the Section with that proviso, yet many people want to ignore the parity of those clauses - debts, defense, and general welfare, and the primacy of their position. The purposes of the Constitution were laid out in the Preamble: "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", yet many deliberately elide some of those purposes from the document.

There is no question, in my mind, that the document is both practical and aspirational. It's the aspiration part that too many people forget.
 
Antiwar said:
I'm itchin' for a good debate.

One or both topics:
A. The Constitution is weak.
That's my position. You don't have to be in love with everything about the C, but you're taking an opposing side. I'm talking bigger picture, ethical, hows, whys, what it means; not SC cases, not many specifics on text and sections.

B. I'm a VegaNazi.
I'm taking a hardcore vegan stance.




It'd be good to find a decent referee.

Any questions/concerns?



Note 1: Sideliners can comment minimally.

Note 2: I don't want to hear opinions about this thread or the two topics. Go clog up another thread.
Click to expand...
When will you guys ever learn that both sides can come up with a never ending supply of cherry picked facts? You guys always seem to think you can just keep on going at it and the last post wins.
 
NWRatCon said:
Friend Checkerboard noted a significant one: "many members of the House and Senate refuse to abide by them." Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett are great exemplars for that point, and the non-trial of Trump in the Senate on the Articles of Impeachment. (Wedded, by the way, is past tense, so the marriage already occurred. ;) It's just some of us have strayed, those adulterous bastards.)
Click to expand...
State some fundamentals.
 
Conaeolos said:
Do you object to this amendment: "The Constitution can be weak, when her ideals are not foundational in the culture."?
Click to expand...
Yes.

The Constitution is weak. And I wouldn't consider it to be female.

Toward which highest good?

Collective:
Widespread Veganism can allow for higher population with lower environmental impact.
vs.
Widespread Omnivorism can allow for healthier & happier population despite higher environmental impact.

Individual:
Veganism leads to better health than omnivorism
vs.
Omnivorism leads to better health than Veganism
Click to expand...
None of the above.
 
Antiwar said:
I'm itchin' for a good debate. One or both topics:
A. The Constitution is weak.
That's my position. You don't have to be in love with everything about the C, but you're taking an opposing side. I'm talking bigger picture, ethical, hows, whys, what it means; not SC cases, not many specifics on text and sections.
Click to expand...
So, you believe the Constitution is functional, just needs a tweak here and there, maybe - right?
I'll take the position that the Constitution and all fifty state constitutions are junk. The three-part separation theory is improperly deployed, and it causes problems in the deliberation of issues and administration of the security departments; and the chaos trickles down causing the social disorder we endure; including your myopic opinion that the Constitution is merely, "weak," and the gung ho patriots' dogmatic reverence that the Constitution is the greatest thing ever written; although no other society can replicate it to advance their society, because it works for us, because it is the product of its adjustments and the politicians' sophisticated ability to manipulate the inadequacies.


The government should be divided by the demarcation of the main partitions of law, and then those partitions are divided into the traditional three parts. And then those three parts are divided in to six parts that align. This will provide for a more recognizable balance of checks on powers.

SLCS.US4CC.0.1.1.png

So, how would you make the Constitution stronger?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom