the ideals of our founding fathers should not be the basis for how contemporary america is run.

i don't even see the point in continuing with this debate if my opponent is only going to argue semantics. indeed i did not intend for this debate to be a grammar lesson or a pseudo class on sentence structure. if my opponent feels the need to use rhetoric in order to win this debate, so be it. i figured any contender who chose to take on this debate would be willing to debate based on merit, that is, compare opinions and facts, not be as juvenile as to argue around my wording of the topic. i do agree with my opponent's resolution when he stated, "some ideals of our forefathers have become outdated and should not be the basis for contemporary american society." i believe that is exactly what i meant in terms of the debate topic. however i did not realize that people would be so petty; apparently my opponent took on this debate in order to attain another win under his belt by using sarcasm to exxagerate my ideas. good one. con has said, "in other words my opponent argues that none of the ideals our founding fathers had should be used as a basis for how this country is run." that is not what i meant to say at all. i think anyone with a little common can see how maybe my magniloquence was a little off this time. sorry. but since it has been addressed, i will state instead that fine, i do stand by whatever nonsense my opponent has thrown at me due to me probably being unable to take it back. in that case my new resolution regarding the topic of debate has been slightly changed from my original intention. i will state now that i do not agree that ANY (are you happy?) ideals of the founding fathers should be the basis for how contemporary america is run. i believe there should be a time period (a decade? two?) for which the constitution should "expire" and be replaced with new, updated laws that take into consideration the changing times and economies. it is likely that many of the laws (a majority if not all of the bill of rights) would remain as they are today, as would most other aspects of the constitution. things that americans begin to disagree with, for instance, a restriction on gun rights (this is just an example) due to the changing times and whatnot, can be amended to reflect current american values as voted upon via democratic process to be determined and also voted on. i believe this would give americans hope that things can be changed, promote an interest in politics because people feel that their efforts can and will actually make a difference (to reduce apathy), and be a more fair and cooperative way of passing and or changing laws. and if it isn't true for everyone, then it's at least true for the people who would have an interest in expanding or restricting the constitution to protect our rights. if there is a concern that this will take too much time or cost the government too much money, i argue that it would not take much innovation for americans to come up with an easy, cheap, reliable and somewhat efficient way of doing this. i suppose my argument is that the beliefs of a few white christian well-off property owners back in the 1700s cannot possibly reflect the views and beliefs of the diverse and progressive american citizens that live and pay taxes in our nation today.