R: Treating the US Constitution as a "Living Document" ought to be prohibited.

Are you being serious? I have my doubts as to your mettle as a debater if it was, in fact, you that posted the above argument. It was way below your par, my friend. I have given you plenty of points to content; in fact, my first argument alone had several. You could have challenged my definitions, or you could have challenged any of my contentions. But, you did not. You have basically conceded defeat; you have not challenged my arguments at all, in any real way. My initial argument, and I quote, "its [the Constitution's] prohibitions and restrictions have been ignored to allow for popular legislation," has remained unscathed, not to mention the resolution which I uphold, that "treating the US Constitution as a living document (the definition of which has been untouched) ought to be prohibited. " You have hardly addressed this at all. The only refutation that you have offered is that we should allow unconstitutional legislation to be passed in times of crisis, such as war. Besides being a very weak argument, it is easily handled anyhow. You could simply amend the Constitution to allow for such an process (though it would be extremely inadvisable, as I have reasoned above). This leaves you with. .. nothing. No argument. Nowhere have you even claimed that the resolution is false, which you must to as the "CON" debater. Unless you can disprove the resolution, we must assume it to be true; and if the resolution is upheld true, then the round goes to the "PRO. " Sorry, man, but that's the way the cookie crumbles when you don't even offer up one single refuting argument! My argument was not fallacious in any way. You cannot simply call an argument "a fallacy" and hope that it become true. If it was a fallacy, how, and which fallacy was it? No, no, wait, don't tell me. You had your chance to call out the fallacy, but it's too late, because mentioning it in your next speech would be unfair (I wouldn't have a chance to defend your charges of fallaciousness if you specify them after my last speech). Furthermore, it is the burden of the CON debater to address the appropriateness of the resolution BEFORE accepting the debate challenge! If you didn't like the resolution, you shouldn't have accepted the debate, and you CERTAINLY ought to have mentioned it before now, when you realized that you have no argument, and are grasping for a way out of the mess you created with poor argumentation. That's pretty lame, man. Finally, my argument does not once go against the resolution; my example of marijuana is just that - an example. Yes, I say that we ought to change the document with amendments, but the resolution discusses a "living document" which is defined as "a. .. philosophy that allows for. .. a reinterpretation [that] is used to modify the restrictions or limitations inherent in said constitution and amendments to allow for legislation or policy that was not conceived of as necessary at the time of writing", or in other words, a change without an amendment. Therefore, my arguments fit the resolution. Besides, even IF (as you claim) the federal government didn't directly outlaw marijuana, it does so de facto with the threat of withholding federal funds. But hey, I certainly don't want to rain on your parade.