The Constitution Should Be Revised for our Modern Nation

I'll split my rebuttal into three sections to make further refutations as efficient as possible. Pro's R2 Argument:Age of the Constitution:My opponent claims that because our constitution was written hundreds of years ago, this automatically means we need to revise it. His justification for this claim is that Iceland revised their constituion after 60 years, and because they did it we should do it to. However, not only are America and Iceland vastly different countries with vastly different populations who have different worldviews, but their constitutions are different as well, and there's no reason to assume that because there were flaws with the Icelandic Constitution that needed revising then the American Constitution needs to be revised as well. His secondary justification for the revision is that Thomas Jefferson stated that the Constitution needed to be expired and re-written every 19 years. However, my opponent negates this himself immediately afterward by stating " This resolution does not even call for the complete expiration of the Constitution as Jefferson suggested". Even though he can state that soem nations decided to change their constitution, it does not provide us with an actual reason that the age of the document hinders its performance. Furthermore, with the amendment process, time does not provide as huge an obstacle as my opponent suggests: "The Constitution (as liberals are fond of pointing out) is not frozen in the 18th century. It must be able to change with the times, and the Founders anticipated this and provided for it. . .. The way our Constitution adapts to changing times is through amendments to its text. It was a constitutional amendment that ended slavery--not the Supreme Court. It was a constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote--not the Supreme Court. "[1] Because the Age of the Constitution does not provide us with the Obligation to change it, this argument fails. The Difficulties of the Amendment Process:My opponent's argument in this section is that because the Amendment process is difficult, it needs to be revised. However, it was designed to be difficult to ensure that every amendment would need to be widely accepted by the people so a minority wouldn't be able to pass biased or unwanted amendment. "Though the Founding Fathers rightly provided an amendment process, it was made difficult on purpose, so that the Constitution would have continuity and not be subject easily to change by short term popular sentiment. This has been effective in that there have been only 33 amendments sent to the states for ratification, and only 27 have passed, though there have been thousands of proposals. "[2]. Because the amendment process is difficult on purpose to protect the Constitution's validity, this argument fails. Several Examples of Where the Constitution has Room for Improvement:In this argument, my opponent simply provids room for improvement. However, as the Constitution already possesses an amendment process that is designed to improve the docuemnt, there is no reason to revise or redraft teh entire constitution. Because there is already a solution to these improvements, this argument fails. Pro's R3 Argument:Partisan Politics Makes a Revision Through Congress Impossible:My opponent's argument here is that because the two parties oppose each other, it is impossible to pass an amendment. However, an amendment is supposed to be difficult by nature (see my argument against R2), and my opponent has not been able to prove that it would be impossible to pass an amendment. He was able to prove that Partisan Politics is a problem (his site looks a little sketchy as far as specific details), he cannot prove that it is impossible to pass an amendment, especially when a bill like National Healthcare is able to pass when it is strictly against Republican politics[3]. Efficiency:I'll spare the audience from having to read a repetition of the "amending is supposed to be difficult" argument, and get straight to the committee. He adressed this in the above section as well, but I just thought it would be better to adress it in one area. My opponent is trying to propose some kind of miracle government branch which wouldn't be affected by political or corporate ties. However, not only is it impossible to not be biased towards one political system or party or religious ideal, but my opponent has not been able to prove that the constitution needs revising. Because it is impossible to find a completely unbiased human so his suggestion is impossible, and because he cannot prove that the Constitution requires revising, this argument fails. Conclusion:My opponent's main argument in this debate is that the Amendment process is difficult to use, and so because we cannot rely on it we need to revise the entire constitution rather than use the amendment process. However, because I have proven that the amendment process is difficult on purpose and my opponent cannot prove that it is impossible, my opponent has not been able to prove that there is any reason we need to revise the entire constitution. As such, his BoP is unfulfilled, and the resolution has been negated. Vote Con :)Works Cited: 1. ) . http://www.frc.org...2.) . http://suite101.com...3.) . http://www.guardian.co.uk...