CreateDebate


Debate Info

45
34
Yes! Federalists No! Anti-Federalistst
Debate Score:79
Arguments:58
Total Votes:111
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes! Federalists (36)
 
 No! Anti-Federalistst (16)

Debate Creator

Thames(201) pic



Should the Constitution be ratified?

the great debate!

Yes! Federalists

Side Score: 45
VS.

No! Anti-Federalistst

Side Score: 34
2 points

We are in an economic crisis. Which does not only affect us, but the future of our new nation. The states can not merely decide how to run them as it not only them facing this economic failure, but the country as a whole. "A house divided against itself can not stand." We are all facing the uncertainties. The country and our states are bankrupt and in considerable debt. The United States has no effective currency and no reserve bank to regulate it. We need a plan and the Constitution gives us one.

Side: Yes! Federalists
2 points

With the failure of the Articles of the Confederation, the states are way to overly democratic. They have created majority factions that have dominated legislation in favor of themselves. It has gotten so bad to the point debtors are paying off debt in CARROTS!! This is why we need to move away from a direct democracy and with a large republic, we can squash these majority factions! With a large republic, there will be so many different opinions, it'll make it hard to form a majority and that majority will not stay a majority for long. Also, with a large republic, it is hard to corrupt officials due to how tedious and hard the system is built. These large factions also will allow representation from the population in our government. The constitution in turn will equal out the playing field and allow more equality and fairness for the minority.

Side: Yes! Federalists
BruTUS(5) Disputed
1 point

How about, just hear me out, we ratify the Articles? They were made in a different time, it should just be fixed up to better suit our new nation. While I do believe that majorities could pose a problem if unchecked, part of democracy is having the ability to form a majority to have a general opinion. And on another note, a large republic is STILL able to be corrupted. You are basically running on an honor system and checks and balances to work. Men are still able to be corrupted. For instance, a member of the house could be bribed to make a single vote to change the outcome of a greatly influential bill.

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
AlexPork(4) Disputed
1 point

You are one to talk about "running on an honor system". The government created under the Constitution will be much more reliable and trustworthy because it does not rely on any group of people. And also "made in another time"? It was around ten years ago!

Side: Yes! Federalists
GHS_name(4) Disputed
1 point

There will be no matter what a majority, but with the constitution, it won't guarantee the majority their power for long as eventually the majority could become minority. I agree that men are still be able to be corrupted, but with a large republic, it'll allow corruption to happen less compared to past governments like small republics.

Side: Yes! Federalists
2 points

In Federalist 51 James Madison says, “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” The Legislative branch is TOO powerful and TOO democratic. When the people vote, only the majority will be represented. This would cause a tyranny of the majority. Also commoners should not have control on things like the country's taxes or they would have access to pass ridiculous forgiveness laws. Through the Articles of Confederation people were paying things in carrots!!? Where you have too much power you must restrict it.

Side: Yes! Federalists
luckywarrior(1) Disputed
1 point

but with federal government in charge all that the people have worked for will be taken away! The states need to be in charge. The people should be in charge not the elite. You says commoners should not have control on taxes but that is the only fair thing to do. With a large republic we will be taxed to death! States will be brought down

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst

The money that we tax on people essentially goes back to the people. Taxes pay for schools, teachers, and many government programs that benefit you. You do know that the reason why Revolutionary War veterans did not receive a paycheck was because we did not have any taxes.

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
1 point

The Constitution will protect us as citizens. There is no need to fear it or the tyranny Anti-Federalists believe will come along with it. There is strict limit on the powers of the president and there is a checks and balances system in place to protect our rights.

Side: Yes! Federalists
yeyeyeyeyeye Disputed
2 points

I don't see it as being strict if clauses like the necessary and proper clause basically makes it to where they could have whatever they wanted or do whatever they want, so long as they believe it is "necessary and proper"

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
1 point

I do declare that we the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our prosperity. Do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America. The Constitution will create a Federalist government that will provide equal and checked out power for all of America, from levels of the states down to the very individual. A government with power is required, but this does not mean they will receive all the power, it will be made equal. All people were created and equal, shall be treated equal, and given an equal opportunity.

Side: Yes! Federalists
BruTUS(5) Disputed
2 points

Equal? Do please explain? Your powers are mostly focused in government meant to oppress the natural freedom of man! Why should a government in Washington be in charge of the government in Virginia!?

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
JamesMadison(4) Clarified
0 points

The Constitution does not create a Unitary government, it creates a Federalist government, one where everybody has equal representation in power. The states will have personal powers, but they will not have ALL of the power.

Side: Yes! Federalists
1 point

Yes, of course the Constitution should be ratified. Interstate commerce between the states is terrible right now! Because of the way the Articles distribute power, trade can barely function between the states because the states have almost all of the power! Between this and Shay's rebellion and what it stands for, I see no reason to not ratify the Constitution.

Side: Yes! Federalists

Exactly! How are we supposed to be the United States of America if each state is acting like its own separate country!!!

Side: Yes! Federalists
1 point

Although it may appear as the states have all the power, on the contrary, we do not believe this is so. The states are feel inferior to the central government - we have no power. The states have no money, little power, and cannot be represented fairly. With change, the states must dwindle away and confide to national power, leading to no representation for the states.

Side: Yes! Federalists
1 point

I support James Madison's decision because I do believe that we should all be treated as our own person, he was right a federal government would not be able to reach all its people.

Side: Yes! Federalists
yeyeyeyeyeye Clarified
0 points

im confused what you're arguing for? You say you support Madison but then you say a point that anti feds are making against the constitution?

Side: Yes! Federalists
1 point

The constitution is there for a reason, it is a stronger form of government and keeps the states focused on the country as a whole rather than just their states, which in turn makes us stronger and harder to be easy pickings for enemies(which at that time would have been a serious concern). If we look at history we can see that decentralization is almost always inferior for states, since they are less strong and create more faction problems between the states(and within the states). Centralized states on the other hand take into consideration and create a compromise to get goals done and take what they need for their collective betterment.

Side: Yes! Federalists

Which constitution ?

Side: Yes! Federalists
0 points

Of course, we should ratify the constitution. Some may say that the constitution is going to cause too much gridlock. Yes, it will cause gridlock but this gridlock is what drives our government. To explain, the constitution is made so that we have debates in order to bring up both sides of the argument. Once both sides of the argument are brought up, we take a deep look at both sides and then make the most sensible decision from there. Not just this, we know that humans are selfish and only look out for themselves. So how can we use this selfishness to our advantage? Checks and Balances. Through checks and balances, we can have different people with different ideas to debate and check on each other to ensure that the best decision is made.

Side: Yes! Federalists
0 points

I believe that there are unmentioned rights of the constitution that belong to the federal government. So the government does have the right to accept additional powers. A strong central government could best protect individual citizens and rights.

Side: Yes! Federalists
luckywarrior(1) Disputed
2 points

this doesnt even answer the question. What are you arguing?

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
yeyeyeyeyeye Disputed
1 point

Exactly, all of the powers aren't even properly described! So we don't truly know what all the government would and would not be allowed to do, because the Constitution doesn't specify everything!

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
0 points

Yes the Constitution should be ratified. The nation is in shambles. Interstate commerce is almost completely paralyzed. Money has a completely different value anywhere you travel and there is no way to protect ourselves against the other world powers that might come our way. What needs to happen is a strong central government needs to be created. There needs to be a central currency and there needs to be a trained standing army for times of crisis.

Side: Yes! Federalists
0 points

Yes the constitution would divide the powers among three branches or that neither branch could become too powerful to threaten their freedom and take away their rights.

Side: Yes! Federalists
2 points

I believe that our personal rights should be protected and a large republic is TERRIBLE. We can't be subjects again!!! We need the power in the states!!

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
rpctdsamurai(9) Clarified
2 points

If the republics are small, we are able to assemble debate and understand the subjects. This will allow states and subjects to have a say and participate in discussions that dictate how the country as a whole functions.

Side: Yes! Federalists
AlexPork(4) Disputed
1 point

You can still have that in state governments. However, in order to keep states in line, we have to have an overriding power. A strong central government that will handle international and interstate affairs is needed in order to keep peace and order.

Side: Yes! Federalists
Isaac-cupp(4) Disputed
1 point

How can a country as a whole function if different states cannot agree? The country needs to have a strong central govt that does whats best for the country as a whole.

Side: Yes! Federalists
AlexPork(4) Disputed
1 point

Personal rights WILL be protected, you are just being ignorant!!! We are protecting the rights of the minority parties and beliefs by giving them a chance to have equal representation. You want small republics which will give the majority party rule over the rest. However, if we have larger republics, majorities will be much harder to form.

Side: Yes! Federalists
BlenShanegro(7) Disputed
1 point

This sort of perspective is that of someone divisive, you cannot have a unified country that is decentralized into states, the state will begin to matter more than the collection of the country and at this point, you get warring city-states squandering under the name of "country"

Side: Yes! Federalists
Isaac-cupp(4) Disputed
1 point

Ofcourse personnel rights will be protected. If they were not protected it is your right as an American to do something about it. A strong central government will give the nation a sense of security against threats and for the first time will allow our economy to thrive.

Side: Yes! Federalists
madspecialis(13) Disputed
1 point

Of course our rights will remain protected with the new constitution. However, TOO much democracy given to the people will essentially create a huge majority and a small minority. The majority will essentially overrule everyone and will result in a tyrannical government. For example: In Salem, Massachusetts the majority had complete control on how the town ran. If the majority blamed someone in the minority. That person in the minority had no choice but to join the majority or die.

Side: Yes! Federalists
JamesMadison(4) Disputed
0 points

The Constitution gives equal rights! We will become a democratic republic, not just an overriding government. The States still have power, just not all of it!

Side: Yes! Federalists
rpctdsamurai(9) Disputed
3 points

It is of man's nature to take advantage of the power and become selfish - work for one's personal benefit.

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
2 points

States will be clogged "upon the wheels of the government of the United States". Representatives from a large republic can't possibly know the people they represent!! :((

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
rpctdsamurai(9) Clarified
2 points

By not knowing those who are being represented, we cannot fully understand what is best for them and how the actions/decisions made will affect constituents.

Side: Yes! Federalists
2 points

This Constitution cannot be ratified! When have you ever seen a republic of such size? It can't possibly work. The purpose of a Republic is to be properly represented in legislature. How could a politician know his constituents if there are too many to know? Even more, centralized and far away!? Blasphemy!

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
Violentartis Disputed
2 points

That's the whole point the ratification of the Constitution would be more accurate to what the people want instead of them being based off an average of people in a certain location.

Side: Yes! Federalists
AlexPork(4) Disputed
1 point

Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean that you shouldn't try. Also, there will be government on many levels since we are trying to create a federal government, so order will be kept. Power will be spread!

Side: Yes! Federalists
madspecialis(13) Disputed
1 point

Although the new constitution presents a large republic, the large republic is controlled by having an executive, legislative, and judicial branch. The articles of confederation are too vague and it does not even have a court system?? There are so many things that need to be ratified unless you want more "Shay Rebellions" to pop up through out the country.

Side: Yes! Federalists
Lazy-Assed(6) Disputed
1 point

But then again, with such a small government how can we all coexist? All of the different currencies and laws make it very difficult to have small democracies littered across the nation.

Side: Yes! Federalists
BlenShanegro(7) Disputed
1 point

There are levels to the government with checks and balances on all sides and parts, it is not an elite majority completely controlling of all other governments.

Side: Yes! Federalists
JamesMadison(4) Disputed
1 point

We will have a consensus every ten years to count our population and to make sure that each politician knows his constituents!

Side: Yes! Federalists
2 points

The Constitution creates a unitary government which is bad for our society. We need states to be in charge where no large republic is visible. The constitution doesnt even allow us to make our own money anymore. All the federalist leave the states with is direct taxes which is horrible. Therefore we need small republics. Only good things happen in small republics.

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
AlexPork(4) Clarified
1 point

Actually, the Constitution creates a federal government, rather than a unitary government.

Side: Yes! Federalists

A unitary government means the national government has all the power. The new constitution would actually be a federal system. We would have a large republic controlled by an executive, legislative, and judicial branch. The legislative branch ensures that the people get a say. Also this creates a federal system where the states can check the national government and the national government can check to states.

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
JamesMadison(4) Clarified
1 point

On the contrary, the Constitution creates a federalist Government. A government where we have equal powers across all of the parts of the country, balancing out our powers and respects.

Side: Yes! Federalists
luckywarrior(1) Disputed
1 point

unitary and federal my bad. In the socrative that we did a few minutes ago we were asked what group formed a strong central government and the answer was unitary. Unitary-government with strong central government with almost no subgovernments.

Side: Yes! Federalists
raspberrykiw(2) Disputed
1 point

In a small republic,there is greater chance that a majority faction will develop and oppress the people. In a large republic, these is less chance that this will occur simply because the nation is so vast and because there are so many interests present. Only bad things happen in small republics. Hegemony is made easier in smaller republics than large ones. Large ones distribute the power, leading everyone to have their voices heard and their ideas represented.

Side: Yes! Federalists
BlenShanegro(7) Disputed
1 point

The constitution does not create a Unitary government, but a federalist one.

Side: Yes! Federalists
Isaac-cupp(4) Disputed
1 point

The constitution will actually create a form of checks and balances which will never allow one branch of the government to gain too much power. A central government will also allow your money to be worth the same anywhere you go in the nation. All in all the constitution will allow for an overall stronger and more secure country.

Side: Yes! Federalists
1 point

The Constitution should NOT be ratified!! It gives the federal government way too much power, especially with statements like the Necessary and Proper Clause. With that they could literally just say anything way necessary and proper and then the government could get away with whatever it wanted. That and it saying it's the "supreme law of the land" is such a bad idea! Having a central government would take away representation from the people in the areas they are governing. How are they supposed to know what's good for us if they have completely different economic and social statuses? That's the thing, they just can't :/

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
GHS_name(4) Disputed
1 point

The claim that "having a central government would take away representation from the people" is far from what the constitution stands for. The constitution allows fair representation from the the people as the people can elect representatives into the House, in which they can fight for what the people represent. They can keep the other bodies of government in check as the House is basically made for the people.

Side: Yes! Federalists
BruTUS(5) Disputed
1 point

The house and ONLY the house. What of the senate? OR even the EXECUTIVE?

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
1 point

TWO words: SUPREMACY CLAUSE! If the power to determine what is necessary and proper is given to one group? What's to say they just find it "necessary and proper" to do whatever they please? This includes STATE GOVERNMENT

Side: No! Anti-Federalistst