CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
5
I agree I disagree
Debate Score:10
Arguments:9
Total Votes:10
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I agree (5)
 
 I disagree (4)

Debate Creator

Argento(512) pic



The UK is better off not having a written constitution

The bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law. It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. (Wiki)

Is the UK better off not having a written constitution?

Are we better off no having to obey an entrenched and rigid document?

I agree

Side Score: 5
VS.

I disagree

Side Score: 5
1 point

Holy crap yes. One of the things that's great about Great Britain is the fact that it's laws/rights are not set in stone. It's taken a fucking long (and very bloody) time to figure it out, but it truly is better for it. Imagine had we not updated/moved on from the Magna Carta? Or our Bill of Rights? What seems right at the time is never relevant going forward, the world changes, society changes, "rights" change, the law needs to change and be fluid to keep up.

Though the US had an admirable stab at theirs, inspired by ours, they just made the mistake of elevating it to "infallible". It will not be/isn't relevant going forward. I don't think we should have a fixed constitution, we can only get it wrong.

Side: I Agree
1 point

I have to say I agree, what was written a hundred years ago may not even be relevant anymore. As phuqster says the world changes, and as the world changes our laws need to change with the world.

Side: I Agree
2 points

The USA who does have a constitution almost never follows it >.<

Side: I disagree

If you believe that there's a right way and a wrong way to do things, then you should write it down and make sure you always do it the right way.

If you are morally wishy washy, then there's no need to write it down since you'll change your mind with the prevailing winds. ;)

Side: I Disagree
Argento(512) Disputed
1 point

What people believe to be the "right way" of doing things is extremely subjective and dependent upon the culture they are exposed to.

To then impose the conclusions of right and wrong of one generation upon all future generations with complete disregard of the changing times, is futile and only leads to more friction and trouble.

While the UK was debating what exactly was going to be included in gay civil unions, the people of your country were still debating whether the constitution allows civil unions in the first place.

So, before you know it, that self righteous piece of paper that so proudly expresses the right of the people, has seized to be of service to it's contemporary subjects, and instead serves its own self preservation.

If it was moral wishy washiness that made the people abort slavery 50 years ago, then all hail for moral wish washy people!

Side: I Agree
1 point

WHAT?!?! Slavery was wrong from the very beginning. Our constitution specifically spelled out, "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL." But misguided politicians allowed the practice in direct opposition to the constitution and the wrong was eventually corrected. The same thing will happen with gay marriage. I just don't understand why it has to take so long but the constitution is not at fault here.

Side: I Disagree