Instigator / Pro
0
1566
rating
19
debates
71.05%
won
Topic
#5726
18 year term limits for Supreme Court justices would be preferable to the current system.
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1453
rating
42
debates
57.14%
won
Description
Don’t think I need to do any description, but if I should, ping me in the comments.
Round 1
My base argument is pretty straightforward, so I’ll keep this round short and I’ll put more effort into the rebuttal rounds because I think that’s where this debate will get more interesting.
Under the current system, each president gets a random number of appointments, and thus the court can be more subject to the will of one person. For example, Donald Trump got 3 appointments rather than the usual two even though he was only in office for one term. One president who was elected by the slimmest margins (not even winning the pop vote) can influence 1/3 of the Supreme Court. That is inherently unfair when other presidents end up getting just one.
Implementing 18 year term limits that are staggered equally makes it so that each president gets 2 appointments per term and thus the court accurately reflects the will of the American people better.
Some say that this is a bad idea because it would make the court be changing out too often and it should be more free from the other branches of government. However the average justice only serves for 16 years, so a majority of the members wouldn’t be affected by this rule at all.
Also, the average president has appointed 2.14 justices per term. You can find this by dividing the number of justices appointed in history (126) by the number of presidential terms (59). This proposed amendment would actually lower the average number of appointments which ends up making the court more separate from the other branches.
Thank you for accepting this debate Con, I hope to have some fun.
Opening:
Pro's arguments might appear logical but is in fact a misrepresentation of the current system. Furthermore, replacing the current supreme court system is needless as supreme court is a representation of Law and not that of the people and is thus except from the regular requirements of a democratic government.
First argument:
Pro has demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of Supreme Court. According to Pro, "Under the current system, each president gets a random number of appointments, and thus the court can be more subject to the will of one person." This claim however is wrong. While the president does get to appoint Judge candidates to be on the Supreme Court, the decision does not rely with the president. All president appointees must undergo a rigorous review by Congress. Nomination & Confirmation Process - Supreme Court Nominations Research Guide - Guides at Georgetown Law Library
Additionally, Pro further demonstrates their misunderstanding of the Court system by claiming, "One president who was elected by the slimmest margins (not even winning the pop vote) can influence 1/3 of the Supreme Court. That is inherently unfair when other presidents end up getting just one." The US president cannot in fact influence Supreme Court as the president neither has the final say on who sits on the bench but also is restricted to their own separate branch, which has no authority over the Judicial. Separation of Powers Under the Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Pro expects us to abandon a system that has worked for over 245 years simply because they did not bother to research their very system they want to change. Their exists no actual reason to change the system as it currently is. Pro should reevaluate their understanding before wanting to replace a court system they clearly misunderstand.
Second argument:
As I said in my opening, the Judicial branch is a representation of Law not Democracy. It is meant to enact laws and to enact them justly. For this reason, becoming a judge, much less a Supreme Court Judge takes a literal Lifetime of dedication just for the chance to one day reach that position. The same is sadly not true when it comes to politics. Politicians require neither an education nor do they need to dedicate their entire lives just to one day earn their seats in government.
If we made it so that we had to be elected every 18 years, we would make Supreme Court suffer the same issues that we do with the other branches. Judges would constantly be replaced; new and confusing understandings of case law would constantly change as we deal with liberal and conservative leaning judges. And we would gain no benefit from it.
Pro tries to justify this by claiming, " so that each president gets 2 appointments per term and thus the court accurately reflects the will of the American people better." However, we do not need the judicatory to reflect the will of the American people. Instead, the Courts should reflect the will the Constitution that the people are governed by. Democracy is about people electing their own government. The law is about promoting order and legal common sense. They are not the same.
Conclusion:
Pro's resolution to add 18-year term limits is misguided. The foundation of their arguments for this idea is based on misunderstandings and a lack of research. Pro is also trying to advocate for Democratizing our legal system, which is a mistake. While Politics and Law do often intertwine within the framework of the government, they ultimately two separate functions and should be treated as such.
The Court system would face staggering inefficiency by trying to make it reflect the will of the people. Additionally, having to replace so many judges nearly every two decades would create chaos and unneeded bureaucracy to an otherwise healthy legal system that has worked for over centuries with little need for change While pro's intentions are well meant, they are nonetheless harmful and should not be accepted.
Round 2
Pro has demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of Supreme Court. According to Pro, "Under the current system, each president gets a random number of appointments, and thus the court can be more subject to the will of one person." This claim however is wrong. While the president does get to appoint Judge candidates to be on the Supreme Court, the decision does not rely with the president. All president appointees must undergo a rigorous review by Congress.
While this is obviously true, it doesn't diminish the power of my argument. The president still has an immense say in which supreme court justices are approved, even when Congress has a say in it too. Congress works with the president on who the appointee will be, so they end up compromising lots of the time. However the new justice usually shares many views with the president anyways, because 1/2 of the appointing process is held by one person, and the other half is held by 535 people. Just because the president doesn't have all the power doesn't explicitly mean they have none to very little power. It's a classic slippery slope.
Pro expects us to abandon a system that has worked for over 245 years simply because they did not bother to research their very system they want to change. Their exists no actual reason to change the system as it currently is. Pro should reevaluate their understanding before wanting to replace a court system they clearly misunderstand.
Now this is a classic Antiquitatem fallacy. Something isn't necessarily good just because it has been around for a long time. Sure, the system hasn't completely failed in 245 years, but that doesn't mean there is not room for improvement. You could argue that candles are better than the lightbulb by this fallacy. All you have to do is say that candles have been around for thousands of years, and they still work great. While that statement is correct, lightbulbs can still be better even if the candle isn't failing. You say that there exists no reason to change the system because it works, but I counter saying that it could easily be working better.
Then you go on to make an Ad Hominem fallacy by attacking my understanding of the constitution. As any American should, I understand how our government works, and I am honestly a little surprised that my opponent would take my lack of mentioning congress in my opening argument to mean that I just didn't know the whole process.
If we made it so that we had to be elected every 18 years, we would make Supreme Court suffer the same issues that we do with the other branches. Judges would constantly be replaced; new and confusing understandings of case law would constantly change as we deal with liberal and conservative leaning judges.
This is the exact same argument that I anticipated in my opening, but you have still made it anyways. You have provided no actual sources to back up this claim, and thus under scrutiny, it falls apart. At first glance, this system of term limits does seem to make the court more fluid, but the statistical reality actually shows the opposite. I quote from my round 1 arguments: "However the average justice only serves for 16 years, so a majority of the members wouldn’t be affected by this rule at all. Also, the average president has appointed 2.14 justices per term. You can find this by dividing the number of justices appointed in history (126) by the number of presidential terms (59)."
You can see that with 18 year term limits, the average number of appointments goes down from 2.14 to just 2. Implementing this system makes the court more balanced and more free from the other branches. My opponent has tried to paint this as an either/or, but fails because this system actually does both.
Conclusion
My opponent has committed many logical fallacies in their arguments. They have also made points that I already refuted in my opening, possibly revealing a lack of reading on their part. They have also made many unsupported claims, like how the court would be more fluid with this system in place. They have also gone after me by saying that I did not fully understand the system I was arguing against. Thank you for reading, and Vote Pro!
Opening:
My opponent has a flawed understanding of how the current system works. Earlier, they incorrectly described how justices are appointed. Luckily, I was able to point out their misrepresentation. Thankfully, they've since admitted that my point was accurate. By acknowledging that I'm right, they're actually undermining their argument for change. You see, they can't even articulate how the current system works, so how can we agree to their proposal of an 18-year term limit?
First argument:
My opponent keeps claiming the president has immense power over the Supreme Court, even though I've provided clear evidence that the president doesn't have final say. It's like they're living in a different reality. How can we trust them to make decisions about something so important when they keep getting the basics wrong?
My opponent keeps overstating the president's role in the appointment process. It's true that the president can recommend people, but it's Congress who has the final word. Our system of checks and balances is designed to prevent any one person from having too much power. Ignoring that fact shows that my opponent doesn't understand how our government works.
On top of everything else, my opponent is making things up as they go along. They claim justices always share the president's views, but that's just not true. There's no evidence to support that idea. We can't base important decisions on wild guesses like that.
Second argument:
Adding a 16-year term limit would force judges to rush and wrap up cases quickly. This could lead to bad decisions, since they won't have enough time to carefully consider everything. Important cases could even end up unfinished, creating a real mess in the legal system. All this uncertainty makes it harder for lawyers to do their jobs and hurts people who depend on the courts to resolve their problems.
My opponent keeps saying this new system with term limits would be so much better, but they haven't actually shown us any proof. They're just guessing that it'll work. Making big changes based on hopes and dreams isn't a good way to run a government.
My opponent wants to have it both ways. First, they try to convince us the current system is a disaster, but then they admit it's actually working. They can't keep changing their mind. If they really think the system is that bad, they should stick with their argument for replacing it. But if they think it's working fine, then there's no reason to replace the current system. My opponent wants to improve the system by completely wrecking it. That's like trying to fix a leaky faucet by ripping out the entire sink.
Third argument:
My opponent claims that term limits would somehow make the Supreme Court more independent. But their whole argument falls apart when you realize that this is constitutionally incorrect. The Supreme Court is a separate branch, so trying to make it 'more' independent doesn't make any sense.
Sure, the president and Congress have a role in setting up the courts, but that doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court is its own separate branch. Term limits won't magically make the courts more balanced, because that's not how our system of government works.
I understand why my opponent wants a balanced system, but their plan to use term limits just doesn't work. It ignores how our government is set up, and it would create more problems than it solves. We need to focus on solutions that actually match our reality. The whole point of having three separate branches is to keep things balanced. Each branch is supposed to be a check on the others. Trying to make one branch more independent would upset that balance and create way more problems than it would fix.
rebuttals:
Now this is a classic Antiquitatem fallacy. Something isn't necessarily good just because it has been around for a long time. Sure, the system hasn't completely failed in 245 years, but that doesn't mean there is not room for improvement. You could argue that candles are better than the lightbulb by this fallacy. All you have to do is say that candles have been around for thousands of years, and they still work great. While that statement is correct, lightbulbs can still be better even if the candle isn't failing. You say that there exists no reason to change the system because it works, but I counter saying that it could easily be working better.
My opponent is putting words in my mouth. I'm not defending the current system simply because it's old. The fact that it's withstood the test of time is evidence that it works. That doesn't mean it's perfect, and there's always room for improvement, but that needs to be done carefully. We can't justify major changes just because something might be better. My opponent's argument is based on speculation, not facts. We shouldn't make big decisions based on guesses. Plus, my opponent is setting up a straw man by pretending I'm defending the system solely because of its age. That's not my argument at all.
Then you go on to make an Ad Hominem fallacy by attacking my understanding of the constitution. As any American should, I understand how our government works, and I am honestly a little surprised that my opponent would take my lack of mentioning congress in my opening argument to mean that I just didn't know the whole process.
I wasn't attacking my opponent personally. I simply pointed out the factual errors in their argument about the appointment process. The president doesn't have sole control over who becomes a justice. It's a process that involves both the president and Congress. My opponent's misunderstanding of this basic fact undermines their entire argument for term limits. This isn't just about semantics or minor details – it highlights a fundamental misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, it's not an ad hominem attack to point out factual inaccuracies. I corrected my opponent's false claim that the president alone decides who becomes a justice. Their admission that I was right proves that my statements were accurate and necessary. Accusing me of attacking their character is just a distraction from the real issue: their fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.
This is the exact same argument that I anticipated in my opening, but you have still made it anyways. You have provided no actual sources to back up this claim, and thus under scrutiny, it falls apart. At first glance, this system of term limits does seem to make the court more fluid, but the statistical reality actually shows the opposite. I quote from my round 1 arguments: "However the average justice only serves for 16 years, so a majority of the members wouldn’t be affected by this rule at all. Also, the average president has appointed 2.14 justices per term. You can find this by dividing the number of justices appointed in history (126) by the number of presidential terms (59)."
Pro accused me of not providing evidence, but they're in no position to make those demands. They haven't backed up their own claims with any facts or figures. Plus, it's obvious that new judges will have different perspectives on the law. That's not something we need a research study to prove.
Furthermore, my opponent's claim about justices only serving an average of 16 years is pure speculation. They haven't provided any data to support that idea. Making arguments based on guesses and assumptions isn't a good way to debate important issues.
Until my opponent can actually back up their own claims with evidence, they shouldn't be criticizing me for not providing sources. It's a waste of time to argue about this when they haven't bothered to support their own arguments with facts and figures.
Conclusion:
My opponent wants to completely change the way our courts have worked for over 200 years, but they can't provide any real evidence that their plan would actually be an improvement.
Their idea of 18-year term limits is based on speculation and misunderstanding. Making such a drastic change could have serious negative consequences for our system of justice. We should stick with what's working and focus on making incremental improvements instead of tearing everything down.
My opponent continues to insist that the president has way too much power in the appointment process, even though I've clearly shown that's not how it works. Their misunderstanding of such a fundamental part of our government shows they're not qualified to make major changes to it. An 18-year term limit would be a complete waste of time, cause unnecessary bureaucracy, and ultimately do nothing but replace a system that doesn't need to be changed.
Round 3
My opponent keeps overstating the president's role in the appointment process. It's true that the president can recommend people, but it's Congress who has the final word
I'll put it this way. The president has power to make an appointment, who then must be confirmed by Congress. If congress rejects them, then the President makes another appointment and the process repeats. However, you are underestimating how much power is in the appointment process. The President and Congress must work together and compromise on justice, as our system was designed. Because of this, at least half of the deciding power (and certainly more) is held by one person, while the other half is held by 535. This power can been seen when you take a look at all the appointment votes and you see that only 11 have ever been rejected, the last one only as recently as 1987. [1] If Congress has much more power than the president in this process, then why has the president gotten his way a vast majority of the time? It's because the process of voting on a new nominee is long, and Congress will compromise with the president. The president will appoint someone slightly more moderate than they hoped, and Congress will pass them because they know they won't get a much better deal. Even if the president didn't have this much power (which they do) then they would still have lots of it, and that doesn't mean it shouldn't go unchecked. In other words, the argument itself and the underlying evidence are both faulty.
On top of everything else, my opponent is making things up as they go along. They claim justices always share the president's views, but that's just not true. There's no evidence to support that idea. We can't base important decisions on wild guesses like that.
Now you're the one without evidence. There is real evidence, and it shows that appointments are actually extremely politicized. An appointee has not come from a different party than the president in over 20 year, and it has only happened 10 times in the last 60 years. [1] I never claimed that justices always support the views of the president, but clearly there is major correlation.
Adding a 16-year term limit would force judges to rush and wrap up cases quickly. This could lead to bad decisions, since they won't have enough time to carefully consider everything. Important cases could even end up unfinished, creating a real mess in the legal system. All this uncertainty makes it harder for lawyers to do their jobs and hurts people who depend on the courts to resolve their problems.
You have yet to actually back up this statement with any evidence. As I have repeatedly shown before, Term limits would actually make the court less fluid by decreasing the amount of appointments on average. You can refer to my round 2 argument to see the data I used.
My opponent keeps saying this new system with term limits would be so much better, but they haven't actually shown us any proof. They're just guessing that it'll work. Making big changes based on hopes and dreams isn't a good way to run a government.
Okay, this is just one big logical fallacy rolled into one sentence. I can't actually prove that any system would be better than the current one because I don't have a magic crystal ball that tells the future. I have however provided much reasoning as to why I think it is probable that this system would be much better than our current one. By this fallacy you could claim that any new idea is bad because you can't 100% prove that it must be better. If you want to argue against my reasoning for why I think that this system will most likely be better, please go ahead, but don't keep using this fallacy.
My opponent wants to have it both ways. First, they try to convince us the current system is a disaster, but then they admit it's actually working.
Classic Strawman. I never actually said that the current system is a disaster, I just said that it could be better. I said this in round two "While that statement is correct, lightbulbs can still be better even if the candle isn't failing. You say that there exists no reason to change the system because it works, but I counter saying that it could easily be working better."
My opponent wants to improve the system by completely wrecking it. That's like trying to fix a leaky faucet by ripping out the entire sink.
I don't have much to say about this, but I thought it might be fun to continue the analogy. Replacing the sink may be overkill, but it does fix the problem, no? Especially if there isn't a way to fix the faucet within the bounds of the current sink. That's how our system is now. The way to fix the faucet is to remove the sink, unless you see another way to make presidential appointments uniform and consistent.
My opponent claims that term limits would somehow make the Supreme Court more independent. But their whole argument falls apart when you realize that this is constitutionally incorrect. The Supreme Court is a separate branch, so trying to make it 'more' independent doesn't make any sense.
Now you're just walking around with blinders on. The Supreme court can never be fully independent from meddling politicians, so we should always be striving to find new ways to make it more independent. You can't say that my solution to the problem doesn't work because the problem never existed. It's like saying that you got information from a non-biased source. That's impossible, because everyone is biased, at least a little.
Sure, the president and Congress have a role in setting up the courts, but that doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court is its own separate branch. Term limits won't magically make the courts more balanced, because that's not how our system of government works.
Okay, I think we have different definitions of independent now. By "Completely Independent" I mean that the court has ZERO biases and that politicians in the other branches can have ZERO influence on what the court decides. The other two branches clearly have at least some influence as seen by the fact that they appoint the justices. Sure, it is another branch from the other two, but that doesn't mean that the other two can't do anything to try and get the court to work in their favor. They can appoint justices that align more closely with their view, which I think is a pretty big influence.
My opponent is putting words in my mouth. I'm not defending the current system simply because it's old. The fact that it's withstood the test of time is evidence that it works. That doesn't mean it's perfect, and there's always room for improvement, but that needs to be done carefully. We can't justify major changes just because something might be better. My opponent's argument is based on speculation, not facts. We shouldn't make big decisions based on guesses.
Yes, my argument is based on my speculation that term limits would be beneficial, but that speculation is based on hard data, and it is an educated guess, not me groping around wildly. You say my argument is based on speculation, not facts, but it is really based on speculation from the facts. The fact is that Presidents can have a major influence on a body that should be as independent as possible, and by that fact I can go on to speculate how making term limits would make that body much more independent. You should be arguing why my speculation is incorrect, not why it's just bad because it is a speculation.
I wasn't attacking my opponent personally. I simply pointed out the factual errors in their argument about the appointment process. The president doesn't have sole control over who becomes a justice. It's a process that involves both the president and Congress. My opponent's misunderstanding of this basic fact undermines their entire argument for term limits.
The problem is that I clearly do understand how the constitution works, I just wanted to keep my opening short, and I so left out the part about Congress also having a role. I brought it up in my round 2 arguments, but you still haven't addressed that, you continue to say my argument must be bad because it appears as though I didn't understand my subject material. I didn't really think it would come to this, but this proves I did know about how the system works prior to this debate, I just chose to omit it for the very beginning. I had a whole conversation with Ilikepie5 about this before, and it is what inspired this debate.
Pro accused me of not providing evidence, but they're in no position to make those demands. They haven't backed up their own claims with any facts or figures. Plus, it's obvious that new judges will have different perspectives on the law. That's not something we need a research study to prove.
Round 1: "Also, the average president has appointed 2.14 justices per term. You can find this by dividing the number of justices appointed in history (126) by the number of presidential terms (59). This proposed amendment would actually lower the average number of appointments which ends up making the court more separate from the other branches."
Also Round 1: "Under the current system, each president gets a random number of appointments, and thus the court can be more subject to the will of one person. For example, Donald Trump got 3 appointments rather than the usual two even though he was only in office for one term. One president who was elected by the slimmest margins (not even winning the pop vote) can influence 1/3 of the Supreme Court. That is inherently unfair when other presidents end up getting just one."
I have provided evidence, so now can I ask you to back up your claims?
Furthermore, my opponent's claim about justices only serving an average of 16 years is pure speculation. They haven't provided any data to support that idea. Making arguments based on guesses and assumptions isn't a good way to debate important issues.
My opponent wants to completely change the way our courts have worked for over 200 years, but they can't provide any real evidence that their plan would actually be an improvement.
I did provide evidence. I can do it again if you like. 18 year term limits would make it so each president gets exactly 2 appointments per term. This is a more fair system because currently some presidents get a basically random number of appointees based on when people decide to retire. This system also makes the court less susceptible to tampering because it brings the number of appointments per Prez down from 2.14 to just flat 2.
Conclusion
Normally, I don't believe that the three bottom points should be awarded in most debates, and I again think that for this one. Neither side had an abysmal abuse of legibility or conduct, and this debate doesn't lend itself to sources much. The only ones that need to be used are for various random statistics, which both sides did.
That said, I do believe that I have won the arguments section. Most of the time my opponent has been attacking a strawman of my argument. For example, they have many times accuses me of not provided data to back up my conclusions (which I have) and then they refuse to provide data for their conclusions on the grounds that I didn't have any (which I did). They also attacked my knowledge of the topic at hand, which was not only incorrect, but has no bearing on the debate. My points still stand regardless of whether or not I am educated on the subject (which I am). In addition, they committed many fallacies such as the Antiquatum mentioned earlier and the straw man again when they misrepresented my argument by saying I said that the whole system was horrible (I just said that it could be better).
For these reasons and more, Vote Pro! Thank you for debating this with me Con, I hope to see you again on this site.
Opening:
I do not know why my opponent has taken such great offense to what I have said. Regardless, their position remains indefensible as I have demonstrated their lack of knowledge by schooling them on the actual process of choosing judges. Additionally, Pro has misrepresented the role of the president in this process. My arguments stand strong against their flawed assertions.
First argument: Pro cannot make a legitimate argument against the president.
Pro has, throughout the debate, constantly argued that the president wields too much power and gets his way the "majority of the time." However, Pro has also demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the president's actual capabilities. Despite their repeated claims, the president's powers are not as absolute as Pro suggests. Their argument falls apart when faced with the factual limitations of presidential authority. If you remember, Pro made the argument in round one that, "Under the current system, each president gets a random number of appointments, and thus the court can be more subject to the will of one person." And when I pointed out that this was not true, and explained how the process is actually dual control between the president's powers of appointment and Congress's final determination, Pro had no counter for this and agreed they were wrong. Yet, they now still try to claim the president has too much power.
Pro's constant attack on the president as a basis to justify their stance has been proven time and again to be based on misrepresentation rather than legal factuality. Therefore, they cannot use the president as a means to justify their demand for 18-year term limits.
Second argument: Pro constantly accuses me of fallacies yet keeps making as well.
One very annoying part about my opponent's approach is that they keep accusing me of making fallacies that they can neither back up nor make sense of. For example, they accuse me of an ad hominem attack despite me never insulting them personally. Their basis for this claim is that I pointed out their lack of understanding of the Constitution, which they themselves admitted to. It’s frustrating to deal with such baseless accusations. This inconsistency undermines their credibility in the debate.
Even now, they accuse me of making a fallacy just because I point out that my opponent cannot prove their resolution would actually work. They commit a fallacy themselves by admitting they can't prove their stance and basing it solely on reasoning, which is essentially speculation. This weakens their position significantly, as it's clear they lack concrete evidence.
My opponent's stance also lacks consistency as they accuse me of not providing links, yet they did not do so until the last round. They tried to argue they had provided evidence merely by making a statement and quoting it, which is not the same as providing evidence by debate standards.
Third argument: Pro has neither proved the need for an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court but has also shown a lack of professionalism.
While my opponent has tried many sophistry tactics to bring a convincing argument, there is simply no factuality to it. They have been exposed misrepresenting governmental roles multiple times and have claimed without evidence that the judiciary is not an independent branch. They also argue that adding bureaucracy will limit the president's influence on powers the president does not actually possess. Their argument lacks substance and is built on misinterpretations and unfounded claims.
Furthermore, I accuse my opponent of lacking professionalism. While I treated their arguments seriously and acted with dignity, they have instead been insulting by accusing me of fallacies and making lies about personal attacks that never happened. They have even gone so far as to demand certain points just because they did not like my arguments. This is unacceptable behavior, and Pro should be ashamed of their conduct. This kind of behavior undermines the integrity of the debate and disrespects all participants
Rebuttals:
Pro: "Now this is a classic Antiquitatem fallacy. Something isn't necessarily good just because it has been around for a long time. Sure, the system hasn't completely failed in 245 years, but that doesn't mean there is not room for improvement."
Me: What I said wasn't a fallacy, Pro. It was simple logic: a system that is a failure or does not work does not last for over 200 years. Additionally, you yourself admitted that the system does indeed work. While I agree that improvements can always be made, that works against your argument because you want to replace, not improve.
Pro: "Then you go on to make an Ad Hominem fallacy by attacking my understanding of the constitution. As any American should, I understand how our government works, and I am honestly a little surprised that my opponent would take my lack of mentioning congress in my opening argument to mean that I just didn't know the whole process."
Me: Challenging your understanding is neither a fallacy nor an ad hominem attack. You made incorrect statements about the selection process and the president's role in it. If you had fully known what the president can and cannot do, you would have never made such mistakes as you would have known better. Therefore, it's reasonable to say your understanding of the Constitution is indeed flawed. I am merely pointing out factual inaccuracies, not attacking you personally.
Pro: "You can see that with 18 year term limits, the average number of appointments goes down from 2.14 to just 2. Implementing this system makes the court more balanced and more free from the other branches. My opponent has tried to paint this as an either/or, but fails because this system actually does both."
Me: Adding term limits does not lower the appointments the president can make. Your argument for that is pointless anyway since it’s both a hypothesis and doesn't affect the president's abilities to select who they want. Claiming it's in the name of balance is misleading because it introduces unnecessary bureaucracy. It's clear that this approach complicates the process without delivering real benefits. A more effective strategy would focus on genuine improvements rather than adding hurdles.
Conclusion:
Pro's arguments remain unconvincing. They spent most of their time claiming victimhood over personal attacks that did not occur and made bold claims that their resolution would bring fairness and balance but then admitted it was all speculation. They also don't know the difference between improving an already working system and trying to replace it entirely. Let's not add unnecessary bureaucracy if our goal is to improve the system.
Do people still vote on debates anymore?
votes