OranjeDisco

This debate is, in my opinion, won by the Pro side.

Both agree that national security is a must, same goes for civil liberties. In order to ensure a democracy by definition, by definition, it comes down to a division: what is the most important, what weighs the most, and Pro makes a pretty strong case:

In the end, Con didn't really address the definition of democracy, so it remains true that democracy is defined
by civil liberties.

"To get more democracy, one should seek to maximize CL", so even when suspension is in the game, we should weigh CL as the ultimatum.

The win of this debate was solely, i believe, dependant on definitions and the abuse of NS wasn't addressed by Con, conceding a lot to Pro.

The Rise of Authoritarianism and the example of the use of A.I in the US with I.C.E were real clever exemples that really suited Pro's case.
In R3, Con shows a flaw in actual application, despite a strong example with 50+ countries.

On the tiebreaker argument successfully shows that existential threats both
arent a choice between CL and NS, and at same time both CL and NS can be used
to argue for addressing existential threats ->

Star wars quotes with the death of democracy was quite smart.

If we had to resume, in a bit of.a messy way, Pro had almost all of the definitions, Con had some exemples, but wasn't adressing the topic as an Idea of Democracy but sliding onto safety to suite their case.

So, by the actual concedings and vagueness of application and tiebreaker, I will give it to Pro, but in my opinion both cases were really close and strong.

Pro says, CL can be used to argue for addressing existential threats ;

Con doesn't really offer a lot of defense against this, and description does say
"prioritize civil liberties when two are in conflict"

Pro's position matches description better, because even description says its a "choice between CL and NS", not NS and end of democracy.
So existential threats are basically NS vs. No NS and No CL, or from CL point of view, long term CL vs. No CL and no NS.
On this point i very much Agree with SatanLucy.

What i found unfortunate is that both side had the opportunity to strengthen their case yet they used a lot of their time rephrasing and repeating themselves and their previous arguments, especially R3.

On the behalf of exemples, Con.
On logical consistensy, projection, and actual definitions, Pro.

Hence, I vote Pro.

R1 Pro
Very interesting opening. Pro suggests an unrenewable 18 year term, and focuses on public trust and internal problems within the current system, including younger and less experienced Justices, but also old Justices being too "traditional" and stuck in their era (which, as such a dichotomy, will be tough tho defend, as old and young Justices are seen as negative ages),and a view of the supreme court as a "political extension", and claims it doesn't completely works as a democratic process.
Interesting start from Pro.

R1 Con
Con is, here, properly adressing the points of his opponent.
Con's central ideas are:
1)Legitimacy does not equate to authority
2)An inherently polarized solution will do nothing to improve polarization beyond the surface level
3)The justice system does not exist to serve what the public desires, nor should it
This is quite straightforward and goes directly to the point.
Here Con is heavily highlighting the importance of a societal construct based on power and not on the public's opinion.
This position will, later in the debate, weaken his position.
Then they intelligently underline a weak dichotomy: young and old Justices being criticized (it's either one or the other).
They then concede the system is imperfect but still préférable to Pro's.

R2 Pro
They open their R2 with a very interesting overview, and that is a very relevant part of their text:
Overview 1 shows the "poorness" of the opponent's text by having 33 citations instead of one.
Overview 2 also shows that through the R1 of Cons, we haven't really made any progress on the situation.
Overview 3 offers a critique of Con's text: they didn't properly make any claims on which Pro could argue, which is said to be "quite anti-debate", which would be true.
Then Pro adresses the issues, starting with the criticized legitimacy of their system.
They offer a very defensive position when it comes to democracy, and underlines a very important point that Con most likely purposely had put aside:
"Fundamentally, the Court has no power to enforce its rulings. Thus, as Nick 25 explains, the Supreme Court "relie[s] on its perceived legitimacy to exercise its constitutional authority"."
Then, they went on with the claim that "standardizing the appointment system actually reduces that perception. Con dropped my entire "Countering Dysfunction" contention, and has no way to solve for strategic retirements or strategic appointments As Bannon 23 notes, those are some of the main causes of direct legitimacy risks.".
Finally, Pro criticizes Con's rebutal approach: they, in their own word, highlight the fact that Con most likely made a strawman fallacy. Indeed, Pro wasn't talking about the fact that the Quidam needs to impose their view on the Court, but rather that the Court use Democratic connections for legitimacy.
They end their R2 by comparing the status quo with their system, showing how, through the earlier quoted ways, their system would necessarily be a better option.

R2 Con
Cons is intelligently saying that, because he represents the status quo, it's on Pro's behalf, and that "I am arguing for the status quo, and so refuting arguments to the contrary is much more relevant than establishing my own. My rebuttals still presented a substantive speech. To present this as 'abusive' is a ridiculously bad-faith interpretation."
Pro is said to be "creating a problem".
Con defends pro still hasn't defined what legitimacy means (which won't serve them good, as Pro will show in R3 that they actually did define it),and that Pro is inherently "polarized" already, before, again, repeating themself and affirming "What I said: SC justices are not public servants. They are legal experts. The ability to understand and interpret the law is independent of public opinion. Justices serve the law, and that is not subject to culture."

R3 Pro
They again show that, even in R2, Con still haven't given a single argument. Indeed, Con had even said "i'm not even sure Pro have read their own citations, it isn't up to me to refute them".
Then, we could ask ourselves, legitimately, whose job is it?
Pro then refutes the claims of Con about "Pro making polarization worse", showing that, by removing strategic retirements, it would end up statistically reducing periods of partisan imbalance by 50%.
The whole point of this R3 is about discrediting the opponent's refutations, and staying on their position.

R3 Con
The conclusion is, in my opinion, a bit rushed.
It again unfortunately fails to give a proper stance on their own position, and again, doesn't really affirm anything bur rather tries to negate the opponent's side.


The overall debate was very interesting and i'm looking forward to see more of both, they seem like genuinely good debators and that was really interesting and informative.

Ty guys! :)

In my opinion, this debate results in a tie between Pro and Cons.

Indeed, both had very strong arguments but weren't really deconstructed, but rather they were countered by a distinct argument in the opponent's favor.

Pro's opinion was extremely interesting, focusing on how we should act in short-term and solve English people's pre-existing problems ; highlighting the importance of interdependancy and collective actions of resolving problems with immediate to short term solutions.

Con was focused on the importance of LRU (Long Run Utilitarianism), showing exemples of other countries that worked better with long term autonomous planning, and the projections (countering the "current problems" that UK is facing).

Very interesting debate overall, but I don't think we can conclude with any winning part here.

Nice debate !