No, it usually means one side lost and can't get over it. Half the country still disagrees with Darwin, it doesn't make the debate important despite it being well over 100 years old. The same applies here.
If you don't think that debate is still important, you are essentially conceding it to the half the country you disagree with (because they sure as hell think its important). I'm sure you don't want your kids being taught creationism just because you consider yourself "above" the argument.
And regardless, the same does not apply here, because unlike the overwhelming evidence we have for evolution by natural selection, there simply is not enough data on the usefulness of central banking to the prosperity of the nation.
No I'm not. The debate was over 100 years ago, the ignorant just haven't figured it out yet. They simply get laughed at now for trying to argue the case. Mockery is not concession.
> there simply is not enough data on the usefulness of central banking to the prosperity of the nation.
Not what I was referring to. I was referring to this, " For better or worse, most of the latent ambiguities in the Constitution were resolved in favor of the interpretation espoused by Hamilton and the Federalists."
You can't ignore 200 years of judicial interpretation and case law simply because you prefer to interpret the text differently, that was his point and he's correct. That debate is over.
If half the population becomes slightly over than half the population out of random chance (or say, the "ignorant" having a few more babies as they are wont to do), mockery would be political concession.
It's far better to convince who you deem ignorant of your own views. This means treating their arguments seriously in the fashion of http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html .
Mockery is unlikely to succeed (as are downvotes), and pretty much fails pg's 1st test.
Your next claim, that "200 years of judicial interpretation and case law" ends the debate fails pg's second test. It's an ad hominem attack, that any disagreement with legal precedent (admittedly strong in this case) should be ignored.
By the same token, legal precedent prior to the civil war dictated that human beings could be property. I presume you are glad that some individuals within that society begged to differ.
Debates should be conducted on first principles and supported by objective evidence. I myself agree with Rayiner in that there is no constitutional dictate either way, only saying that the debate is valid on the grounds of 1st principle regardless of how old the arguments are.
Perhaps you should read more of what he wrote, and watch the dozens of debates he conducted with priests, rabbis etc. Of course, you can use ridicule in an argument, but you cannot put yourself above the debate (or you will lose).
If it's actually half the country, and they actually think it's substantially more important than the other half the country, there's an argument that it's effective concession. But, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, I more understood you to be saying that having the argument wasn't important - conveying the understanding behind your "your side" of that argument you might consider quite a bit more important.
On hearing that, it becomes obvious. There is no quest for truth or spirit of inquiry in the opposition. They are simply obstacles to progress that must be routed around. The debate is not over; it never took place, and it never will.
If you can't get someone to support rational argumentation by means of rational arguments, you're better off talking to someone--anyone--else.
Why not, if the debate is still valid? These issues weren't so much "resolved" as put aside in favor of more government power or postponed (in the case of slavery, equal protection). The mere fact that the debate is 200 years old is simply more credit to its importance.
The constitution is imperfect (like our government), as it itself acknowledges, and is "correct" only as Lincoln said that it serves a nation "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all (men) are created equal".
As someone else once said, don't take refuge in the false security of consensus.