> If you believe an example is synonymous with evidence you should probably go check out the definitions. Also To prove him wrong you could at any time find evidence to counter him.

So someone makes a claim without evidence, and I'm obligated to go find some evidence to prove them wrong? Are you OK buddy?

> Except it's a super majority vote which they either have to get or collaborate with other parties which us much harder than the simple majority they needed before hand.

That's not at all relevant to the subject. The difficulty of changing the constitution doesn't change based on what's in the constitution, this change doesn't make it more difficult to change things down the line. In fact, one of the major critiques of this change is that it could actually make it easier to discriminate. If you're specific in one area but not others then that difference can be used as an argument. "It specifies group x here but not in this other rule so this other rule wouldn't apply to group x" is an argument that makes itself, and is damaging to these groups.

> That wasn't a jab but a jab

My guy. Think about what you're actually saying for a second before you write it down.

> I literally very verbosely explained to you the difference between both your responses

I cannot believe you genuinely think so. Are you just pretending to be a fool for a laugh here, or are you genuinely oblivious as to the nature of your own vapid argumentation?