I think we keep our Constitution.
Some people say that was just forced by the US government after WW2, but I think “What is the matter?”.

If we would change the constitution, it definitily stimulates other countries in Asia.
Our ancestors hoped not to be involeved us into wars anymore.

Keeping Article 9 of the Constitution is an appeal that we never do same mistakes to foreign countries.

some people say that it’s just a correction along with real situation,
because our self difence force has already a lot of weapons which could attack someone or countries.
Is it? So, if it is, we don’t need to change it just because for the name.

The article 9 is the symbol of our ancestors hope for the peace, and the amendment means
we would abondon the peace.

Google翻訳先生

I think we should maintain the Constitution.

Some say it was simply imposed on us by the U.S. government after World War II, but I wonder, “What’s the problem?”

Changing the Constitution would undoubtedly provoke other Asian countries.

Our ancestors wished never to be drawn into war again.

Maintaining Article 9 of the Constitution is a message to other countries that we will not repeat the same mistakes.

Some say that the Self-Defense Forces already possess many weapons that can be used to attack anyone or any country, so this is merely a revision to suit the current situation.

Is that really the case? If so, there’s no need to change it just for the sake of the name.

Article 9 is a symbol of our ancestors’ desire for peace, and amending it would mean abandoning peace.

Chat GPT先生

I believe that we should maintain the current Constitution.

Some argue that it was simply imposed on Japan by the United States after World War II. However, I fail to see why this should be considered a problem.

Amending the Constitution would undoubtedly provoke other Asian nations and could heighten regional tensions.

Our ancestors earnestly wished that Japan would never again be drawn into war.

Maintaining Article 9 of the Constitution sends a clear message to the international community that Japan is determined not to repeat the mistakes of its past.

★ It is true that some insist Japan must strengthen its military capabilities in response to the growing military power of other nations. However, investing public resources in building a country that is unlikely to be attacked—through diplomacy, economic stability, and international cooperation—is far more constructive than engaging in an arms race. Moreover, if Japan were ever to be directly attacked, it would signal a complete collapse of the existing world order, at which point military preparedness alone would be of little use.

It is often claimed that the Self-Defense Forces already possess weapons capable of attacking other countries, and that revising the Constitution is therefore merely an adjustment to reflect the current reality.

However, is this truly the case? Even if it were, there would be no justification for amending the Constitution simply for the sake of changing its wording.

Article 9 stands as a symbol of our ancestors’ profound commitment to peace, and revising it would amount to abandoning that very ideal.

★はチャッピーおすすめの反論を認めた上で否定

まあこんなデリケートな話題は英検には出ないのである(笑)