Reasons why the Articles of Confederation should have been replaced.

The main reason for the switch was due to the Federalists seeking to centralize the government as they wanted a strong central government as opposed to the loose state based one. The replacement of the articles of confederation is a good reason as to why the US was able to reach a relatively high place of power among other nations due to our resources being under one central power rather than under multiple smaller governments as the Articles had basically created. The Articles of Confederation’s national government was terribly weak. This was the case to the extent that it could not levy national taxes, form or operate an army, or even issue a unified national currency. The Articles of Confederation government was essentially ~13 tiny nations in an alliance, rather than an actual country. Famously, this came to a fore in Shay’s Rebellion. This was, ultimately, a fairly small affair, but the Confederation national government was so weak as to just barely be able to respond. To respond to any significant issues, a stronger central government was required. Hence, the Constitution and replacement of the Articles

Reasons why the Articles of Confederation should have stayed.

If you’re willing to dive into outright fallacy, not everyone was on board with the switch. Just as The Federalist side (and we consider this essentially separate from the later Federalist/Democratic Republican divide) had luminaries and papers in defense of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists had papers supporting theirs. The most notable such figure was Samuel Adams. So, appeal to heroic authority, right there. As well, you can make a decent and more rational argument that the Articles of Confederation, by being a weaker national government, lean more towards states’ rights than the constitution, that they are less prone to tyranny, and that the original inclination of the U.S.A. was towards isolationism. The Articles are more suited to this than the Constitution. As well, the Constitution wasn’t even meant to be written; the Articles were meant to be amended. You could argue that the Constitution was a violation of trust of those sent to the conference that created it, and that it was imposed upon America more than it was freely chosen. Especially with how voting worked in those days.