Bring back the Pledge of Allegiance in school
Debate Rounds (3)
As a note of clarification, PRO has accepted my qualification that I will not be arguing that students should not say the pledge. Instead I will argue that students should not be forced to say the pledge. This transaction is visible in the comments section.
My opponent's entire argument in anecdotal. I could provide a counter-anecdote. In my school, there were flags in every classroom, and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited every day. Nobody was forced to say it, but it was always said over the announcements, and everyone would stand respectfully whether or not they said the pledge. However, anecdotes are not sufficient evidence, and if I fail to provide any additional evidence, then our stories cancel each other out. However, this leaves me with the advantage, as PRO would have then failed to prove that the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer allowed in schools. In fact, I aim to prove that it is.
In 43 states, schools are required to have students say the Pledge of Allegiance , as reported by the Education Commission of the States. This does not mean that the students are required to say it - that exists in only 6 states. And rightfully so. After all, it is both ironic and inexcusable to use coercion to dictate the children say the Pledge of Allegiance to a symbol of liberty. Liberty forced upon someone is not liberty. Students have the right to say the pledge, and they also have the right to not say the pledge. Regardless, I have proven that the pledge still exists in schools, and thus my opponent's resolution is false.
I will concede that pledge has become a topic of controversy. Many feel offended because of the phrase, "Under God," which connotes, if not the Christian God, then at least one from the Abrahamic religions. Atheists and other minority religious groups feel - correctly - that they should have the right to refrain from participating in something that counters their beliefs, especially as the phrase was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954 during the height of the Red Scare . But atheists and others should have the right to say or not say the pledge as they like. Freedom means exactly that.
I look forward to my opponent's arguments in Round 3 and remind you to vote CON!
My opponent dropped all my points, including that 43 states require schools by law to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (students have the option in some states). Therefore the pledge cannot be 'gone' from schools and thus the resolution is invalid.
Now, my opponent provides two instances where no one said the pledge. Both cities are in Iowa. According to my source 1 from last round, Iowa is one of the seven states with no laws regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. "No laws" are the operative words. My opponent claims that no one there is "allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance." This would mean that there is a law preventing them. However, I have shown that Iowa has no such law, and as I have provided a source and my opponent has not, my argument stands.
Additionally, my opponent's argument is false. I took the liberty of pulling up the agenda of the Community School District in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Right there, number 4 on the agenda, is the Pledge of Allegiance . Clearly it still exists in Iowa and this disproves my opponent's claim. I would also point out the improbability of a state in the United States banning the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited in schools. This strikes me as incredibly unlikely.
I would like to thank my opponent for providing this opportunity to debate. For all of the above reasons, please vote CON in this debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't really debate... Pro had no real arguments, sources, and Pro had terrible grammar, and didn't treat this like a serious debate. Con was intelligent and pursuasive, and I loved the "Liberty forced upon someone is not liberty" argument. I personally don't have any quarrel with the Pledge of Alleigance, EXCEPT for the "Under God" portion, which Con addressed.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.