The Instigator
APLU01
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Is the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Lexus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 468 times Debate No: 78506
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

APLU01

Pro

I saw yes, 1 there is a law made by the supreme court in 1943 that kids don't have to pledge and we still force them to, the law said it was unconstitutional, the fact that teachers and schools do something illegal for 72 years is unacceptable...
Lexus

Con

Pro makes a deadly assumption about the nature of the constitutionality of actions. He says that if forcing someone to do X, then X must be unconstitutional, and at a glance this seems to make sense, but when we look at it it does not.
Saying the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because forcing someone to stand for it is, is like saying that letting someone speak against themselves is unconstitutional because forcing someone to do so in a criminal setting is [1].

Pro also makes the claim that teachers and schools are forcing students to stand for the pledge of allegiance, even though this has been illegal since 1943, as pro also says. If this is true or not (I would err on the side of logic and say that this does not occur on a widescale), it is actually irrelevant to this debate. Whether the actions of these schools or teachers are unconstitutional does not have any impact on the true constitutionality of the pledge itself, just how it is used by different people and school boards.
Debate Round No. 1
APLU01

Pro

1. it is unconstitutional as what if someone did not want to say the pledge because they came from another country? Wouldn't that be against the first amendment? Freedom of Speech, that also means you have the freedom to say the pledge or not. Also the 5th amendment says you cannot speak against yourself.

2. The pledge is unconstitutional as it forces children at a young age to make a oath to never go against their country, that means that they are with this country till the end, if that is the case then it is against the 1st amendment again. This is because they have to agree with the country because of their oath or they are not being a patriot for following that certain oath. Also the founders of this country (They aren't that good of people either, just making a point) said that in the declaration of independence. that people have a"right and duty" to overthrow an unjust government. While this should only be done in extreme circumstances, many do not approve of the government, and they should feel comfortable saying so but they can't because they made that certain oath. The sake that schools never say that you don't have to pledge means kids have to pledge (I am a strong believer that kids are very very smart and are usually downgraded) because they think adults will make them because it is against the "rules". Also the 2 words "Under God" are unconstitutional as they mean anyone saying the pledge (Nearly every kid in Murica) are christian. Murica has many religions and the fact that both Atheists and other religious people have to say this is once again against the 1st amendment. They have the freedom to believe in whatever religion they want but they still have to give into Christianity as it is within the Pledge, against their freedom of speech.
Lexus

Con

Pro doesn't even come close to a proper rebuttal of anything that I said. All he does is say that forcing someone to say the pledge is unconstitutional, not that the pledge itself IS unconstitutional, and that is what the debate is really about.

He says that the pledge of allegiance forces kids to never go against their country, which is insane. Nobody is forcing children to say the pledge of allegiance, since that is illegal, and we are debating if the pledge in and of itself is unconstitutional. He goes in a tangent about how we should overthrow an unjust government, even though this has nothing to do with this debate... he is saying that saying the pledge of allegiance is an oath to never go against your country, but that's not what the pledge is even about, it's about being proud of your country and never wanting it to fall apart.

He goes off saying something about the freedom of religion. Just having the pledge of allegiance's existence doesn't infringe on anyone's religious rights... the same as having the bible exist: it doesn't do anything to anyone in terms of basic religious rights.

Basically, my opponent is arguing whether or not forcing a child to say the pledge is unconstitutional - in a debate about whether or not the pledge, in and of itself, is unconstitutional. This is not an argument that is in favor of his side of the burden, thus he has not met his onus.
Debate Round No. 2
APLU01

Pro

School usually never tells kids that they don't have to do the pledge, meaning kids usually do it not knowing they can not do the pledge. I was using the unjust government as a example of why the pledge is unconstitutional, they cannot do what the founders did as they made a oath, allegiance means loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause. if one is truly loyal then they would stay with the country at all times even if they are doing something they disagree about, this was how the Nazis became so famous, a pledge. Also the pledge does infringe on the rights of the atheist or other religious person saying the pledge, it is saying that that person has to believe in God and since i already mentioned the school thing, that means Atheists and other religious people have to quit their beliefs and believe in God for Murica. Also not nearly every child is told to read the bible, unlike the Pledge, plus the bible says anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus as their savior goes to Hell, does that mean Innocent children go to Hell because they never learned about jesus? That infringes other religions as well as what if the child knew about Jesus but believed in another religion but was innocent? Do they go to Hell? Does that mean Gandhi is going to Hell even though he protected many animals and people and believed in equality because of religion?
Lexus

Con

Pro hasn't made any attempt at an argument in favor of the resolution, which means that he completely fails to meet his burden and thus, should lose this debate.

The choice of saying the pledge of allegiance is a choice. Saying the pledge does not mean that you are not following the rules of the constitution - just saying the pledge while being atheist doesn't mean anything. You are free to skip over "under God" or just not say the pledge at all. Having the pledge exist is not the problem about its constitutionality - forcing kids to say it is what is unconstitutional. But that isn't the debate - the debate is about the constitutionality of the pledge, in and of itself.

Vote con because of a lack of constructive arguments for pro.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by APLU01 2 years ago
APLU01
Interesting, in all the modern schools i have been in it did the opposite...
Posted by gabbywolff 2 years ago
gabbywolff
personally if someones child got into some sort of trouble because he didn't say the pledge chances are he's a dweeb who just got on the teachers nerves
Posted by gabbywolff 2 years ago
gabbywolff
I stopped participating in the pledge of allegiance when I was in Middle School I never got in trouble. In High School the little goody goody's that got to do the morning announcements over the television said the pledge nobody participated the teachers didn't care they were too busy doing fecal matter that mattered. no pun intended
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KingDerekx 2 years ago
KingDerekx
APLU01LexusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Here's a tip: Don't make the debate titled "Is the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional" if what you really want to debate is "Forcing children to say the pledge of allegiance in schools is unconstitutional". Pro kept repeating that same sentence over and over just in different form and at no point made any attempt to actually construct anything of value towards the actual debate's topic. Also why is the voting period for this set for six months when the person who even started this debate decided not to even post fully-fleshed out arguments at all? Con wins, no doubt about it. Don't need six months for anyone to figure that out.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
APLU01LexusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically asserts that the 1943 law entails that kids should *not* pledge. The pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional when children are *forced* to pledge -- but, according to Con, not in all cases. Pro says the pledge says people will never go against their country if they take the pledge, and asks what the case would be in an unjust government. This doesn't link to Con's argument at all, since this would only be if children are *forced* to pledge, which they aren't. Pro fails to fulfill their burden of proof, since Pro keeps ranting against a *forced* pledge of allegiance, while Con demonstrates that children are not forced to pledge their allegiance formally, which Pro drops throughout the debate. Pro's non-linking arguments were, ultimately, irrelevant, and failed to fulfill their burden of proof. At this point, there's nothing I can do but ignore the no-link arguments of Pro. Therefore, I vote Con.