The Instigator
EccentricSenator314
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kimjungrules
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should it be required of students to recite The Pledge Of Allegiance?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 86955
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

EccentricSenator314

Pro

While I am against the brainwashing or indoctrination of children, I am an ardent supporter of Patriotism and American Exceptionalism. As such, public schools must bring back The Pledge Of Allegiance. Kids who dissent should not be reprimanded (Though encouraging them to recite The Pledge doesn't hurt. The kid has a Right to dissent, the teacher has a Right to encourage Nationalism and unity). This really should not be an issue, bring back The Pledge!!!!! #BringBackThePledge
kimjungrules

Con

The requirement of any one to say a set of words pledging a country is a violation of their rights. There is currently a movement to edit the pledge that encourages students to sit down during the pledge of allegiance. This movement called "Don't say the pledge" (run by the American Humanist Association) wants to remove "under god", which was added in 1954 in response to the communist threat. During earlier parts of the World Wars, american students were required by law to say the pledge. This was to ensure that the parents of these children did not have allegiance to an enemy country.

Encouraging students to be proud of what their country has done is not a bad thing, but it is up to the student to decide if what the country has done is something to be proud of. It is also their right, not to say a creepily fascist poem towards a decorated cloth.
Debate Round No. 1
EccentricSenator314

Pro

Not every student should have to recite The Pledge, everybody has a Right to dissent (You are complaining that you'd have to listen to this for less than a minute each day. That's an advertisement dude, why should people have to feel uncomfortable with tradition, just to accommodate YOU!!???). I'm guessing that you picked this debate just to complain about the 'under God' clause; let me tell you something!!! If they were going to do that, they'd throw the whole Pledge out the window!!! The 'under God' clause references that The Founders came here to escape religious persecution!!! It does not utilize secular language (Every major religion, sans for Atheism, utilizes 1 or more God{s}, is this why the 'under God' clause of The Pledge Of Allegiance offends you so badly???). It's not 'creepy' or 'fascist' (Seriously, go research propaganda from Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia before you rebuke my argument!!! It is a form of Nationalism, it is not fascist brainwashing!!!!! A situation where you have the Right to sit down and stfu while the others recite The Pledge is not a violation of your Rights, neither is the teacher budging you to recite. She can, for example, inform you of the positives of Patriotism as I have. But she can't, for example, call you a devil worshipper for refusing to recite The Pledge.....).
kimjungrules

Con

I never said that the pledge should be stopped in order to accommodate those who did not wish to recite it. I only said that they sit down and remain silent while the pledge is recited. Also the phrase 'under god' was not added until 1954 because of the communist threat. It was not added by the founding fathers, a, because they did not write it and it was not written until 1892, and b, they wanted everyone to feel welcome in the country, even atheists.

Also the debate name is "should it be required of students to recite the pledge of alleigence." You taking the pro side means you think it should be required and therefore dissent is not an option.
Debate Round No. 2
EccentricSenator314

Pro

Well we agree on that much, that kids wishing not to recite The Pledge should have a Right not to do so (A few things I forgot to address last round: This is public school we're talking, funded by the American public's tax payer dollars. In that sense, having elements of Patriotism within public schools is fine so long as the kid has a Right not to recite. When you are a U.S. citizen but a minor, you have very limited Rights, most of which reside with your parent{s} or legal guardian. As such, the parents/guardian have a Right to send their kid{s} to a religious private school, where they'll be exposed to the religion in questions' views/beliefs, take the time to homeschool them, exposing them to their parent/guardians' views/beliefs, which the child could resent later in life as 'brainwashing', or they can send them to a form of schooling that's paid for by the American public, exposing them to fads, bullies, cliques, the general public, diseases, sex, drugs, and {Last but not least} various displays of Patriotism. The parent/guardian made the decision to expose them to Patriotism by sending them to a public institution). The Founders did not write The Pledge and had nothing to do with it, you are correct on that. You are also correct that the phrase 'One nation, under God' was added during the Cold War. However, you are incorrect as to it's true meaning. The true meaning is not to shame Communists and Atheists, it emphasizes The Founders' plight regarding religious freedom ('Under God', it's a nonsecular phrase. It doesn't say 'Jesus' or 'White God' or 'Allah' or 'Blue Goddess with 6 Arms', it just says 'under God'. That can mean any God, I can only see Atheists objecting to this or having a problem, as Atheism is the only major 'religion' that doesn't have a God, any God!!!!!). And sorry for 'misleading' you, but when I entered Middle and High School, The Pledge went extinct, and that really pissed me off, because people like you can't sit down and wait 1 minute for (What it's essentially in your mind) a commercial for how great our country is. You can sit down and remain silent while those who wish to can recite, but you can't gripe endlessly until a Patriotic tradition is abolished from public schools. Screw that, I'm a tax payer, if you don't like The Pledge you can sit down and remain silent!!! If you don't wish to be exposed to Patriotism then go yell at your parents for sending you to a public institution instead of homeschooling you like you seem to have desired!!!!!
kimjungrules

Con

First off I go to a private school. Other than that we seem to have come to an agreement on how the pledge should be treated. I would like under god to be removed but I am ok with patriotism in the public school. It is taxpayer money and should be used in that way. Nowadays however, the amount of atheists has been rising quickly, and we should try to accommodate everyone.
Debate Round No. 3
EccentricSenator314

Pro

It seems we agreed from the get-go, the wording of the question just threw you a curve ball (I'm sorry about that, I'm new here and this was a suggested topic that I feel very strongly about). My problem was, it was seemingly abolished in my area when I entered Middle and High School, and it was because kids and parents kept complaining about 'Oh, indoctrination!!!' and 'Why must it include God!!???' and my reaction is 'Why can't you remain seated and silent while others recite The Pledge!!!!!?????' (From what I've seen, it's largely students who complain. They have limited Rights, their parents chose to expose them to Patriotism. Parents, seem not to care. The ones complaining seem to do so because their kid is complaining. The irony is that the decision was in their hands, they chose not to homeschool. Teachers seem to hold it less dearly than everybody else, they'd just prefer to uphold the tradition). I have nothing against Atheists, my best friend is an Atheist. The 'Under God' clause means something to Atheists too, it's a something of a guarantee that they will not be persecuted for NOT practicing religion (It holds weight to them, too. Even if it ironically offends them...).
kimjungrules

Con

I agree. I too would be pretty annoyed that parents were trying to remove that from schools and the under god clause does not bother me that much. However, it does bother some people which is why I'm pro removing it. It should still be recited in schools unless so many people just sit down and disrupt others that it becomes practically useless.

Students do have rights. They have first amendment rights especially and that does not reside with their parents. There have been numerous Supreme Court decisions to uphold that.
Debate Round No. 4
EccentricSenator314

Pro

I feel that those offended by the phrase 'Under God' study the American Revolution. I respect their grievance, but that term is really meant to insinuate religious liberty (Even for Atheists. The German Nazis treated Atheists like everybody else who didn't look or act like a Nazi. As far as I'm aware, that's the only major instance in history of Atheists being persecuted, and it wasn't widespread because there were only so many Atheists in Germany during WWII. Still, the Law here in the U.S. respects and protects an Atheists' Right to not practice religion, they could afford to be less resentful...) I doubt there'd ever be enough disruption and silence to end The Pledge, plus there will always be Patriotic individuals in the classroom to recite, I doubt abolishing it will be widespread (Some Northern States will feel that it's 'antiquated', or something along those lines. The South, with it's fervent Patriotism, will never abolish The Pledge. Everywhere else will be like Missouri, Elementary School recites it then it goes extinct in Middle School and High School...) In closing, I said students, as minors, have limited Rights (I never said that they have no Rights) within U.S. Law (Freedom Of Speech, Due Process, Impartial Trial, Privacy, Right To Life. For example, one can 'ground' a child by confiscating choice privileges and confining them to their room for a predetermined period of time. The child can cry and claim that you're Satan, but such an action is not illegal, the child's limited Rights were not violated. You cannot really 'ground' an adult unless he decides to reside within his room. That's called 'Kidnapping' and 'Assault', should you pull this off with threats or violence, one would say that you violated the adult in questions' Rights, and the story would be a media sensation!!! Most Rights, besides those I listed and ones that may have slipped through the cracks, reside with the parents or are granted by the Government on the child's 18th birthday, varies on jurisdiction but within most States a child is considered an adult on their 18th birthday. The Right to own property and the Right to bear arms are 2 such examples...)
kimjungrules

Con

The Nazi genocide of atheists as well as Jews Gypsies or anyone else who didn't act like them was not the only major instance of persecution to those people. Although the definition of major in this case can be a separate debate, During the first millennia anyone under those descriptions would be stoned or hanged without question. This did not happen as often because anyone who was an atheist or a jew knew to hide that and pretend to be a christian.

The reason atheists are resentful is because various lawmakers are trying to impose religion into public areas, which is a violation of the first amendment.

Very few people would like to see the pledge abolished, just changed back to its old way.

And as for the rights of minors, the government gives the same rights to minors as they do to adults (with the exception of course of voting, consumption of dangerous substances, the right to apply for a license to a motor vehicle or any vehicle with some exceptions (aircraft, motorbikes, bicycles, and a car if they are 16 (parenthesis inception!!!))). The right to bear arms is given to children although they cannot have an open carry permit. They also cannot purchase a firearm or ammunition but they can stand and shoot a clay with proper range supervision. A child can own property although they are considered to be in the custody of there legal guardian.

I of course assume you meant everything in that last paragraph but I wanted to get at least one point across since we practically came to an agreement two rounds ago.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by EccentricSenator314 1 year ago
EccentricSenator314
Politically, you and I are similarly aligned, more so than others that I've come across (Might have to look you up when I run for Office).
Posted by kimjungrules 1 year ago
kimjungrules
@eccentricsenator314 I agree to the fullest extent. Bunniesses do have every right to do what ever they want. I am a libertarian actually so I happen to think some anti-discrimination laws are u constitutional (basically it's your right not to let a black person into your house, how is it different for businesses). This definetly applies to merry Christmas although no one is saying that businesses aren't allowed to do that, just big box stores are asking their employees not to. (Again entirely in the rights of the business)
Posted by EccentricSenator314 1 year ago
EccentricSenator314
@kimjungrules: I acknowledged that that was the only instance in history that I was aware of, for what it's worth (Also a passive acknowledgement that abuse of Atheists during The Holocaust was and still is woefully under reported). Congress is not trying to impose religion down peoples' throats, they are addressing the Christian majority. The majority of people here in America are Christians, but this country IS still a melting pot, so we'll have the Government trying to accommodate the majority, and we'll have a minority like Atheists or Mormons protesting by citing the 1st Amendment. It's a lose-lose scenario. My stand in this is that we're not trying to make others uncomfortable or exclude people, we're just taking pride in our faith. Businesses have every Right to say "Merry Christmas" OR "Happy Holidays", all the general public can do about it is murmur or bring their cash elsewhere. It's going to be really ironic when an Atheist is eventually nominated President and tries acknowledging Atheists, the Christian majority will revolt in outrage... As your last post stipulated, their are various terms, conditions, and restrictions (Something you said: A minor may only own property that is given to them from family, friends, a generous stranger, etc. They have no credit, they can't sign a lease, etc. Also, a child may own a gun if their parent/guardian buys it for them, trains said child in the safe handling of said weapon, and only under adult supervision. I didn't catch that in my previous post, I was kind of just generalizing about how they have limited Rights). With these limited Rights, their parent/guardian chooses where they go to school (The child has a Right to be resentful of this, but if their parents can't afford private/homeschooling then it's just the way the cookie crumbles).
No votes have been placed for this debate.