The Instigator
Jobbo56
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Should the pledge of allegiance continue to be said after already being said once?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,521 times Debate No: 31920
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Jobbo56

Con

Hello all. This is my first debate on this website, and I would appreciate it if someone would challenge me. My rules are: arguments must be legible and coherent.

I will start off with that if any legal U.S. citizen has already pledged their allegiance, why should they be asked to again? If an action is done, there is no point in redoing said action; with the exception of said action being previously revoked.
1Historygenius

Pro

Hello, let's debate!

"I will start off with that if any legal U.S. citizen has already pledged their allegiance, why should they be asked to again? If an action is done, there is no point in redoing said action; with the exception of said action being previously revoked."

The reason why the pledge of allegiance is said, in usually schools but also in many places, is for the respect of your country. You are a US citizen and you should have already pledged your allegiance, but it is to be repeated nevertheless to show respect. If you don't repeat several times, you could be seen as being disrespectful. Respect is the key here.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Jobbo56

Con

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist. The original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine "The Youth's Companion" as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism by selling flags to public schools and magazines to students. We should be pledging allegiance primarily to our country, our way of life, not to a piece of cloth. The flag is just a symbol. It's something every 2nd grader can recite from memory, but ask him what it means and he shrugs his shoulders. Its' just a little ceremoney we do every morning, and as time goes by it means less and less. Even believing in 'liberty and justice for all' doesn't mean we HAVE liberty and justice for all.

And then we come to the words 'Under God'. This phrase has been found by courts to be a technical violation of the 'establishment clause' of the 1st amendment, an official endorsement of religion. But it was found to be 'de minimis', meaning it doesn't really abridge anyone's rights. Still, wrong is wrong. People haven't died to protect our right to pledge allegiance to a flag. They died to protect our country, our form of government, our way of life. We can best honor them by working to preserve what they fought for. I think the Pledge of Allegiance does just the opposite, reducing complicated issues to a formula--say these words every morning, all together, and everything will be fine.
1Historygenius

Pro

My Refutations

I. Irrelevant Information

"The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist. The original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine "The Youth's Companion" as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism by selling flags to public schools and magazines to students."

All this is irrelevant to the debate. My opponent did not have any good reason to put it in. Its all just filler and nothing else.

II. Where Should We Pledge and How?

"We should be pledging allegiance primarily to our country, our way of life, not to a piece of cloth. The flag is just a symbol. It's something every 2nd grader can recite from memory, but ask him what it means and he shrugs his shoulders. Its' just a little ceremoney we do every morning, and as time goes by it means less and less. Even believing in 'liberty and justice for all' doesn't mean we HAVE liberty and justice for all."

My opponent says that we should be pledging our allegiance to our nation, but we are. The flag is a symbol that represents our nation. That is why we pledge to the flag our nation. It is the only symbol of our nation that is found in a classroom. Remember, the lyrics goes:

"I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." [1]

Otherwise students would just stand up and have nowhere to look. They would either be facing forward toward the front of the classroom or at each other which would be rather awkward.

The United States was founded on the ideas of liberty and justicehave a Constitution giving liberty
III. God

"And then we come to the words 'Under God'. This phrase has been found by courts to be a technical violation of the 'establishment clause' of the 1st amendment, an official endorsement of religion. But it was found to be 'de minimis', meaning it doesn't really abridge anyone's rights. Still, wrong is wrong."

The point of "Under God" is more civic than it is religious. It is part of our history. Also, you are not force to say it. It does not force a religion, nor does the phrase establish any religion or religious institution. It's just a phrase and it's your choice if you want to say. It clearly does not violate the Constitution.

IV. Odd Statement

"People haven't died to protect our right to pledge allegiance to a flag. They died to protect our country, our form of government, our way of life."

People are not supposed to die for the pledge in the first place, this is irrelevant.

V. None of these Arguments Matter to the Debate

The whole point of the debate was asking of the pledge should be said more than once, none of this other stuff. While I have refuted all of my opponents arguments, my opponent drifted from what the debate is really about.

Conclusion

My opponent shifted the debate from its initial subject to something else. Vote pro.

Sources

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Jobbo56

Con

All this is irrelevant to the debate. My opponent did not have any good reason to put it in. Its all just filler and nothing else."

Your point was that it's a show of respect, where as my point was that it's origin of being was a form of socialism, and it's continuation was a marketing scheme to have a rise in national pride so that people would buy more flags/magazines. Which both should not be respected. With that said you could argue that it's showing respect for your country, which I also countered(but admittedly could have worded better) with that we should honour and respect our country in a more meaningful way.

"The point of "Under God" is more civic than it is religious. It is part of our history. Also, you are not force to say it. It does not force a religion, nor does the phrase establish any religion or religious institution. It's just a phrase and it's your choice if you want to say. It clearly does not violate the Constitution."

As a child in school, you ARE forced to say it in school. However a child could abridge or simply not it, it would result in a punishment. You may say that the "under God" section doesn't violate the constitution, but that's based upon opinion. It's addition in 1954 was caused by numerous Christian groups pressuring congress to add the phrase; showing that it's reasoning for being added are religious based. And as a religious based phrase being added to a national motto, that goes against not forcing religion. There have been many legal cases that have challenged the phrase.

"The whole point of the debate was asking of the pledge should be said more than once, none of this other stuff. While I have refuted all of my opponents arguments, my opponent drifted from what the debate is really about."

It is relevant being that I was countering your argument that it's a sign of respect. Why respect something that is pointless and derived from a socialist view? Why not instead of saying the pledge, we simply just have a prayer(or if atheist, thought)for our country? If not that, at least something that doesn't force you to make a critical decision every time you say it.
1Historygenius

Pro

I. Irrelevant Information

"Your point was that it's a show of respect, where as my point was that it's origin of being was a form of socialism, and it's continuation was a marketing scheme to have a rise in national pride so that people would buy more flags/magazines."

That's what the private owners of the pledge wanted it to be, but if anything, that's capitalist, not socialist due to the fact that it's origin is in private hands. Like I said, your flag represents your country and the pledge is to your country. The flag is just the acting representative. What else would you pledge to in a classroom? What about national anthems, are those wrong? The pledge is no different. There are far more American symbols/songs that I could speak of that represent respect toward your country, but the flag is just the symbol. That is why the United States has a flag in the first place. What else would be used as a symbol?

II. God

"As a child in school, you ARE forced to say it in school. However a child could abridge or simply not it, it would result in a punishment."

No your not, I know, I am in a school. In fact, some students don't even stand up to say the thing in its entirety. Some teachers might get angry, but that is complete misconduct on their part, not on the students. However, this irrelevant to the debate. Your debate is about why the pledge should be said more than once, God is unimportant here. I don't know why you continue to argue it.

As explained here:

"Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is fully consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The words of the Pledge echo the conviction held by the Founders of this Nation that our freedoms come from God. Congress inserted the phrase 'One Nation Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance for the express purpose of reaffirming America's unique understanding of this truth, and to distinguish America from atheistic nations who recognize no higher authority than the State." [1]

III. None of these Arguments Matter to the Debate

"It is relevant being that I was countering your argument that it's a sign of respect. Why respect something that is pointless and derived from a socialist view? Why not instead of saying the pledge, we simply just have a prayer(or if atheist, thought)for our country? If not that, at least something that doesn't force you to make a critical decision every time you say it."

Your argument should be why it is respectful to only say the pledge once and never again, just like the title of this debate says, but you didn't do that.

Conclusion

My opponent dropped several arguments in this round and has still moved from the debate's purpose. Vote Pro!

Sources

1. http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Jobbo56

Con

That's what the private owners of the pledge wanted it to be, but if anything, that's capitalist"

Francis Bellamy was a socialist, and wrote the pledge of allegiance on socialist means.

"What else would you pledge to in a classroom?"

It's pointless to pledge to anything in a classroom besides things that are productive, such as doing your work.

"No your not, I know, I am in a school. In fact, some students don't even stand up to say the thing in its entirety."

I guess it varies in schools. I know that all through my school life that anyone who didn't say it were sent to the principal's office.

"Your argument should be why it is respectful to only say the pledge once and never again, just like the title of this debate says, but you didn't do that."

Alright, let's take everything out and go back the beginning. I realize that things have gone off course, and that what I originally intended was foiled by wrong wording. I do that from time to time when I'm just breaking into things. Anywho, back to the debate. Why should showing respect be mandatory? Being disrespectful to one's country may be socially stigmatising, but if the argument is "should", which in this case is meant to imply duty, propriety; what one must do, then respect has no relevance.
1Historygenius

Pro

My Refutations

I. Irrelevant Information

"Francis Bellamy was a socialist, and wrote the pledge of allegiance on socialist means."


It was published in a non-socialist way.

"It's pointless to pledge to anything in a classroom besides things that are productive, such as doing your work."

Once again my opponent shows incorrect arguments. He should be arguing why the pledge should be said more than once. I argued respect and the flag is the symbol in the room. Now my opponent says there should be a pledge to doing school work, but don't schools have pledges?

II. God

"I guess it varies in schools. I know that all through my school life that anyone who didn't say it were sent to the principal's office."

You are likely from a passed generation. Rules have become less strict on the pledge.

III. Respect

"Alright, let's take everything out and go back the beginning. I realize that things have gone off course, and that what I originally intended was foiled by wrong wording. I do that from time to time when I'm just breaking into things. Anywho, back to the debate. Why should showing respect be mandatory? Being disrespectful to one's country may be socially stigmatising, but if the argument is "should", which in this case is meant to imply duty, propriety; what one must do, then respect has no relevance."

Its not mandatory to do the pledge, I just said so. Respect shows how much you care for the nation you live in and how much you value it and that is what the Pledge of Allegiance stands for.

Conclusion

My opponent admitted to veering the debate off its course. All my arguments were either dropped or are still standing. I was the only one the use sources. Vote Pro!


Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
I messed up an argument. One might read: "The United States was founded on the ideas of liberty and justicehave a Constitution giving liberty"

It was really supposed to say that the United States was founded on the ideas of liberty and justice and we have a Constitution giving citizens liberty and justice.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dragonb95 3 years ago
dragonb95
Jobbo561HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave spelling and grammar to con for a few simple mistakes. Pro gets convincing arguments because his points were relevant to the topic and weren't properly refuted. Pro had more sources.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Jobbo561HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Jobbo went very off course of the debate and failed to refute Pro's contentions.
Vote Placed by Gondun 3 years ago
Gondun
Jobbo561HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was right when he said that Con veered from the purpose of the debate. Most of Con's reasons where why we shouldn't have the pledge at all, not why we should only say it once.