The Instigator
Unpopularopinion
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
shaduwarsenaal
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Should the pledge remain in the public school system?

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 1 vote the winner is...
shaduwarsenaal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 445 times Debate No: 73813
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Unpopularopinion

Con

There are no benefits to having 6-18 year old's do the pledge. They don't even know what they are pledging about, they do not use it for its purpose, and they do not suddenly become more patriotic after saying it. When students are taught the pledge, they are not told what they are saying, why they are saying it, or even what the word "allegiance" means. All they are told is "you're gonna say this and you're gonna like it!" Then during the moment of silence, when we're supposed to appreciate our vets, instead they're thinking about what's for dinner, or why they might be saying this ridiculous poem then just standing there. Also, there are students that are not from the U.S. or are not here by choice, and are forced to call their country inferior daily. This creates an uncomfortable situation. Finally, I'm not the only person against the pledge. There's been a debate for years about the line "under god" alone. While I don't have an opinion on that particular line, so many people do that it doesn't seem worthwhile. The pledge calls us "indivisible," but it has been dividing the country for far too long.
shaduwarsenaal

Pro

To start off, I only want to make you realize the faults in this ideology. The benefits are their if you look hard enough. I have seen that by saying this pledge students not only show respect for their country but also learn respect. Their are schools that teach what the pledge of allegiance is and why. I learned this stuff early on. I state is should be required for teachers to do this and about our vets who risk their lives. It is all about a respect factor weather they cooperate or not. I would ask that you be more specific on people not here by choice. For the other immigrants, they are merely saying that they will stand for this country as their home. Also that they will stand for what this country was founded on. Nowhere does it say that the U.S. in inferior. Moreover, the people are dividing this country, not these words. I could call my friend an idiot, but it is his choice what he does. To remove the pledge from our schools would be an act of desecration towards Americas founders and what they started. Will you tell our soldiers who are fighting for our freedom and that of other nations? "I am disregarding our flag." So if you are looking for people who stand by me- I would say there is about a legion of people who agree with me on the matter.
Debate Round No. 1
Unpopularopinion

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate. The students who display respect for their country by saying the pledge most likely already have that patriotic pride, and it's doubtful that the pledge increased it. For every student who says the pledge in an attempt to display their pride and respect, there are two more simply doing it because they have to in order to get through the day. I haven't seen many students that say the pledge for the intended reasons. Mostly they say it because that's what they need to do to get through the rest of the day, and they will be judged harshly by teachers and students for questioning it.
I realize that some teachers do teach students what they are saying, but I would argue there's only about a 50/50 chance that you would be lucky enough to have one of them. It might be better if we require teachers to teach students about the pledge, but until we do, I stand by that argument.
Also, while the pledge doesn't specifically say other countries are inferior, most students interpret the pledge to mean that the U.S. is the best country and they will stand by it, again, this could be because of the problem regarding students who are not taught what it means. Some students who are only here for a short period of time are pledging loyalty to a place they are soon to leave and most likely never see again. If nothing else, that seems to make it lose its purpose. And regarding students not here by choice, until they are 18, students go wherever there parents take them. They may like it, or they may not, but they didn't come here because they wanted to, and they shouldn't have to pledge loyalty to it.
Yes, people do divide the country, but something students are required to recite daily in the classroom they must be in is bound to cause controversy, so by giving a strong incentive, it is dividing the country, albeit indirectly.
Here's a fun fact, the founders of this country didn't have any pledge implemented. It didn't come about until the 1892, and that wasn't even the current version. This version was " I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." There were then 3 changes, mostly just making it more specific, before the current version was implemented in 1954. So I would say removing it is far from a desecration towards the founders. If anything it is supporting what they created, Many people agree vowing to a flag or country goes against the spirit of the foundation of the country. It also goes against our freedom of speech.
So yes, I would go up to a soldier and tell them I am using the rights they have been fighting to protect. We have the freedom to disregard our flag if we so choose because of those soldiers.
Finally, I would like to add one more point. The last line of the pledge says, "with liberty and justice for all" but many would argue that, while we're better than most in that aspect, that is a utopian ideal that certainly does not exist today. Look at gay marriage, of Ferguson Missouri, or an atheist living in Texas. I think many students would prefer not to be told to say things they do not believe about their country.
shaduwarsenaal

Pro

I do say that some people do not agree with what they are saying while others openly say it. Therefore, due to freedom of speech and religion, it should not be forced but allowed. To take it away completely, though, would cause an uproar an the other side saying their freedoms and beliefs were being attacked. I will say that I have been reared in a Christian family and agree with "one nation under God." I think what the justice, freedom, and indivisible part is what we hope for, but yes, you cannot eliminate slavery.
Debate Round No. 2
Unpopularopinion

Con

Here's the problem with not forcing it but allowing it.
Legally, the pledge is optional. You do not have to say it or even stand. Teachers also do not have the legal rights to punish you or pressure you into saying it. However, it is rare for a teacher to ever tell you about that right. I have never heard a single teacher say "it is your choice whether or not you want to say the pledge." It is still extremely common for teachers to lecture or discipline students for deciding to exercise that right. Even when that is not the case, students are also susceptible to peer pressure, and while this is a mild form of it, they still feel extremely isolated if they decide to opt out of the pledge.
While I understand it would cause an uproar, having it in the school system also causes controversy. If some students wish to say the pledge, they could say it before school officially begins or even outside the classroom walls. It is not necessary for them to say it during the official school day. There's another minute you could be using to learn, which is the actual purpose of being there.
As stated before, I personally have no opinion on the "one nation under god" line, but it doesn't seem to be worth all the controversy it creates. Since so many people have a problem with it, it seems it could be taken out. People can appreciate their god better through non-school appointed prayer.
And while we hope for justice, freedom, and indivisible part is what we hope for, some still argue we are not doing enough to get to that point. To some, it's a bit like saying, "I want to be a billionaire," then spending a day scrolling through facebook.
shaduwarsenaal

Pro

Let me set you straight on one thing. "I find it offensive that you never capitalize God in your arguments.God is capitalized, not in lower case, in the Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, and the constitution where he is referred to as the Creator. Seeing as all these and the .pledge of allegiance are all talking of the same God, it should be capitalized. How is that for hypocrisy in your argument? My second point is that most people came here to escape persecution, famine, and such.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door." -The New Colossus.
America was founded as an asylum- not to discriminate another's homeland.
Thirdly, the radical elimination of controversy is not always a good solution. People should know that by what happened in the civil war. The extremes are not justified here.
I am heavily set, along with many others, I preserving such things. If I may take a famous quote. "We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!" I can back my point and will, without hesitation.
Debate Round No. 3
Unpopularopinion

Con

You're right, I apologize for not capitalizing God, it was a grammar mistake, not an attempt to offend anyone. I will be more careful in the future. I assure you it was not an attempt to disregard your religion or anything of the sort. I understand getting points off for grammar, but I do not understand how it equates to hypocrisy. Again though, I will be more careful.
To your second argument, I agree, it was not an attempt to discriminate another homeland, but if you read my previous arguments, the founders didn't have a pledge, and I said the pledge doesn't specifically discriminate, but students take it that way when they are not taught the pledge, which is not always the case, but it is common.
I don't understand what you mean by referencing the civil war. Slavery justifiably caused controversy, and it was eventually removed. If anything, that backs up my point. There are less extreme ways of handling the situation, sure, but the basics are still the same. I do not understand what would be extreme about removing the pledge from the official school day. It could be a gradual removal, and it wouldn't have to be banned on school grounds or anything of the sort.
Allow me to restate my alternative. Students who really are saying the pledge because they want to out of respect, patriotism, etc. will absolutely have that right. They could say it before they enter school doors, before the school day starts, or after it ends. At the age when they would usually be told to say it, they will be taught what it means and be told that if they want to say it, they have that right, and it is one of many ways to show patriotism, but not the only one. Every teacher will still have a flag, the only difference will be that they will not be pressured into saying it, and they will be saying it on their own time. If anything, I would say this is more patriotic of students because they will be taking time out of their day to say it, not the school's. Please address any problems/fallacies you find with this idea in your final argument.
I understand that you are heavily set on keeping the pledge in the system, but that is what a debate is for after all. I apologize for offending you in any way during this debate, I assure you it was not my intention. Thank you for accepting it and I look forward to reading your final arguments.
shaduwarsenaal

Pro

All I am saying is that there has to be more than one way to avoid controversy. And if performed right, which is easier said than done, we maybe able to avoid outburst by either side. However, there will always be some that say things are going to too slowly while will others complain it is happening to quickly. Their is no saying what things could get out of hand. It is impossible to completely please both sides so here has to be some bias towards one or the other at times. Other than this I acquiesce with some of your main points. I regret that their is so much controversy but as I said before it is impossible to have perfect harmony on each side. As this debate comes to an end, I will conclude I hold nothing personnel against you as a person- I am too lazy to do that. The points expressed in my arguments were against the presented idea and not the instigator.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by shaduwarsenaal 2 years ago
shaduwarsenaal
I have to saying my opponent made very convincing arguments. I will not deny that I found myself almost agreeing with him. If Unpopularopion had used stated various resources in his argument, it would have been all the more persuading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 4God 2 years ago
4God
UnpopularopinionshaduwarsenaalTied
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