The Instigator
holly92
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mzjazz1978
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should the words "under God" be in the US 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 1 vote the winner is...
mzjazz1978
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 66163
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

holly92

Pro

I believe the words "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance because it has been that way since 1954. It was first initiated during a meeting led by an attorney in Illinois. The original thought process of the separation of Church and State is for the individual citizen to worship his God, his way, without interference or restriction form the government. In my opinion, our nation was founded with a variety of religions all working together. As time as progressed and our nation as swiftly changed and over time God has been removed from all State owned facilities, such as public schools. I personally believe it gives everyone a sense of unity and something everyone can believe in. Another personal belief is that most people have some sort of Christian belief and with that belief it connects all Americans no matter what their true beliefs are.
mzjazz1978

Con

Even though I believe in a higher power, God has nothing to do with Our Government, Our Nation, or Our Country. The question is should the words, "under God" be in the Pledge of Allegiance. My answer would be no. For what purpose do those words serve besides meaningless words. What value does those words hold, "under God". If that was the case then, this world would not be in the state of turmoil that it is currently in. Sometimes we utilize words that have no meaning, no value, but we use them anyway. I think putting those words into the Pledge of Alliance was just that. No one values or hold them to any standards because if so then our government would think twice about the decisions, the lies they tell the American people, to cover-up the injustices they generate everyday, but remembers to conclude everything with "God Bless America".
Debate Round No. 1
holly92

Pro

They don"t have to be "meaningless words" they used to mean something it used to be a term of respect and it was a big deal. If we went back to that time and people had a sense of belief and that there was a higher power greater than us. We used to not be in such turmoil. We were one of the greatest countries and not because of just our military and freedom, we were rich and powerful. Now we are still one of the greatest countries but we suffer from thousands of problems that cannot be fixed as quickly as people think. In my opinion if we went back to some of our old ways one being in which we didn't try to suppress God, I am not saying shoving religion down people"s throats and being obnoxious, but we put him on the forefront of our decisions, we might actually succeed at fixing our nation and getting out of turmoil".
mzjazz1978

Con

One the thing I agree with you is that you can't shove religion or your beliefs down anyone's throat. But again, the woulda, coulda, shoulda days are over and we are living in a time, that people would more so spit on you than to offer you a helping hand. This may be because you are black, white, homeless, or just look different. I mean its sad to say, but those are just words on a paper. If this world was to change, it would have to start from the top, from Our Leaders. You cant expect the American people to abide by the laws that govern the land if they don't, so why should words on a paper matter. In fact, did they really matter then.
Debate Round No. 2
holly92

Pro

It isn't just words on a paper. If that"s the case then any law is just words on a paper that mean nothing. For instance a wedding license is just a signed piece of paper, yet married couple still obliges by the vows they made. By saying under God, we are focusing and noticing a bigger and higher power. That through this higher power our nation could grow and strive. It sounds clich" but I believe that if our nation and government went back to the type of thinking we had when we first started out and were separating ourselves from the Monarch, we all came together with different religions noticing the importance of a belief and started this great nation. A nation everyone wanted to be a part of and now we have become a debt ridden nation filled with turmoil.
mzjazz1978

Con

My only issue is that we have become so sensitive that everything anyone says or does has become a reason to argue, sue, and become oblivious to the real issues. "Under God" being taking out of the Pledge of Alliance is not a issue, why because again, they are just words. You made the statement abut marriages and how couples say their vows to include a higher power, but the divorce rate is at a all time high. If we go back to the way of thinking when our Founding Fathers generated such a document, then many of us would not have been given our 40 acres and a mule that was promised. So yes we can discuss the issues of this nation like, poverty, homelessness, hunger, crime rates, police violence, gang violence and a host of many others, but that still does not change the fact that words are just words in this country. Everyone has them but no one honors them......
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
They should leave it how it is. God means provider. That covers everyone. The atheist's provider is atheism. The freeloader' s provider is government. And all religious people's god is whatever comes to the individual.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I wouldn't mind changing that to " under truth".Then most democrats and politicians could not in good conscience say it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
holly92mzjazz1978Tied
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: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. I think Pro presented a compelling case, but alot of the points raised depended on emotional appeal rather than logic-based reasoning. The claim about how America would be better off if we all believed in God was largely unproven. Con adequately touched on these in the rebuttals and brought up the strong point that God is not something that everyone believes in, thus leading to the terms being meaningless to some people. Furthermore, Pro presented an example of marriage licenses, which Con crushed effectively by reflecting on the poor marriage rates. Overall, Con presented strong rebuttals which Pro didn't fully overcome. Pro also had alot of claims that lacked evidence when it was needed. For these reasons, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.