The Instigator
DudeStop
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Shader609
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should we take "In God we trust" off of the American currency?

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...
DudeStop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,608 times Debate No: 42779
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

DudeStop

Pro

This round is meant for me to state the rules.
1. We are going to debate.
2. Please no trollers
3. A violation of any of the rules is an automatic 7 points forfeit
4. The last argument is when con literally says "Nothing" As to make it more fair.
5. This is regarding American money
6. If you forfeit a round, you lose the entire debate.
Shader609

Con

I hereby accept your debate. Best of luck to you.
Debate Round No. 1
DudeStop

Pro

Thank You Con! Merry Christmas!

http://m.youtube.com...
Funny video related to this subject.

1. We should not lie on our currency, or imply that people are second class citizens on our currency
2. If there is a lie, or some sort of indication that someone else is a second class citizen, we should take it off.
3. There is a statement on our currency that is both a lie, and it implies that atheists are second class citizens.
4. Therefore, we should take this statement off of our currency.

http://dictionary.reference.com... citizen
I'm not saying we need to take every dollar bill and erase the statement. Only that we must stop printing it on our bills.

If someone wants to write it on there, then that is fine. I don't have a problem with someone writing that they love a Sky Wizard on his or her money, and I'll even be fine with using it. The only problem though, is that the government is putting this on here.

This brings us into the law of separation of Church and State.

"Separation of Church and State: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"
-Jefferson.

http://www.loc.gov...
The actual rule:
"The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. Many view separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion"
http://dictionary.reference.com...
By saying we trust in god, the government favors religion. The goverment must remain neutral on this subject, therefore we must take god off of our currency.
Shader609

Con

I am not trolling against non believers of God but the separation of Church and State has nothing to do with American currency. All of your arguments are invalid. In the United States, EVERY state in the United States uses money that has "In God We Trust" on the bill. Because of this, you cannot use the separation of Church and State. The Federal Reserve uses this type of money. If every state and territory uses different currency that has the quote "In God We Trust", you can use the argument of separation between church and state. The quote "In God We Trust" is not condoning one particular religion. Therefore, you cannot say that American currency is being prejudice.

Prejudice- an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc.
History nor the United States government is not unfair towards Atheists. The quote has been on money since 1955. Unied States government is not trying to take away your rights. It is a saying. The quote is not downgrading or condoning any particular religion. Even if the government wanted to change American Currency, it would be expensive and could cause an even worse recession in the United States. In life and in politics, you cannot impress everybody. That is exactly what this quote is. There is nothing prejudice about American currency. Because of my reasons above, "In God We Trust" should NOT be taken off of American Currency. The third link shows the real origination of the motto "In God We Trust".
Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.ronscurrency.com...
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DudeStop

Pro

"Thank you Con"

"I am not trolling against non believers of God but the separation of Church and State has nothing to do with American currency. All of your arguments are invalid. In the United States, EVERY state in the United States uses money that has "In God We Trust" on the bill. Because of this, you cannot use the separation of Church and State. The Federal Reserve uses this type of money. If every state and territory uses different currency that has the quote "In God We Trust", you can use the argument of separation between church and state. The quote "In God We Trust" is not condoning one particular religion. Therefore, you cannot say that American currency is being prejudice"

1. By putting: "In God we trust" Is favoring theists, and at the same time offending atheists. It is also a lie, considering not everybody is an atheist. I extend all arguments. You avoided refuting them. Oh, and by favoring theists, it's identifying all atheists as second class citizens because they don't believe in god.

2." EVERY state in the United States uses money that has "In God We Trust" on the bill. Because of this, you cannot use the separation of Church and State"

Well that's like saying (Rewind a few more years) That because all states do not allow gay marriage, it is okay not to allow gay marriage. But we know that this is not true, because (Go to present time) it is now begging to legalize in quite a few states.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Your logical fallacy is bandwagon. You said all States in America do this, so it is therefore okay, without refuting the actual argument.
"Even if the government wanted to change American Currency, it would be expensive and could cause an even worse recession in the United States"

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

"Unied States government is not trying to take away your rights. It is a saying. The quote is not downgrading or condoning any particular religion"
Assuming you meant United States, I never said it was taking away any rights. I'm saying it tells us that America trusts in god, which violates Church and State. The Government just needs to stay neutral, and get out of this. By putting god in their, it automatically means religion. The Government should not have anything do with religion. If we are going to argue that atheism is a religion, then it violates the law. But if atheism is not a religion, and Government should have nothing to do with religion, then if anything we should be endorsing atheism. :)

Notice how he did not show how any of my points were wrong. Vote PRO.
Shader609

Con

Once again, you are wrong. The quote does not favor theorists. The quote is apart of American History. If non believers of God really cared about the dollar bill, than why start protesting now? Why not in 1955? All of your arguments are invalid. Allowance of Gay Marriage and this debate have nothing to do with each other. In case you did not know, Gay marriage is already legalized in certain states.

Obviously, my reasoning are based on facts not theories. By your counter argument, you are trying to say that the expenses of changing American currency would mean nothing to the American economy.
"The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture."-PRO The paragraph I quoted from you is completely irrelevant. My argument is not "unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture". If the United States were to change the American currency, it is favoring non believers in God. The quote is not favoring any religion. It is apart of American history. In order to actual counter your argument about Atheism, do you believe Atheism is actually a religion? I in no way condone atheism. I am a believer in God. Based on the last sentence in your round 3 argument, this is really not about American currency. People like you will find any way to make Atheism more popular in America. You are just trying to convince me to be Atheism. The quote is history; it has nothing to do with religion.
SOURCES
http://www.patheos.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.faithandfacts.com...
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
So how's life
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Both conducts were so so...

Arguments go to me obviously, your arguments were smashed.

S/G was FF'd to me

It's based on how reliable, not how many, sources mate. Just because I only used one doesn't mean you have more reliable ones. I only needed one source to start with my logic. Also, my source was still more reliable than Wikipedia.

But whatever mate. We will most definitely see who loses.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Conduct
Posted by Shader609 3 years ago
Shader609
Look at my sources and look at yours. I have multiple sources and you have one. Once when the people vote, we will see who wins. Only one vote so far. Besides the grammar, I beat you in every other category.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
You notice how all your arguments were whittled down to Wikipedia is valid?
Posted by Shader609 3 years ago
Shader609
The wikipedia is just facts about the dollar bill you idiot. I used actual facts and sources unlike you. Only one person voted. We will see who wins. Anybody that actually reads the debate knows that your points are invalid. I used real facts and evidence unlike you. You look stupid not me
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Literally the first sentence bellow your comment answers your question Oh smart one.

They didn't rule either way...

You failed to back up your point, committed yet ANOTHER LOGICAL FALLACY#WhatASuprise, and use irrelevant facts.

When I challenge you on things you argue the opposite! but fail to back just one argument up. Not even one!

"What is the point in changing it?"

Are. You. Able. To. Read.

Read the bloody debate again if it' this hard for you to read a full sentence mate...

What was the inaccurate source. I used? I'd like to see this...Oh and you used Wikipedia! LOLZ.

You yet again dodged not only the arguments, but then dodged the question (Which was written in all caps for people who can't read(You)). Then you accused me of dodging a question...

Next time, learn how to read mate before you embarrass yourself. There's a reason you're 4 points behind.

For every point you have I have an infinite number times that plus four.
Posted by Shader609 3 years ago
Shader609
You cannot even tell me whether Atheism is actually a religion. If anything, you are the one who is avoiding answer my questions. I asked if Atheism was a religion? Do you know hoe much it would cost America to make new money just because a few people started protesting? Probably less than a million. There is a reason why the Supreme Court already overthrew the case on this exact debate. You are being such a hypocrite. You wrote that I did not state facts and than wrote that my facts are irrelevant. You also wrote that nobody is protesting. If nobody is protesting this, what is the point in changing it? Stop being a hypocrite, contradicting, and making a fool of yourself. If anything, my argument is based on facts. You have no provided any facts that are not contradicting or facts that you prove. Unlike you, i used accurate resources.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
"do you believe Atheism is actually a religion?"

Nope.

"in no way condone atheism. I am a believer in God. Based on the last sentence in your round 3 argument, this is really not about American currency"

Uhhhh.... How so exactly mate?

"People like you will find any way to make Atheism more popular in America. You are just trying to convince me to be Atheism. The quote is history; it has nothing to do with religi"

Okay what the >+|]? Why would you think that?

Con:

PLEASE SHOW *ONE* SENTENCE I MADE THAT IS TRYING TO CONVINCE YIU TO CONVERT YOUR RELIGION. THANK YOU, mate.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
"Well that's like saying (Rewind a few more years) That because all states do not allow gay marriage, it is okay not to allow gay marriage. But we know that this is not true, because (Go to present time) it is now begging to legalize in quite a few states."

"Do you realize that gay marriage is already legal in some states?"

Yes read what's inside the ()...

"Once again, you are wrong. The quote does not favor theorists. The quote is apart of American History. If non believers of God really cared about the dollar bill, than why start protesting now? Why not in 1955? All of your arguments are invalid. Allowance of Gay Marriage and this debate have nothing to do with each other. In case you did not know, Gay marriage is already legalized in certain states"

Because atheism is on the rise in America. You didn't invalidate the argument, you just told me that I made the debate right now. What protests are going on? I don't see any. No one's protesting, but I can be that people made debates on this earlier on. You YET AGAIN fail to make a sufficient argument to invalidate my claims. Just that other states have used it for a long time, so it's okay.

Please, provide a *reason* it is okay. That has to do with laws or something. Not that states have been using it for a long time, yet again you appealed to popularity and you also made up facts.

"Obviously, my reasoning are based on facts not theories. By your counter argument, you are trying to say that the expenses of changing American currency would mean nothing to the American economy"
Lol but the facts are irrelevant. I never said it would do nothing. You failed to provide a reason for how this would happen. Then when I challenged you on it! you said it was based on facts... Without bringing any to the table.

"the United States were to change the American currency, it is favoring non believer"

Not exactly. It would be staying away from religion. If we write: "No one believes in god" then it wou
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
DudeStopShader609Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I really have no opinion on this matter. S&G to Pro because Con had several noticeable spelling mistakes. Arguments to Pro as well because Con made several logical fallacies and the statement "In God we Trust" DOES indeed relate to America's religious tradition, contrary to Con's argument.