The Instigator
DudeStop
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Maxpleban26
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The United States should take "In god we trust" off of the currency

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 695 times Debate No: 42999
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

DudeStop

Pro

RULES:

1. Serious debate. You can joke around a bit if you'd like, but voters will vote based off of arguments, not mirth.

2. This round is when I state the rules, and the opponent (Con) will state his or her opening arguments. In the last round, he or she will put: "This round is meant to be empty"

This is only because I am taking a round to state the rules.

3. FF'ing a round will be conduct. FF'ing two rounds is a full FF.

4. Voters MAY BE counter voted if a voter has a horrible or no reason they voted. Please don't let this get out of hand, I don't want a vote bombing session in this debate.

5. Failure to oblige with all the above rules is a 7 point FF.
Maxpleban26

Con

I accept the rules of this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
DudeStop

Pro

2. " This round is when I state the rules, and the opponent (Con) will state his or her opening arguments. In the last round, he or she will put: "This round is meant to be empty""

Con has failed to meet the second rule of this debate. We can just forget rule two then I guess... Even though it should be a Ff.

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.

By saying, "In god we trust" is indicating that everyone trusts in god if they are in America. Or it would indicate that all atheists are second class citizens because of religion. We need to take it off.
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. The Government is getting involved with religion, and- that's a problem.

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 government is supposed to be neutral on this subject, meaning it should not have any statements regarding god. Therefore we must take god off of our currency.
Maxpleban26

Con

1. America has never been an Atheist country

The reason we have, "In God We Trust" on our currency is due to the fact of the Cold War. In 1956, the U.S. wanted to distinguish itself from a communist and Atheist country such as the USSR. Everyone at that time was beginning to understand that communism does not work. The U.S. wanted to show to the world that they were not an Atheist country. Therefore, the 84th Congress passed a resolution declaring, "In God We Trust" our national motto. They later printed the motto onto money. A joint poll in 2003 commissioned by: USA today, CNN, and Gallup shows that 90% of Americans approve the motto. Due to a 2011 study done by Gallup, more than 9 in 10 americans continue to believe in God. Even the fact that the president must swear an oath on the religious book, "The Bible." The fact is shown that America has never been an Atheist country, and some of America"s most thriving moments were before we were having these types of debates over whether or not we should have our own National motto on our currency.

2. Why the Pro argument is not correct

Here is a quote the Pro has said in his argument, "By saying, "In god we trust" is indicating that everyone trusts in god if they are in America. Or it would indicate that all atheists are second class citizens because of religion. We need to take it off." This is a begging-the-question fallacy. The fact that you have said that our national motto indicates that atheists are second class citizens is completely absurd. If we put, "Atheist"s rock" on our currency, would that make me a second class citizen behind Atheist? If so, this would be the caste system, and we do not have the caste system in America. In the separation of church and state, is declares, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This motto is not prohibiting an Atheist right to exercise there own personal beliefs. They still can believe what they would like to believe. Also in the Pro"s argument it states, "By saying we trust in god, the government favors religion," It is not favoring religion as crazy as it might sound. It is one of the ways that it is showing to the world that you have the liberty to believe what you would like to believe, whether your Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. Of course there was a small factor in this bill that congress might of had some members who believed in God, but America was founded with religious men, and why America has become so successful over the generations.

3. History

In the Pro"s first argument, he states, "1. We should not lie on our currency, or imply that people are second class citizens on our currency." If "In God We Trust" a lie, why do Americans trust in God. America has had it"s currency with, "In God We Trust" on it for over 50 years. First of all, it is hard to keep a lie that long if you might agree. And second of all how is it a lie that Americans trust in God if Americans do trust in God. Also we are not implying on our currency that people are second class citizens as I explained in my second contention.
Debate Round No. 2
DudeStop

Pro

1. Cool Story Bro

"The reason we have, "In God We Trust" on our currency is due to the fact of the Cold War. In 1956, the U.S. wanted to distinguish itself from a communist and Atheist country such as the USSR. Everyone at that time was beginning to understand that communism does not work. The U.S. wanted to show to the world that they were not an Atheist country. Therefore, the 84th Congress passed a resolution declaring, "In God We Trust" our national motto. They later printed the motto onto money. A joint poll in 2003 commissioned by: USA today, CNN, and Gallup shows that 90% of Americans approve the motto. Due to a 2011 study done by Gallup, more than 9 in 10 americans continue to believe in God. Even the fact that the president must swear an oath on the religious book, "The Bible." The fact is shown that America has never been an Atheist country, and some of America"s most thriving moments were before we were having these types of debates over whether or not we should have our own National motto on our currency."

Notice how Con fails to provide one source. Not even one shred of evidence. He goes on to say that America is not an atheist country. So what? I'm not saying we need to declare that every American does not need to be an atheist, but merely that the government cannot have anything to do with religion. Notice how the Americans have never been a theist country either. Not everybody is a theist, therefore you are defining us atheists as second class citizens and telling a lie OnThe dollar bill, which is not right.

2. You Failed To Refute My Arguments...
"Here is a quote the Pro has said in his argument, "By saying, "In god we trust" is indicating that everyone trusts in god if they are in America. Or it would indicate that all atheists are second class citizens because of religion. We need to take it off." This is a begging-the-question fallacy"

How so? The conclusion is not included in the premise... You need to explain this please

"The fact that you have said that our national motto indicates that atheists are second class citizens is completely absurd. If we put, "Atheist"s rock" on our currency, would that make me a second class citizen behind Atheist?"

I'm assuming this is his attempt to refute my arguments...:
Well, it's more like putting "God is BS!!!" On the money. If we did this, then wouldn't it make you offended? It's saying every one in America believes in god.

DEFINITION OF A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN:
"a person who is not accorded a fair share of respect, recognition, or consideration."
http://dictionary.reference.com... citizen
Is a fair share of respect/recognition payed to the athiests in a dollar bill? No. It's inky recognizing theists, meaning atheists are being made a second class citizen, by definition. We need to take this off our bills.

"If so, this would be the caste system, and we do not have the caste system in America. In the separation of church and state, is declares, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This motto is not prohibiting an Atheist right to exercise there own personal beliefs. They still can believe what they would like to believe"

No one is arguing about that... I just wanted to put the law.

"It is not favoring religion as crazy as it might sound"

I'm arguing that the government should not even mention it. Funny story though, Christians actually put this on the bill. But anyways, putting god on there is violating a wall that they have no right to pass.

"is one of the ways that it is showing to the world that you have the liberty to believe what you would like to believe, whether your Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. Of course there was a small factor in this bill that congress might of had some members who believed in God, but America was founded with religious men, and why America has become so successful over the generations"

He now makes the bold statement that America is successful purely because of religious men. Even though religion caused 9/11.............. And many other things.

I'd also like to remind con that it is leaving out atheism.

3. Can You Read:

"In the Pro"s first argument, he states, "1. We should not lie on our currency, or imply that people are second class citizens on our currency." If "In God We Trust" a lie, why do Americans trust in God. America has had it"s currency with, "In God We Trust" on it for over 50 years. First of all, it is hard to keep a lie that long if you might agree. And second of all how is it a lie that Americans trust in God if Americans do trust in God. Also we are not implying on our currency that people are second class citizens as I explained in my second contention."

I'm sorry to say this but what a stupid argument. The point was that not all Americans trust in god, and when you say all Americans trust in god, then what does it make atheists? Second class citizens mate. Anyone can also see how poorly structured this argument is structured.

NEW ARGUMENTS: (Don't forget the old ones)
5% of Americans are atheists. Though remember this does not include agnostics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

The statement is: "In god we trust"

That would mean we, as Americans, trust in god.

But 5% don't

So it would be a false statement.

Conclusion: Try again mate.ll
Maxpleban26

Con

Maxpleban26 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Even though he Forfeited a round.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Friendly reminder,,,
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
That's why I said it didn't matter. I just love to argue last, but I'll goback to having my debates reserve and designate the first round for acceptance.
Posted by SocialismBeatsGreed 3 years ago
SocialismBeatsGreed
Con really isn't doing this argument justice. As for the violation of rule 2 - it was rubbish anyway. The only difference between simple acceptance of the rules in round 2 and then arguing throughout the rest of the debate and what rule 2 was demanding is that Con would have to argue first and Pro would have the privilege of arguing last, which makes no since considering that he was the Con side of the argument, the Pro side was the side making the claim, and the Pro side was the side attempting to change the status quo. Would simply make no sense to force Con to argue first.

Anyway. Not like it matters, since Con is not doing much to challenge separation of church and state or the intent and meaning of the statement itself...
No votes have been placed for this debate.