The Instigator
JasperFrancisShickadance
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
YaHey
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The words "under God" should not be taken out of the Pledge.

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 2 votes the winner is...
YaHey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,142 times Debate No: 61881
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (2)

 

JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

I, Pro, concede and imply that "under God" should not be taken out of the American pledge of Allegiance. It is truly a matter of if you believe God is our Creator or not, but our founding Fathers did and this is something to be respected. The nation should not take the chance or risk it because, if the God many presidents and citizens of the USA believe in is real, then we should continue to put our trust in Him. It should not make atheists mad if those words are in the Pledge or on money because they don't believe in a God (why should it worry/concern them?). America is not an atheist country and we should not change how it is.
YaHey

Con

I'm guessing you want a shared burden of proof? I'll present my own case just in case.

R1: "It is truly a matter of if you believe God is our Creator or not..." Actually this has little to do with one's own belief in a God. Even if I were a Christian, and I know some who would agree with me, I would not like having the words "Under God" in the pledge and on our money. Some people can realize that our own personal religious beliefs should not be applied to everyone.

R2: "...but our founding Fathers did and this is something to be respected." Sorry to be that guy, but these were the elite of the elite and also valued the South's economy more than setting the slaves free. Yeah the Constitution was cool and all, but these guys are dead, alright? I doubt they will be turning in their graves if we take God out of the pledge, especially since they didn't put it in.

R2: "The nation should not take the chance or risk it because, if the God many presidents and citizens of the USA believe in is real..." I concede more Americans are Christian than not, but the good thing about America is that that means almost nothing! From how Congress was designed so the little states would not be trampled by the bigger states, and the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal rights to all citizens, we kind of made the country so the opinions of the majority isn't the law of the land.

"... the God many presidents... believe in is real..." I found some interesting quotes for you.

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than thsoe which spring from any other cause."[George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792]

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1790.

Thomas Jefferson even made his own Bible, where he cut out all the magic stuff. A process he called "pulling diamonds from a dunghill".

Did you know there isn't a single mention of Jesus in the Constitution? That almost seems intentional.

R3: " It should not make atheists mad if those words are in the Pledge or on money because they don't believe in a God (why should it worry/concern them?" An atheist, and any non-Christian should be very upset that God is on the money/pledge. You see, since our money is not based on the gold standard, the value in the money is pretty much trust. When I have $20, what I really have is trust that this $20 dollar bill will be worth that amount. So my money, which is backed by trust, is placed under something I don't even believe exists. Do you see where the problem is?

Same for any other non-Christian American. They're money is placed under something they don't believe exists, instead of what they personally worship.

R4: "America is not an atheist country and we should not change how it is." Well, if by atheist you mean secular, then yeah it really is. God is not in our school system (despite the efforts of some) and we have an amendment guaranteeing the right to practice any religion. Though many politicians like to talk of bringing Good Ol' Jesus back, he really shouldn't have been there in the first place. God was only put into the pledge/money because we got scared of the Commies in the 50's.

"More than a decade later, Congress in 1954, after lobbying from the Knights of Columbus and amid a red scare over the threat of the Soviet Union, added the phrase “under God” to the pledge, which even then drew lawsuits over the constitutionality over its inclusion. [1]"

Case/Conclusion: I have sort of made a case throughout my rebuttals, but let me bring it together. The religious views of the founding Fathers is ultimately unimportant, as they're dead at times have changed. Something we can't throw at the window, like the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli, either exclude any mention of Jesus, give the right to worship any religion, or state outright we are not, nor have we ever been, a Christian nation. We were founded as a secular nation, due to a fear we would end up like Britain, the place we just freed ourselves from. The founding fathers you claim were religious also stated outright a dislike for religion.

The addition of under god onto the money and the pledge were done out of fear of those damn Communists taking away religion. However, it has been over 50 years. I don't think those damn Communists are going to take away your Jesus anytime soon.

Instead of just restating things I already have, I also have a new point to make. Americans don't even follow the commandments of Jesus that much. These commandments would include:
  • Divorce (between 40 and 50 percent, [2])
  • Don't retaliate (World War 2, bombing the middle east for 9/11)
  • Give all your money to the poor (Did I say "damn Communists yet?)
  • Don't judge (self explanatory, I think)

Here's a great video about this topic.

https://www.youtube.com...

Sources:
1. http://news.discovery.com...

2. http://www.apa.org...;

Debate Round No. 1
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Thank you for accepting, YaHey! We have had previous debates together and I'm sure this one will be just as memorable as the others. So: onward. Let the debating begin.

It is a shared Burden of Proof. But technically this means there is no Burden of Proof, we just do the debate and attempt to refute the others' claims. BoP always follows your natural argument, and if not, the argument fails to meet the needs of your specified position.

REBUTTALS

"Actually this has little to do with one's own belief in a God. Even if I were a Christian, and I know some who would agree with me, I would not like having the words "Under God" in the pledge and on our money. Some people can realize that our own personal religious beliefs should not be applied to everyone." This is a huge misconception, and I see where you're coming from, but it obviously doesn't apply to you because you are not a Christian. Thus you saying "if I was a Christian" is a bit too bold. It is entirely a matter of if you believe God is our Creator or not. Why believe in a God who isn't our Creator and didn't/can't do anything for us? More-so, why have it on our money and Pledge if it has no real, deep meaning? Because of the complex-yet-simple creation story which Christians believe in, many people also believe we need to trust in God to hold everything together. As Christians we believe God is stronger, all powerful, and bigger than any and all of us little humans therefore we DO trust that God will keep this country under control (free).

Somebody in the comments suggested that the 'God' that we talk about in the Pledge doesn't have to be the Christian one. All--or most--religions that America represents and that Americans practice or believe in, have a certain G(g)od, and obviously the Pledge doesn't specify the God it is talking about. I think you should take that in consideration and realize that, though Christianity is definitely the majority here in America (estimated 77% is identified as Christian), the Pledge doesn't only represent the Christian belief's God but instead Catholicism, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and the list goes on. [1]

"Sorry to be that guy, but these were the elite of the elite and also valued the South's economy more than setting the slaves free. Yeah the Constitution was cool and all, but these guys are dead, alright?" So you're saying the Constitution is the past so we shouldn't respect it's morals, much less look up to the first few American presidents. That's a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding discussion. Besides, it doesn't have to do with this debate, as we are talking about the Pledge not the Constitution.

"I concede more Americans are Christian than not, but the good thing about America is that that means almost nothing! From how Congress was designed so the little states would not be trampled by the bigger states, and the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal rights to all citizens, we kind of made the country so the opinions of the majority isn't the law of the land." Well obviously the majority isn't the objection and the minority often takes over in a way. Example: the fact that homosexuality is exposed and we are forced to believe publically that it is perfectly fine--even though less than 5% of America is gay/same-sex married. [2]

For every quote you presented I could give three times as many of presidents saying they trust God and that Psalm 33:12 is correct. [3] But because this is slightly off topic, I will only give what George Washington said (being my favorite one): "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor."

"Did you know there isn't a single mention of Jesus in the Constitution? That almost seems intentional." It is intentional, because as I said earlier, the word used in the Pledge--'God'--does not only represent Christianity.

"An atheist, and any non-Christian should be very upset that God is on the money/pledge. You see, since our money is not based on the gold standard, the value in the money is pretty much trust. When I have $20, what I really have is trust that this $20 dollar bill will be worth that amount. So my money, which is backed by trust, is placed under something I don't even believe exists. Do you see where the problem is?"
No, because there is no real problem. The words on the money does no harm and the $20 is still in the bank. You are getting off track again.

Saying the exact words in the Pledge or leaving two words out is a choice for kids in school (or anyone).

"Well, if by atheist you mean secular, then yeah it really is. God is not in our school system (despite the efforts of some) and we have an amendment guaranteeing the right to practice any religion. Though many politicians like to talk of bringing Good Ol' Jesus back, he really shouldn't have been there in the first place. God was only put into the pledge/money because we got scared of the Commies in the 50's."
I don't mean secular. I mean that 70% of American citizens believe in a God. So you think communists scared the leaders of this early country and forced them to write about God? Explain. This should be interesting.

"Americans don't even follow the commandments of Jesus that much." I never said America was a Christian country, only that it's definitely not an atheist country. Do you believe our president is Christian? I don't, though I do believe he believes in a G(g)od. Remember, this debate is about the Pledge and we should continue to at least mention that our nation is entrusted to God and we can refer to anyone who believes in God as a theist not a Christian. Yes, we are sinners. Nobody's perfect But this has nothing to do with how we believe in God.

SOURCES

[1] http://religions.pewforum.org...

[2] http://gaylife.about.com...

[3] http://www.usachristianministries.com...
YaHey

Con

R1: This is a response to your first rebuttal. I understand the importance of God to Christians, but that wasn't my point. This isn't a matter of faith in God, its a matter of how much that faith will play into our government, if at all.

R2: Well here we have a definite contradiction in your argument. In your first paragraph you talk of the importance that God has on Christians, not in general. You obviously assumed, as did I, that God means the Christian one. And even if you did mean for this to apply to all religions (though it could only apply to monotheistic ones as it is "under capital G-o-d, and it can't be Buddhism because Buddhism doesn't require a belief in a god) it still wouldn't be right, as it assumes some religion or belief in a god. Which, by the way, is unconstitutional, as it restricts the freedom to religion, and the freedom from.

R3: Okay, I could have worded that better, I apologize. I mean to say that the Constitution was neat, but these guys, not the Constitution, aren't infallible prophets for writing it. The Constitution doesn't say anything about being based on Christianity, so it doesn't exactly help your case. In fact, I use both the Constitution and quotes from the first presidents in my later arguments, though the latter isn't that important. Because their dead. Lastly, it does apply. The pledge is for America, and America's law system is based on the Constitution, so the pledge must be, at the very least, not unconstitutional.

R4: Oh my god we had a debate about that and I think I showed you wrong. Up until very recently gay people were prosecuted and that changed when the majority of the public realized being homophobic was wrong. The majority of Americans decided to change laws to protect those minorities.

R5: Yeah I don't doubt that these people were Christians and they believed in the Christian god. My point in bringing up these quotes was too show that the opinion of these people were irrelevant.

R6: To be fair, you only brought up this defense because it was brought to your attention. Nowhere in the first round did you bring up that argument, and I find its inclusion to be a little cheap. However, George Washington's quote just says God, yet I would bet my life's saving that you don't doubt his Christianity. Also, I don't believe the Constitution to say anything about a god, either. Oh wait, there was that part about the freedom to choose, which I would assume means the choice to not choose as well, a religion and that no religious test is necessary for holders of public office.

R7: It doesn't have to do with the Pledge, I give you, but I think they're in the same ball park. I mean if we got God off the pledge, I think getting him off money is the next step. But if you only want to talk about one and only one instance of which religion is being forced onto people by the government, then I will oblige.

R8: Then it's also a choice to say them, now isn't it? If kids want to say God they can but let's not pretend they're not expected to. Especially little kids. They're given a script and told to repeat it.

R9: Whoa whoa whoa, I think a little bit of a history lesson is required here. We weren't an "early country" when this was implemented. Oh no, I'm talking the late 1950's. You know, when we were afraid of the Communists? I even gave a link about this!

R10: You implied it was a Christian country by not specifying it wasn't, and even in this round by talking about specifically the Christian religion. When you say capital G-o-d in the Western world people assume Christianity, especially since the only other plausible competitor, Islam, usually calls their god Allah. Even Muslims in English speaking countries.

You wanna talk to me about getting off topic, when you casually throw in the completely innocent and not loaded question "Do you think the president believes in God? I don't." Please, at least my digressions, which some I don't even believe to be digressions, were in the same ball park.
Debate Round No. 2
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

REBUTTAL 2/3

"I understand the importance of God to Christians, but that wasn't my point. This isn't a matter of faith in God, its a matter of how much that faith will play into our government, if at all."
I agree. You doubt that the government needs to trust a God in anything, as a typical atheist would do. This is why your argument is not sound. We are talking about the Pledge, and three fourths of Americans believe in the God you are trying to take out of the picture.

"Well here we have a definite contradiction in your argument. In your first paragraph you talk of the importance that God has on Christians, not in general. You obviously assumed, as did I, that God means the Christian one. And even if you did mean for this to apply to all religions (though it could only apply to monotheistic ones as it is "under capital G-o-d, and it can't be Buddhism because Buddhism doesn't require a belief in a god) it still wouldn't be right, as it assumes some religion or belief in a god. Which, by the way, is unconstitutional, as it restricts the freedom to religion, and the freedom from."
OK, well obviously no Bhuddists have gotten mad at the government or anything of sort, but there actually is a God involved in Buddhism even if that is something we are going to choose to argue about. [1] Besides that, all the other religions include a G(g)od and each one, according to their religion, is "true" therefore it's a capitol G. I fail to see how this is unconstitutional. [2]

"Okay, I could have worded that better, I apologize. I mean to say that the Constitution was neat, but these guys, not the Constitution, aren't infallible prophets for writing it. The Constitution doesn't say anything about being based on Christianity, so it doesn't exactly help your case. In fact, I use both the Constitution and quotes from the first presidents in my later arguments, though the latter isn't that important. Because their dead. Lastly, it does apply. The pledge is for America, and America's law system is based on the Constitution, so the pledge must be, at the very least, not unconstitutional."
You say the Constitution is written by old dudes who we couldn't possibly agree with now days, but then you say the Pledge needs to be based off it because it represents America...! Um, clarification needed AGAIN here.

"Oh my god we had a debate about that and I think I showed you wrong." Great to know, Mr. Cocky-pants.

"Up until very recently gay people were prosecuted and that changed when the majority of the public realized being homophobic was wrong. The majority of Americans decided to change laws to protect those minorities."
Homophobia is natural, just like homosexuality supposedly is! How can you condone those who don't agree with it and are labeled homophobic, and then say being gay is not a choice?

"Yeah I don't doubt that these people were Christians and they believed in the Christian god. My point in bringing up these quotes was too show that the opinion of these people were irrelevant."
This whole debate you've been saying that the writers of the Constitution and Pledge are completely irrelevant, even though they are--after all--the people who came up with the words we are still following today...they were presidents, alright? They had to do everything they could to keep citizens (of all religion) happy.

"It doesn't have to do with the Pledge, I give you, but I think they're in the same ball park. I mean if we got God off the pledge, I think getting him off money is the next step. But if you only want to talk about one and only one instance of which religion is being forced onto people by the government, then I will oblige."
Yeah I was planning on keeping this debate on 1 subject. We are arguing about the Pledge, not money.

"Then it's also a choice to say them, now isn't it? If kids want to say God they can but let's not pretend they're not expected to. Especially little kids. They're given a script and told to repeat it."
Take science textbooks. Most show the evolutionary process and then call it utter fact, without any exceptions. Aren't little kids reading that too? And it wouldn't work if the Christian kids all said 'under God' while the non-theistic kids wait awkwardly. That kind of thing would only work the other way around, if God was still officially part of the pledge.

"You implied it was a Christian country by not specifying it wasn't, and even in this round by talking about specifically the Christian religion. When you say capital G-o-d in the Western world people assume Christianity, especially since the only other plausible competitor, Islam, usually calls their god Allah. Even Muslims in English speaking countries."
First I never implied that America was a Christian country. You give no example of where I said it and I still know that the definition of God is "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being" and you can't argue that this applies to Islam and other monotheistic religions. [3]

"You wanna talk to me about getting off topic, when you casually throw in the completely innocent and not loaded question "Do you think the president believes in God? I don't." Please, at least my digressions, which some I don't even believe to be digressions, were in the same ball park."
You're the one who got us into debating about whether the Founding Fathers were believers in God. I concede that I was a bit harsh, if that's the word, when saying you were off topic.

In 2004 the Court ruled unanimously to keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. [4] So it's not like you atheists haven't tried, it's just that the majority believes America is really in the trust of God (or a G[g]od) and that letting go of that wouldn't be right.

SOURCES

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

[2] http://www.everystudent.com...

[3] http://www.google.com...

[4] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
YaHey

Con

Response 1: I never said Buddhists can't have a god, I said they don't require one. This isn't a debate about Buddhism, though. Hinduism can include multiple gods, and some people worship Satan, who isn't a god at all. Having God in the pledge is unconstitutional as it implies the necessity to believe in one.

Response 2: I really thought I explained it, but here we go. In your first argument you said the opinions of these men had to be respected, as if there own opinions on something completely separate from their work is an authority. I am saying the Constitution is important, as it lays the groundwork for our government, yet the opinions of the founding fathers on anything other than government has no place here.

Response 2.1: "Great to know Mr. Cocky-pants." To be fair, you've stated outright you won in the final round of one of our debates. But not apart of this debate.

R3: Homosexuality is natural, as is homophobia. Just like berries and cyanide.

R4: I think we're getting a bit mixed up in our arguments. So, I think you and I need to agree on something now. How about we agree that the opinions of these early presidents aren't important, but what is in the Constitution is. I can back this up, because the Constitution is law and the opinions of these men aren't. Alright?

R5: I still think the two are entertwined but all right.

R6: What elementary school did you go to where you were taugh evolutionary theory in the elementary school? I didn't even hear it mentioned in my school until 8th grade, and that was only for my teacher to tell me I'd learn it later. Also, that scenario is what you are proposing. I mean if these kids really want to take the extra effort to worship their god while pledging themselves to a secular country then they can mutter it under their breathe or think it in their mind after it is over.

R7: I meant God was a Christian term. I did, actually, argue that how you were using God wasn't meant to apply to Islam, but I guess we are just throwing that out.

R8: Again, please, hold up. You mentioned the sanctity of the founding father's opinions in the first argument. Here's a quote for you: " It is truly a matter of if you believe God is our Creator or not, but our founding Fathers did and this is something to be respected."

R9: The Supreme Court did make its ruling, and I disagree with it. Also, on the Supreme Court during the time, all 9 were religious, with 4 Roman Catholics, 3 Jewish, and 2 Episcopals. I'm sure that none of them were biased at all.

Here's a question. Are people allowed to be atheists in America? If yes, then America isn't about trusting in God. If no, then you must live in a different America than I.

Oh, and just for the fun of it, I am leaving a link with some... interesting Supreme Court decisions.

http://newhampshire.watchdog.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

A god is an idol, and idol is a widely defined word that we can use for things ranging from television to an effigy in a religion which you worship to food. Therefore the Pledge does not only represent Christianity.

REBUTTALS 3/3

"In your first argument you said the opinions of these men had to be respected, as if there own opinions on something completely separate from their work is an authority. I am saying the Constitution is important, as it lays the groundwork for our government, yet the opinions of the founding fathers on anything other than government has no place here."
Let me make things unconfuzzled because right now my opponent and a person in the comments have misunderstood me when I brought our Founding Fathers into the subject. Because of the faith some of the Founding Fathers had and made public, the Communists have very little to do with why America has been considered to put its trust in God.

" So, I think you and I need to agree on something now. How about we agree that the opinions of these early presidents aren't important, but what is in the Constitution is. I can back this up, because the Constitution is law and the opinions of these men aren't. Alright?"
We can agree that the Constitution is a valid argument, that the Founding Fathers is not, but also that the Communism argument is invalid to this debate because of what I have presented. But...now that it's the last round...I think we can just move on...

"What elementary school did you go to where you were taugh evolutionary theory in the elementary school? I didn't even hear it mentioned in my school until 8th grade, and that was only for my teacher to tell me I'd learn it later. Also, that scenario is what you are proposing. I mean if these kids really want to take the extra effort to worship their god while pledging themselves to a secular country then they can mutter it under their breathe or think it in their mind after it is over. "
Ever since I was in third grade the non-faith based textbooks for science have included something about the process of Evolution. In the same textbooks abiogenesis would be explained as the Big Bang, which I don't believe in either. The Pledge isn't just about children saying it in school. It is the proclamation to all that this country is under God, whether some of us believe in Him and some of us do not.

What's wrong with this statement, I'd like to know? 'It is truly a matter of if you believe God is our Creator or not, but our founding Fathers did and this is something to be respected.' It would be nice for us all to see why you keep criticizing this.

"Here's a question. Are people allowed to be atheists in America? If yes, then America isn't about trusting in God. If no, then you must live in a different America than I." America is about freedom, and yes, it is a choice to trust God. However, what if we do just abandon God, as if the majority of America believes He is folly and a myth? Ever wonder about Israel, God's chosen country, which is surrounded by 21 Arab countries? [2], [3]. 21 out of 21 countries hate Israel yet it manages to keep together. What's your point?

CONCLUSION

It is not worth the effort, time and argument to take the two words "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Court will do it if they want but if I were president I wouldn't allow it because of the disagreement that might corrupt between citizens and the bigger issues that could come upon America because we don't believe the nation is truly under God's strength and protection. In this debate, I have not successfully been proven wrong, but I encourage readers to vote as they see fitting.

SOURCES

[1] http://www.google.com...

[2] http://in.answers.yahoo.com...

[3] http://www.israeldefense.com...
YaHey

Con

R1: But the word is not god, it is God. God is not a god, he is the god. In America, God is often used to talk about the Christian god. It is silly to think that Eisenhower or the Knights of the Columbus were referring to all religions. Still, this is not Constitutional as it presumes a faith in a god.

R2: Um... All the sources I have found about the pledge indicate the change was because of the Communists [1] [2].

R3: My Communist argument was the rebuttal to your early president argument. So if we throw out the early presidents we can also throw out the Communist argument.

R4: Well those text books are wrong, or you misunderstood them, because the Big Bang is the explanation to the event that caused our universe, not abiogenesis, which is how life got on Earth. Also, if we are a secular country, and everything points to us being besides this pledge, then we shouldn't be a country putting faith in a god. That's kind of ridiculous, if you think about it. I am pledging my obediance to a country that puts its faith in something I don't even think exists.

R5: I mentioned that quote again because of your statement "You're the one who got us into debating about whether the Founding Fathers were believers in God. I concede that I was a bit harsh, if that's the word, when saying you were off topic." I was showing it was you that started the conversation about the founding fathers' beliefs.

R6: This is a response to your... Israel argument? I really don't know what to make of this. Are you saying that if we abondon God we will be surrounded by countries that hate us? I mean, the Middle East kind of already does so I don't really know your point. Even so, Sweden is a secular country but they haven't been Sodom and Gomorrahed.

R7: So your final, end all argument is that it isn't worth the trouble? Where would anyone be if they didn't change anything because it wouldn't be worth the effort? That's really the weakest argument I've seen. I know this is the last round, so you can't really respond, but what would happen if we took out any mention of God from the pledge? Would the world end? Would God wipe us off the face of the planet? Would hardly anything change besides a bunch of people getting upset they can't force their religion onto everyone else? It's a question worth asking.

Sources:

[1] http://www.ushistory.org...

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com...


Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
Happily. First off there's the part where you showed pretty big disdain for having to accept gays despite them being a mere 5% of the population. Then throughout the debate you made references to the fact that Christians are a huge majority of Americans, and I interpreted those remarks as saying atheistic ideals should be overruled by the religious ideals.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Could you explain this statement of yours, A-D?

"I felt that Con had the stronger arguments because Pro's arguments were centered around the fact that if most people have one ideology, it is okay to discriminate in their favor."

How did I show that in my argument?
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
This should be a long RFD, please bear with me.... I am awarding the conduct point to Con due to Pro's accusations that Con was going off topic, while they themselves had many off-topic arguments (bringing up the founding fathers and then dropping it, is one example)... S&G is being awarded to pro due to the fact that Con had many spelling mistakes throughout the debate (e.g. wrong form of "their" was a common one)... Arguments is going to have to go to Con. I felt that Con had the stronger arguments because Pro's arguments were centered around the fact that if most people have one ideology, it is okay to discriminate in their favor. Con also struck down Pro's mention of a supreme court case by showing some horrifyingly bad supreme court cases (I personally believe that Korematsu v. US was a worse decision than Dred Scott v. Sanford, but I digress). Con also proved that the founding fathers never intended for the united states to be a Christian nation. Pro also had some ridiculous contentions (see the mention of gay marriage in round 2... I am giving Con the points for sources because I was able to count five reliable sources of theirs, as opposed to three from Pro. Forums, about.com, and yahoo answers are not reliable sources.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
YaHey did the clarifying ;)
Posted by SamStevens 2 years ago
SamStevens
Oh. Well thank you for the clarification.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Yeah...I thought this was over after I apologized... xD
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
She said SS, which stood for Sam Stevens. The parenthesis was the part that she did not include.
Posted by SamStevens 2 years ago
SamStevens
JasperFrancisShickadance, Sure
Posted by SamStevens 2 years ago
SamStevens
YaHey, what is with the parenthesis?
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
OMG I am so sorry ROFL I didn't realize that when I wrote it :D <:} $)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
JasperFrancisShickadanceYaHeyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: tell me later to vote on this if I do not.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
JasperFrancisShickadanceYaHeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.