The Instigator
kasmic
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

"Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of allegiance.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/1/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,161 times Debate No: 79054
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (67)
Votes (5)

 

kasmic

Pro

"Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of allegiance.

Text of the pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Please comment if you are interested in debating this topic.

72hrs/6,000 Characters/Select Winner/4 rounds

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Present case
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Overiew of debate/closing statement (No new arguements)
Romanii

Con

A rematch at last!
I accept the debate.
Good luck, Kasmic ;)
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Pro

Thanks Romanii for accepting! Good luck to you may friend.

Case Structure:

I will provide a thorough overview and background comprising of the historical background, purpose of the pledge, who says the pledge, and the concept of separation of church and state. After which I will present the case for removing the phrase from the pledge.

1: Historical Background

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."(1)

2: The Purpose of the Pledge

The purpose of the pledge is to promote unity as Americans. Hence, phrases like "one nation," and "indivisible." The phrase "Under God" in the pledge is not helping this purpose. Rather, it alienates and separates atheist Americans from theists Americans, causing a division. This is evident from the following links. (2)(3) The pledge of allegiance is a way to outwardly express your patriotism.

3: Who says the Pledge

As an adult I have not had many opportunities to recite the pledge. However, as a child, the public schools I attended said it every day.

4: Separation of Church and State

Thomas Jefferson, who is accredited with writing the Declaration of Independence and was the 3rd President of the United States, wrote the following to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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 & State."(4)

James Madison "The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the church from the state."

Jefferson and Madison clearly believed that the constitution solidified a separation of church and state with the first amendment phrase "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." An overwhelming majority of Americans agree with this interpretation.(5)

Now that we have the proper context on the topic here is my case.

My Case:

The phrase "under God" does not promote patriotism and is thus out of place. It was not originally in the pledge thus there is no historical case to be made that would justify keeping the phrase. The justification of adding the phrase under God includes the "threat of communism." The cold war has been over for more than 20 years. The justification used for adding the phrase is no longer a current concern. It is a breach the separation of church and state that atheists parents who’s kids are sent to public schools are made to participate in a pledge that includes God.(6) With such a separation supposedly to exist, it is amazing that the phrase "under God" ever made its way into the pledge, let alone remain there.

The result of removing this phrase would allow the pledge to fill its purpose as a unifying demonstration of patriotism, and support the Constitutional value that church and state should be separate.

Thus, “Under God” should be removed from the pledge.

Sources:

(1)
http://www.ushistory.org...
(2) http://www.christianpost.com...
(3)
http://www.aleteia.org...
(4)
http://www.loc.gov...
(5)
https://www.au.org...
(6)
http://undergod.procon.org...

Romanii

Con

Thank to Kasmic for his arguments.
This round I'll be putting forth my constructive case.
In order to avoid repetitiveness, "separation of church and state" will henceforth be referred to as "SCS".

C1) SCS is not violated

The existence of SCS as a legal principle stems solely the 'establishment clause' of the Constitution's first amendment, and therefore we should look to that clause in order to determine the parameters of SCS; it reads -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." From this, we see that only two specific government actions are being prohibited. Firstly, it disallows the use of state power to specially promote any particular religion (e.g. creating an official state religion or publicly funding religious monuments, proselytization, festivities, etc). Secondly, it prevents the government from making laws which directly infringe upon people's freedom of religion (e.g. banning or forcefully imposing certain religious beliefs or practices upon people).

Obviously, I maintain that the inclusion of the phrase "Under God" in the pledge falls into neither of the prohibited categories. The phrase clearly does not favor any single religion; it is, at worst, a neutral reference to theism (which is not an "establishment of religion"). Furthermore, "Under God" cannot reasonably be construed as imposing theism on anyone because (1) saying the pledge is not mandatory, which removes the coercive element that is necessary for it to be considered an infringement of freedom, (2) there is no intent to even vaguely 'promote' theism evident in the inclusion of the phrase, and (3) the phrase can be interpreted as being purely symbolic -- of "God-given rights" and the deistic tradition of the Founding Fathers -- so saying "one nation under God" does not necessarily imply any sort of acknowledgement that God exists.

C2) Opportunity Cost

In practicality, any attempt at actually removing the phrase "Under God" from the pledge is going to take up a large amount of time and resources on the part of Congress due to its general predisposition towards inefficiency, coupled with the inevitable emotional back-lash (Christians - including politicians - tend to feel as if they are "under attack" when religious traditions are threatened). However, the issue of "Under God" being in the pledge has literally *no* serious impact on *anyone*. There is a nearly-infinite number of vastly more important issues which actually affect millions of people -- reforming the welfare system, dealing with illegal immigration, helping Americans cope with the exorbitant costs of healthcare, fixing the public education system, implementing gun control laws, improving law enforcement efficacy, beginning the long process of campaign finance reform... the list goes on. The point is that even if the phrase "Under God" technically is a violation of SCS, the process of removing it from the pledge incurs a gigantic opportunity cost because there will *always* be other enormously more important issues which Congress could and should be spending its time/resources on.

=============
CONCLUSION
=============

1. The pledge does not "respect an establishment of religion" or "prohibit the free exercise [of religion]"

2. The empirical impacts of the issue are negligible to the point that, in practicality, Congress cannot afford to waste its limited time and resources on addressing it. (In other words -- who cares?)

The resolution is negated.
Back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Pro

Thanks Romanii, articulate as always.

Rebuttals:

Con claims That “”Under God" cannot reasonably be construed as imposing theism on anyone…” He provides 3 warrants to this claim.

1: Con claims that saying the pledge is not mandatory.
2: Con claims that “there is no intent to even vaguely 'promote' theism”
3: Con claims that “the phrase can be interpreted as being purely symbolic”

Thus if I can show the converse, it follows that the phrase does impose theism on citizens and thus violates the SCS.

R1: This is flatly false as shown by my sources in my opening argument. First it is important to understand that peer pressure, even considering if students' had the right to opt out, would still constitute religious coercion. Secondly and worse “43 states have laws regarding requirements for student recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools.” (1) In fact, when “Under God” was added President Eisenhower stated that "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war." (2) Thus we see this “coercive element” constitutes an infringement of freedom.

R2: Again, flatly false. The addition of the phrase under God to the pledge was exactly intended to distinguish theism from Godless Communism. I refer you to the quote I just presented above. The phrase is meant to “reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future…”

R3: The phrase can be interpreted purely symbolically, though only if you are willing to dismiss the context in which the phrase was added. With this context we see that the phrase was intended to “the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.” It necessarily implies the existence of God.

We see then by con’s own standard that the phrase can reasonable be construed as imposing theism. This is because….

1: In public settings (like public schools) reciting the pledge is often mandatory.
2: The intent of the phrase is to promote theism
3: Historical context shows the phrase not purely symbolic.

As the phrase clearly imposes theism it is clear that this constitutes a violation of the SCS.

This leaves Con’s only contention in his words being “who cares.” That is to say he thinks this issue not important enough to address. Let's be clear that the resolution says "should." Con is arguing that there are more pressing or important matters that Congress should attend to. That doesn't matter. The question was posed as a "should" in order to explore the need or impacts of the government taking this action. Con cannot simply argue that there are more pressing issues, otherwise we'd never get to the basic question of the debate. He has to show why the government should not remove the phrase or harm posed by doing so. He hasn't presented any such harms, merely stating “who cares.” He'll need to do more than that to win on this point. Aside from this we see through this debate that it is an important issue, and that there is real harm to religious freedom and constitutional values.

Conclusion:

Con’s arguments though well written, have been soundly refuted. The phrase “Under God” imposes theism and is thus a violation of the SCS. Con’s contention of “who cares” misses the mark and side steps the issue of this debate. The resolution is affirmed.

"Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of allegiance

Sources:

(1) http://undergod.procon.org...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...

Romanii

Con

Thanks, Kasmic.
This round, I will rebut Pro's case and defend my own.
For the sake of simplicity, I'm merging Pro's SCS contention with my own.


== AFF CASE ==


R1) History

Pro's argument here seems to be that "Under God" was originally included in response to the rise of Communism, so the lack of current threat from Communism means that "Under God" should be removed. However, that argument presumes Originalism -- the principle that the intent of the author(s) determines the objective meaning/significance of a text. Pro has given us no reason to accept Originalism; I contend that textual meanings are subjective and can therefore change over time. The main context in which Originalism used to be applied was Constitutional interpretation, and even in that field, Originalism has largely been rejected for pragmatic reasons [1][2]. There is no reason to apply the original significance of the phrase "Under God" to it as it is used today. Pro's argument fails.


R2) Purpose

Pro says that the phrase "Under God" goes against the purpose of the pledge (promoting national unity) by alienating atheistic Americans. Firstly, cross-apply my symbolism sub-point from C1, which demonstrates that there is no real alienation resulting from the phrase's inclusion. Secondly, even if it does "alienate" atheists, the very existence of an official national pledge already "alienates" a significant minority of citizens, including unpatriotic Americans, anarchists, and members of certain religious sects which believe it to be a sin to pledge allegiance to any entity lesser than God (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) [3][4]. If the Supreme Court felt that an adequate solution to this "alienation" was to simply make saying the pledge non-compulsory [4], then why shouldn't that also be enough to account for atheistic "alienation"?


== NEG CASE ==


C1) SCS


I gave three sub-points demonstrating that "Under God" does NOT "prohibit the free exercise [of religion]" by imposing theism on atheists. Pro attempts to refute all three.

1a. Pro observes that 43 states have laws requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. However, in the Supreme Court decision "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette", it was decided that such laws are unconstitutional and cannot legally be enforced [4]. So students *do* have the right to not say the pledge -- it is not mandatory. Individual states have merely neglected to change their official legislatures on the issue. The fact that states have yet to do so *72 years* after the said SC decision just feeds into my second contention by demonstrating what a negligible issue this is.

1b. Pro also brings up that peer pressure to say the pledge constitutes "religious coercion", but that is simply untrue. No matter how strong of a social stigma there is against certain uses of our rights, we are still fully capable of valuing our freedom over social repercussions and exercising those rights. Social pressures have no bearing on the actual existence of our rights. Moreover, Pro has not demonstrated that the pressure to say the pledge is particularly strong.

2-3. Both of these rebuttals assume Originalism, which I have already given reasons to reject. The fact that "Under God" was originally included with the purpose of imposing theism does not falsify either of my points because I am referring to the way the phrase is used in *modern* times. As it is now, the phrase "Under God" can very plausibly be interpreted as purely symbolic, and that view is corroborated by the ceremonial presence of such symbolic references elsewhere in the public sphere, such as in currency ("In God we trust") and in common court rituals ("God save this honorable court").


C2) Opp Cost


Pro's response makes no sense. He just states the resolution says "should" and somehow expects us to accept that as sufficient reason to dismiss the practical consequences of affirming the resolution. Any time we consider whether or not we "should" do something, the results of actually *doing* it would obviously factor into our decision. What I'm arguing here is that the act of removing "Under God" from the pledge would have negative results in the form of a massive opportunity cost. Violating an abstract principle of governance like SCS produces no empirical harms of its own -- Pro has yet to show how a single person would be seriously affected by keeping "Under God" in the pledge; meanwhile, the infinite number of other issues Congress could instead be spending its limited time & resources on affect the physical well-being of millions of people. So regardless of whether or not "Under God" violates SCS, affirming the resolution harms millions of people by causing Congress to focus its resources on changing the Pledge instead of fixing more substantial problems.


-


The resolution is negated.
Back to you, Kasmic!



[1] http://papers.ssrn.com...
[2] http://papers.ssrn.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Pro

Thanks Romanii, this has been an entertaining debate.

Final rebuttal:

Con interprets the part my argument that “Under God” was added in response to communism to presume originalism. Rather, I was only providing historical context. Demonstrating that the justification used for adding the phrase is no longer a current concern. This was purely to provide context.

The historical background provided as to what the phrase “Under God” means is essential to this debate as it is providing proper context. I have demonstrated thoroughly that the phrase was intended and still implies theism. Con wants to reject this context stating “that textual meanings are subjective and can therefore change over time.” This is unfortunately an incomplete contention. Claiming that phrases change meaning over time is only slight mitigation at best. Con has provided no justification to believe that this phrase has had a change in meaning. He has also provided no alternative reasonable interpretation it could possibly have. Thus the interpretation implied with historical context is preferred in this debate as it is the only interpretation provided. As this is the final round it is also to late for con to offer an alternative.

Thus the meaning of “under God” has been determined in this debate to promote theism.

Con contends that “If the Supreme Court felt that an adequate solution to this "alienation" was to simply make saying the pledge non-compulsory [4], then why shouldn't that also be enough to account for atheistic "alienation"? “ If anything this supports my case. As we see that in many cases saying the pledge is often compulsory. (1) This the Supreme Court agrees that this is alienation. Why does my opponent contend this?

I demonstrated last round that in public settings (like public schools) reciting the pledge is often mandatory. Con attempts to refute this citing the Supreme Court case from above. The Supreme Court Case was 72 years ago. As we see, as of 2003 many States still require mandatory participation. This demonstrates the coercive element. While the Court may have ruled such laws unconstitutional and unable to be enforced, in many places it is enforced. Students unaware of their rights are coerced into saying the pledge often. Con then argues that social pressures have no bearing on the actual existence of rights. That may be true but it has a huge bearing on the reality or exercising of those rights. When rights are violated it does not cause rights to not exist, it is a violation of existing rights. Finally con contends that I have not demonstrated pressure to say the pledge is very strong. To the contrary showing that public schools all across the nation require it unjustly demonstrates real pressure and coercion.

Con attempted to extend his opportunity cost contention. This is a fallacy. (2) Essentially con is arguing that my “arguments about issues are minimized, deemed unimportant, or dismissed on the grounds that more important topics and issues exist, regardless of whether these problems are relevant to the question at hand or not.”(2) This is known as the Fallacy of relative Privation. By doing so, he is side stepping the resolution.

Overview of debate:

Con’s first contention was negated soundly as I demonstrated that

1: In public settings (like public schools) reciting the pledge is often mandatory.
2: The intent of the phrase is to promote theism
3: Historical context shows the phrase not purely symbolic.

As the phrase clearly imposes theism it is clear that this constitutes a violation of the SCS. Even if you buy that the meaning of phrases change over time, he has not argued for or justified a different interpretation.

Con’s second contention is entirely off topic of the debate and is a fallacy. Rather than address this topic head on my opponent attempted to argue it unimportant.

My contentions stand.

The phrase “Under God” imposes theism. As many are coerced into reciting the pledge this is a violation of the SCS and personal rights. The result of removing this phrase would allow the pledge to fill its purpose as a unifying demonstration of patriotism, and support the Constitutional value that church and state should be separate.

Thus,

"Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of allegiance.

Thanks for reading,

Vote Pro.

Sources:

(1) http://undergod.procon.org...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...


Romanii

Con

Thanks to Kasmic for an interesting debate.
I'll organize this round by reviewing each of the major issues covered in the debate and showing why I won each of them.



== Originalism vs. Symbolism ==

Pro's only defense of Originalism is the blatantly false assertion that I have "provided no alternative reasonable interpretation" of "Under God". I clearly did posit that "Under God" can be interpreted as being symbolic of the deistic tradition of the Founding Fathers and the "God-given rights" of the people, and I supported the validity of this interpretation by noting the presence of other such ceremonial references in currency ("In God we trust") and court rituals ("God save this honorable court"). The only time Pro responded to any of this is when he said my interpretation disregards the historical context of "Under God", but like I said, the historical context is *irrelevant* if Originalism doesn't hold true.

Moreover, I actually gave a reason to *reject* Originalism by showing how it has been more or less discredited in the professional legal community, which, again, Pro didn't respond to. By dropping my objection and failing to provide any real positive reason to support it, Pro has essentially conceded that Originalism is false. On the other hand, my symbolic interpretation remains unscathed and validated, and it's the only interpretation left standing in the debate. The impact of this is that "Under God" has no theistic implications whatsoever; thus, there is no way for "Under God" to be considered a violation of SCS, nor can it justifiably be seen as alienating atheists. That leaves us with absolutely no reason to remove "Under God" from the pledge, and therefore the resolution is negated. Feel free to stop reading here and vote Con.


== Separation of Church & State ==

This comes down entirely to a single issue -- whether or not anyone is 'coerced' into saying the pledge. Without coercion, having "Under God" in the pledge cannot be construed as an infringement of religious freedom. Pro merely re-iterates that many states still have laws in place requiring the recitation of the pledge. However, as I said last round, while they may technically be around, they cannot be enforced. The reason why those states have yet to update their laws is that no legal issues have come up yet regarding the punishment of students who don't wish to say the pledge (which, again, shows how much of a non-issue this is). In response to my rebuttal that social pressure to recite the pledge is not very strong, Pro, once again, just says something about existing (unenforceable) laws, which has nothing to do with social pressures... Since Pro has not demonstrated otherwise, we can conclude that the right to opt out of saying the pledge does exist and can be freely exercised. Thus, regardless of whether "Under God" promotes theism or is symbolic, including it in the pledge does not violate SCS.


== Purpose of the Pledge ==

Pro argued that "Under God" contradicts the purpose of the Pledge by alienating atheists, but he misunderstands my rebuttal. My point was that the pledge, by virtue of its very existence, already alienates a significant minority of the population (Jehovah's Witnesses, etc), so we have two choices -- we either acknowledge that the pledge already fails at its purpose (which would nullify the impact of this argument), or we accept the Supreme Court's solution to the alleged problem of alienation (which would necessarily solve for atheistic alienation too). "Under God" does not contradict the purpose of the pledge any more than "I pledge allegiance" does.


== Opportunity Cost ==

Pro's only response is that this argument is a "fallacy of relative privation". However, I am *not* dismissing the "Under God" issue merely because more important issues exist; I was very specific in stating exactly why "Under God" should not be removed from the pledge -- because Congress would have to use a lot of time and resources in doing so, which could be better spent addressing political issues with actual empirical harms (which the "Under God" issue is bereft of). My reasoning here is *not* the combination of emotional appeal and non-sequitur which defines the fallacy of RP; it's a purely pragmatic utilitarian argument which demonstrates that implementing Pro's proposed motion incurs a massive opportunity cost.

If Pro wanted to discuss this issue in an isolated bubble without regard for the practical consequences of implementing the resolution, he should have made the resolution something along the lines of "Including 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance violates SCS". Pro has not drawn any blood on this argument at all, which is a problem for him because it independently negates the resolution, showing that affirming the resolution is an empirically bad idea even if all of Pro's purely abstract/theoretical arguments succeed. I would say "feel free to stop reading here and vote Con," but the end of the debate has already been reached.....



Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 4
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Thanks everyone for reading and voting!

Congrates Romanii on the win!
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
Thanks for the votes, everyone
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
RFD

1. History and Originalism

Pro's case begins with historical context in the original meaning of "Under God" in the pledge, and that such a meaning (to oppose communism) is no longer relevant. Con states that this argument lies on the faulty premise of Originalism, which we have no reason to assume in the first place. Pro responded with the claim that symbolism is dependent on original context, and that if no other interpretations exist, then original context should be bought by default. But Con says that 1) he already provided a deistic interpretation that includes "God-given fights" and is evidenced by the fact that such an interpretation is already used in government, and 2) symbolism is still subjective and there are multiple ways to interpret something. It's first use simply needn't by preferred for any reason. I lean Con.

2) Alienation

Pro argues that the Pledge is patriotic and that it's meant to unify Americans. The phrase "under God" doesn't unify all Americans. Con returned fire stating that the Pledge doesn't fully unify all Americans anyway, since anarchists and unpatriotic people exist that don't adhere to the Pledge. Pro rebutted this by adhering to the compulsory argument, and dropped Con's reply about how the Pledge already alienates minority groups, so this whole point is nullified
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
3) Compulsory recital

This was tossed back and forth. Pro states that mandatory recital of the Pledge = unfair representation of one's right to speech and exercise of belief. Pro says that laws exist in 43 states that make recital mandatory. Con brings up the SCOTUS case, but Pro passes it off as irrelevant since laws already exist and curb freedom. But then Con remarked in the last round about how law =/= enforcement, and that there are no cases of punishing students who refuse to say the Pledge. This nullified it for me, since it debunked the assertion Pro held that just because laws exist doesn't mean students are forced to participate in such action.

4. Opportunity cost

First we hear from Con how Congress has better things to work on than removing the "Under God" line of the Pledge. He also says that since it has no effect on anyone, there's no reason for Congress to bother with it. This relies on the assumption that it has no effect on anyone, but it has been an uncontested point throughout this debate (Pro never made an argument as to how the line in the Pledge is detrimental to inviduals, besides the alienation argument which I have already determined to be a moot point), so I'll buy Con's argument for now. Pro does attempt to stress the "should" aspect of the resolution, but as Con points out, "should" refers to consequences of said action. Pro accuses Con of making the RP fallacy, but it doesn't hold because Con's argument isn't that it is "under God" is irrelevant because there are more important, but rather that Congress' time and resources are limited and should be spent on that which is most important. The fact that no laws on mandatory Pledge citing have been enforced shows how much of a non-issue it is anyway, and that there's no way Congress would consider it as an important enough issue to pick up on.

There were a few other minor points, but they wouldn't change the impact of the main arguments I have assessed above. With that said, I vo
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
@Kasmic, if you'd like feedback, can you give me a few days to type it up?
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
RFD

Pro's arguments hinge on Originalism being true and on coercion being present. Unenforceable laws do not count as "coercion," nor does peer pressure, because the existence of social pressure is not, itself, a denial of our rights. As for Originalism, it is clear that intent does not always define meaning; I needed more reasoning from Pro to justify Originalism. Instead, what Pro does, essentially, is to say Con insufficiently explained why Originalism is bad. But I would take an insufficient explanation over none at all, so I buy into Con's views on Originalism. Plus, Con did have a reasonable alternative there. So, I don't even need to look to opportunity costs to negate, because Pro's case is taken out by Con's 3 objections. As Pro is pushing for a change in the status quo, he would typically bare the BOP, so his loss of his case is devastating. But, even so, Romanii's Opportunity Cost issue (while I am not sure I disagree with Pro's rebuttals), makes me think that there is at least some benefit to voting Con. Thus, I vote Con. Good round.
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
Reading this now.
Posted by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
Unsurprisingly, Roy casts an incorrect ballot based on substantively erroneous reasons.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Great feedback Whiteflame. Thanks for reading and voting!
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
Thanks for the RFD, whiteflame!

That's a pretty good argument, regarding the patriotism thing... probably gonna use it when I debate VoT on this as Pro.

and lol @ the opportunity cost argument. I used it this time just to see how it goes... not gonna run that ever again XD
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
kasmicRomanii
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Comments 64 & 65. The very last sentence of my RFD cut off, and was supposed to read "with that said, I vote Con". Good debate guys.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
kasmicRomanii
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. I vote Con based largely on Originalism. Good debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
kasmicRomanii
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that the purpose of the pledge was to promote national unity, and that removing "under God" would further serve those ends. Con argued, I think successfully, that leaving in the wording was acceptable under the Constitution citing the Supreme Court ruling that making the pledge voluntary sufficed to meet Constitutional requirements. Pro argued that the message of promoting theism over atheism has not changed, even though the Cold War is over. Con argued the context changed the meaning, and that could be true, but Con did not provide good evidence supporting that contention. The plain meaning is self-evident in the wording, and it would take substantial evidence, like a scientific poll, to show that the plain meaning has been overcome. Con's downside is that it would take the time of Congress away from other issues to change it. But if there was agreement that it should be changed that isn't a significant disadvantage. It's allowed byt should be removed.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
kasmicRomanii
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
kasmicRomanii
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/73340/