We need to become a nation under God again
Debate Rounds (3)
I believe that church and state should always be seperate, and that there are many downsides when they are not.
I await my opponent's opening arguments.
Many problems with my opponent's arguments. They state that the country was "founded on God and Christian principles." I'd like them to elaborate more on this statement, and give evidence for it, and also show how it's relevant to the topic at hand. My opponent also states that "our country was great back then and now that the gov't doesn't really care about God look what has happened to it." I'm sorry, but what exactly has happened to it? "Back then," the USA was just a newborn country with no relevance in international affairs. Now, after adopting secular values, it has opened itself up to people from around the world, which allowed it to grow incredibly fast economically. Not to mention that the USA is much better now than "back then," the average lifespan of a person is much higher, the USA is the largest economy in the world, and the greatest military power as well. Now I will move on to my own arguments.
Contention 1 - The Constitution [1st Amendment]
The constitution showcases the intent of the founding fathers, and is also the law of the land. And this constitution is a secular document, as it never appeals to God in any sense. It is also stated in the 1st amendment -
"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Thomas Jefferson, himself a founding father of America, wrote about the 1st amendment in a letter, calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."
Contention 2 - Seperation of Church and State protects free speech
There are many religions in the world, the two largest ones being Christianity and all it's various sects and factions, and Islam, and all it's various sects and factions. There is also Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, so forth. Secularism ensures that all these religions are on the same ground, and none are given extra privelege under the law. It also ensures that non religious people can voice their views without persecution. And this is very important, as the more discussion there is about religion, the more transparent it can be, and more truth will be revealed.
Contention 3 - Which God?
However disappointing it may sound, praying will not solve anything. God won't save your nation, you actually have to take action yourself. There isn't any proof that God exists. My opponent is suggesting that Americans subject their entire nation under the will of an entity for which not a shred of evidence of it's existence exists. There is no more reason for America to be a nation under the Christian God then there for America to be a nation under Zeus, or Thor, or the flying spagetthi monster.
I'll leave it at that for now, I now toss the ball back to my opponent.
I thank my opponent for this debate.
My opponent concedes that America has generally improved, and that they were only talking about the government. However the fact that America as a nation is better off, with a greater economy, healthier people etc., this shows that the government has also improved very greatly, as the growth was started and led by the government.
Next my opponent says that there shouldn't be a law about religion because everyone has a right of freedom of religion, however my opponent contradicts themselves. You can't have freedom of religion in a country that dedicates itself to only the Christian version of God. If you want to put "God in the gov't," you would probably only put in one version of God, therefore the religion that follows that God will now be on a higher ground than all other religions, as their religion is endorsed by the gov't. And this violates the right to freedom of religion, as not all religions are treated equally under the law.
Next my opponent makes the fallacious claim that "praying can solve anything." To prove something like this, you would need a great deal of unrefutable evidence. It's obvious, you can't pray yourself out of life threatening diseases, you need to take action and get yourself treated by a medical professional.
And finally, my opponent says "there shouldn't have to be evidence because the bible says to." This is ridiculous, the Bible holds no more credibility than the Hobbit. The BOP was on my opponent in this case, to prove the credibility of the Bible, which they did not do.
My opponent dropped the first amendment argument.
I thank my opponent for this debate. That concludes my rebuttals, and I will not add any more arguments since this is the last round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TGambit 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: seemed like only one person one debating here, and clearly won
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.