We should take under God out of the pledge of allegence
Debate Rounds (3)
Please remember the onus is upon you, as you are making a claim.
Also, it is unnecessary to mention religion at all. I said earlier that it was put there to end the "threat" of communism, discriminating now against many religions AND a political group with great ideas and a bad reputation. Even if you are against communism, the big 'war' on it is over and it is time for it to be gone.
It is even against the law to discuss religion at school(to quote it says "When it comes to religion, public schools must obey two legal requirements that are hard to reconcile: let it be, and push it away", so this shouldn't be allowed). It is hypocritical for those who enforce that law like teachers to make us talk about God every day.
It feels weird saying it ,too. Imagine yourself saying "One nation, under no God" or "One nation, under Allah". It's not fair to have to make kids have to say those,
In conclusion, we should not have "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance because fewer and fewer people believe in God, it is unnecessary, discrimination, technically illegal, and unfair. I look forward to your counter arguments.
Now let me start first of all with the issues:
1. Let's remember that the Proposition has accepted that the onus is upon them. S/he must show beyond any doubt that removing the words "under God" create a productive effect. If they fail to do that either because of fallacious reasoning or not refuting my counter arguments I win.
2.In essence I do not think Proposition gave an argument, they certainly gave statistics and statements, but not coherent argument. In simple words the pseudo-argument is that since "under God" was meant to be against communism, and communism is not a threat any more, the words "under God" should be removed. This does not necessaries entail removing the words because this means that the words have no productive effect (something which is also wrong), she does not argue that removing them is absolutely neccessary.
3.Secondly my opponent stated that it sounds weird for some people, and made an analogy to "no God' and "Allah" which I as Moslem find slightly comical. In countries such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan saying under Allah is al-right, why? Because that is the heritage, and the majority accepts it.
Now on to the rebuttals:
1. My opponent agrees that the majority of the people are Christians, in fact up to 78.4% claim to be Christians, out of which 36% claim to be devout Church going people. Other than that there are another 4.7% of other religions, all of whom are all right with the word "God" as it embodies a Creator, not just the Biblical one. If that source is not enough then here's another by the American Religious Identification Survey, which asserts that 73% assert themselves as solid Christians, with another 4.5% of other believers. A study by Princeton  shows that 77% identify themselves as Christian. The change of people who have "no religious identity" increased by only 0.6% in a whole year. One may place serious doubt on your article as it is an on line newspaper and we all know how accurate they are. In essence I have shown, as have you, that the believers are currently in majority. By the laws of democracy it would be most productive to listen to the majority and therefore we should keep "under God". Also let's not forget that no one has to say the pledge if they disagree with it for philosophical, emotional or legal reasons. A child has the right to continue to sit silently in class while the pledge is being recited. Remember we are not a. harming anyone's fundamental rights, and b. angering the majority. With the strong belief system people hold do you honestly feel there will not be mass protests if these words were taken out, it would be discriminatory to the majority. Perhaps in time when the Atheists or Liberals reach a 2/3 majority then Congress may pass such a bill, but for now the most productive thing is to let the words stay.
2. Your second argument is that it "sounds wrong". I really do not know how to rebut this as this is hardly an argument. Simply so, you provided no research or sources that children find it wrong. You argue it is unfair, when it allies itself with the principles of democracy. Also since the pledge does not give undue advantage to any child, and that it is approved by Congress, the pledge is legal.
Now on to my own arguments:
1. The Order of Democracy:
In the system of Democracy, embodied in a Republic (such as the Republic of the United States of America) every person has some fundamental rights that not even a majority may take away. By not requiring every child to repeat the pledge (those who have concerns may not choose to read it) Congress does not infringe on the rights of those minorities. However since the majorities have no qualms with this, and that they would even dislike these words removed it would be undemocratic to remove the words "under God".
2. The Culture:
The Pledge is now part of the American culture, you have films which recite the pledge this way, most famously the one by Al Pacino. In a time where culture is given little importance and history is often forgotten the Pledge reminds every American (those who recite it) where their loyalties lie. It reminds them of the constant battles which took place to reach this new world order. it is a thing which connects modern children to their heritage.
In the end you have to view it this way: who to make happy, the 10% or the 90%, I do not think the decision is hard. Especially concerning the 10% are not being marginalised. To avoid conflict, I say this knowing that 36% are devout believers and will definitely come onto the streets because of this, the Pledge should be preserved. This is the way Democracy runs, otherwise men would be in anarchy.
So to conclude I have shown that there is a higher productivity is keeping the Pledge as it is, because of this I believe that this debate falls to me and I deserve your vote.
LenaQueen forfeited this round.
As this is the last round, I would ask the voters to forget about this forfeiture and consider a forfeiture from my side as well to even everything out.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 2 years 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
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.