BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion"

"U.S Constitution protects freedom of religion and not freedom from religion" (ProCon.org). We are free to practice religion, not from religion at all. Eradicating religion goes against "The Free Exercise Clause", which states that "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The phrase is a neutral and doesn' t affect anyone religious or non religious. The religious are protected by "The Free Exercise Caluse" and the non religious by the "The Establishment Clause". "Americans are (allowed) to Pledge to a nation under any "God" they choose, or to not use any such words at all" (ProCon.org). Also there are more references to god in the currency, U.S codes, courts and Presidential oaths. References to god is acknowledgement that America is united under whatever higher belief there is.
Its not a prayer.

That is not the point. The point is if Americans are free to believe/do/roam as they wish; then why should atheist Americans be forced to say "one nation under God": when they do not believe in a creator? This excludes atheists from being American by saying that Americans are united as a nation under God rather than simply united despite their differences. The common belief in God in America is no longer relevant in our times and should thus no longer be treated as the bond that unites America. The "unity" ends if Atheists have a different pledge. yes, but the word "under god" violates the first amendment, which is freedom of religion. Jon Carroll, from The San Francisco Chronicle, wrote " As a matter of common sensible and obvious. Under God' is intrusive and unnecessary in a pledge of patriotism; we're not speaking as believers; we are speaking as citizens" (Carroll). The word forces an individual to praise some form of a divine creator, god or what ever you want to call it. The phrase limits a citizen freedom to choose what religion he or she wants to be part of.---Mando 103
The phrase "under God" is not uniting people.

The word god is used in a general sense and the doc. does not specify what god you should believe in. Every religion has a God or non-God; Atheists can think of God as science or nature; it is really semantics that people are making issue with. It doesn't force people to have a religion. In baseball games or big occasions, people stand for the pledge. Certain people don't say the pledge or the phrase "one nation under god", but they do stand to respect the flag and America. As I said in an earlier arguement; True!.....they do not share the same religious beliefs but American troops do stand and fight together no matter what name they call God rotciv1986-- I totally agree when you talk about atheists and I agree with you but if they were really so concern about god in the pledge then they also should of said something when after 9/11 the phrase in god we trust became so popular. During that time people became very united and that was the intentions of the supreme court when they added this the word “god” in the pledge.
The phrase is not offensive

American Atheists have the right to say Pledge of allegiance omitting the word god. Regardless of whether you are an Atheist or do not believe in the phrase you should still say the pledge of allegiance out of respect for our nations flag. It is true that American Atheists do not qualify as unpatriotic but the pledge is more of a historic expression rather than a religious one therefore, atheists should not take offense to the phrase.
The current pledge may no apply to everyone

rotciv1986- Yes America is probably the most diverse country in the world and therefore the word god was use so you decide who your god or creator is. And if the none believers (atheist) really feel like that about the word god why didn’t they brought up when the twin towers were hit? Was it because they were also trusting in god like everyone else ? times like those its what bring people together and that was exactly why it was added.
Leave it

Leaving the controversy as it is would just help out in keeping the conversation going. Now if we take out the phrase under god it would be takin out our habits and beliefs. We are already used to saying it why change it. Respect has a lot to do with or flag if we respect one certain type of believers now we would be stating we don't believe in god if we take it out prefering atheist then a general population of believers such as buddist, Christians, Catholics, etc. Changing it would cause more controversy.
Separation of Church and State

rotciv1986- The fact that the word god its in the pledge of allegiance does not mean you have to believe in any religion at all. The phrase was added with an intention of bringing people together and as a form of respect to the founding fathers but never to insult or brake any amendments. When has god been use in a wrongfully way? If you teach your children to belive in a specific god then he is going to refer to that god every time s/he uses or hears that word. People needs to start making such a big deal out of nothing because at the end of the day if this really was to get voted on and the majority of people are Christians what do you think its gonna happen ?
Take it out

it is offensive to American atheists and being atheist doesn't qualify as being unpatriotic or un-American. Also, your argument seems to be 'well most people don't agree so what's the point in trying to change anything'. That's a terrible argument - if it held any weight at all it could be used to justify anything from slavery through apartheid and to deny rights to women and gays. Generally overturning oppression DOES involve swimming against the tide; it is hard but it needs to be done.
Vague reference to God

Atheists do not believe in a creator/God (vague or specific). I think the people on the pink side of this debate need to acknowledge this fact. Vero103- In reference to what Joe says about the vagueness of a deity in the phrase "under god" I believe that he is entirely missing the point. In the pledge of allegiance it is written to say "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" First off the pledge is a vow ; Secondly there are many religions such as Scientology and atheists who do not believe in a supreme being. The people who urge the public that saying"under god" is okay and thus should not feel excluded are incorrect. They need to see it from other side if someone changed the pledge to state "Under the Goddess" to fit a Wiccan perspective it would be called blasphemy therefore making the pledge religion based. The founding fathers religious though they might have been, knew that they came to the New World in search of religious freedom and thats why they made government and religion separate. We cannot as a country chose to uphold the constitution whenever it fits our views exclusively. The phrase "under god" was what was in trend in the 50's and because of a craze sweeping the nation Government who should have been upholding the constitution let themselves get caught up in it. Obviously its a clear clear violation and should be restored to the pre-war version
God has nothing to do with patriotism.

We are a country of many religion and races that ideally live among each other in relative peace. Sure the ignorant can hold prejudice against others for something as ridiculous as being left-handed, however we have seen consequences to such discrimination and for the most part it is not encouraged by society. So why is a pledge to our country not only in favor of certain religions, but completely exclude the others? This is wrong, and everything in our nation’s history has taught us that discrimination and the exclusion of any person is unlawful.
Its not a prayer.

I agree that state and religion should be separate, but having the words under god does not make it prayer. The word God does not point to a specific religion The mentioning of God shows respect for different religions, different Christian sects, and non Judeo - Christian religions, Muslims, Jews, Hindu people and Native peoples. The fact that the phrase,"one nation under God" mentions everyone that believes in a Creator does not exclude those that do not believe in one. It was intentionally put there, after all to anounce that we are all united, here,under one flag, in this Nation. It was obviously never meant to offend atheists. If atheists were offended then, (when it was added, around 1940s) they should have said something then. If it offends atheists they should refrain from saying the phrase. It is easy to solve this problem. Atheists: say the Pledge, just dont say the phrase"under god". The American pledge of allegiance is not a prayer. The words “under god” were added as a form of respect to our nation. Atheists do not have to recite the pledge of allegiance if they don’t want to, or engage in any religious practice of which they disapprove. "Under God is not a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion reciting the Pledge is a patriotic exercise the country has is not a religious one. “ Congress is permitted to add the words “under God” to government materials because the phrase doesn’t “establish” any specific religion” (undergodprocon.org). The majority of Americans want to preserve the nation pledge, which represents our loyalty and devotion to this country. Our American pledge simply emphasizes freedom and unity. mickey-mary
The phrase "under God" is not uniting people.

Many individuals in the United States come from different cultures; therefore they do not share the same religious beliefs. Also atheists find it inequitable to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. By including the phrase “one nation under God” in the pledge, it is forcing people to have a religion. They have no other alternative but to agree with what the pledge has included. It is unconstitutional though, because there has to be a separation between church and state. It is not creating unity, but a division among the people.
Religious freedom is less important than animal welfare. Insistence on the freedom to cause sufferin...

The freedom of a human being to practice his own religion is much more important than the welfare of a non-human animal. A sense of perspective is called for: these animals are being killed to be eaten. Human beings do not need to eat meat; animals are thus killed on a whim. Surely this constitutes a far worse offence against animal welfare than any slaughter method could. However important the rights of animals are, they can never compare to the importance of allowing human beings to act as their beliefs require them to. A divine commandment cannot be outweighed by misplaced concerns for the welfare of an already doomed animal.
Some Jewish and Muslim communities interpret their religious requirements in a manner consistent wit...

The right to interpret one’s own religious beliefs, and to practice accordingly, is a fundamental and inviolable one. Just because one group, perhaps through persecution, has been made to change their practices and reinterpret their traditions, doesn’t mean that other groups should have their autonomy undermined and their faith interfered with. A state should not seek to prescribe how its citizens interpret their faiths; this is an illiberal, authoritarian and insensitive proposal.
This will effectively lead to more votes to parents

This can also be said then of most 18-21 year olds. Often the only experience they have had with society is through their parents. 50% of youths now go to university [[ http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jan/21/record-new-students-ucas%5D%5D. This extends the time upon which a person is reliant on their parents (even more so than usual because of rocketing tuition costs). Whilst the students may sort out their own finances, the forms have to be filled in by parents and the parents are always there as a back drop. Therefore, if we argue that children should not vote due to parental influence, then we should also seek to raise the voting age to over 21. Counterargument: This issue can also be resolved with the inclusion of anonymous voting: Casting one's ballot in a booth closed off from impertinent eyes. While there are official means by which to avoid double-counting; the public need not know which member of the public, voted for whom or what party. While children are impressionable; so are the rest of us and even children rebel against parents (reference: public tantrum for ice cream or candy) time and again. Children are not yes-men.
It should be lowered not scrapped all together

In my school when the elections came up they held a mock election and you voted for the party you would vote for had you been old enough we where at an age where everything was very clichy and if you didn't vote for the right party you weren't in the group, therefore think the age should be lowered to 15/16 that way people are past that point aswell it gives you more freedoms when your 16 as these days all you can do when your 16 is have sex legally and most people do it illegally anyway
Children are citizens like everyone else and voting does not have a qualification prerequisite.

[[http://www.education.com/magazine/article/middle_school_mental_development/]] Voting is a no-brain-er; either you like a party or you don't. Extensive research to make an informed decision is optional and ultimately politicians on both sides do not have very different policies. Children can easily pick up on where views on an issue differ and decide on who they like better. Talking to your children about elections and viewpoints across the board then giving the child his/her choice-vote can be a very nice family activity, can be educational and should instill into a child the idea that s/he is important enough to make decisions on who and what should rule his/her country. [[http://www.personalgrowthplanet.com/otherarticles/childrenselfworth.htm]] Little girls are better served thinking about smart politics than skinny models. [[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(199812)24:4%3C405::AID-EAT7%3E3.0.CO;2-D/abstract]]
Children are not emotionally secure enough to vote

Children are vulnerable. They hold a privileged position in society as we need to protect them. Childhood is about having fun and we should promote that rather than putting responsibility onto children as to voting. Statistics show that children these days do suffer from feeling too pressured from school work [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/child_development/primary_moods.shtml]], we should not add to this by allowing them to vote.
Children are not emotionally secure enough to vote

Hang on; voting is not work. Voting is an expression of self-worth via the knowledge that your opinion counts. [[http://books.google.com/books?id=yEfmf-NJohMC&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=voting+self+worth&source=bl&ots=d3FwC2uKjx&sig=e7T5OrNrxKrbVefiOeIdPz-exvY&hl=en&ei=fxHpTPfXKISPswbn28G2Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=voting%20self%20worth&f=false]] Children today complain of drudgery, a loss of self worth generated from ever-increasing pressure to achieve academically and otherwise. The grade/trophy is valued not the child. [[http://www.helium.com/items/1201053-tips-for-developing-self-worth-in-children]] A child's self worth is nurtured by trusting the child to make decisions and giving him/her a certain amount of space to work independently on certain things. What critics of the current state of pressure-cooker schools rave on about and against is the constant demand for superlative performance in comparison to peers ( This includes pressure on both teachers,students and not necessarily just children [[http://www.mejfm.com/journal/July05/PDFs/Burnout.pdf]] [[http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2010/01000/Burnout_and_Serious_Thoughts_of_Dropping_Out_of.30.aspx]] ). This is a losing battle for students because only a few people can get first positions and even these cannot insure a perfect record for being on top in everything. Voting cannot be included in this category because it is in great part, a subjective exercise that nobody has to answer for. There is no right or wrong vote; you don't get marks or medals for voting.
Accepting defeat for a greater victory.

There are situations where it makes strategic sense to accept a loss. You've been playing a game for a few hours and realise that you've made a few bad decisions that mean you can't get the plot arc/ending you want any more. It would make most sense to reset the game or find an earlier save file if you have one. Or on a larger scale, humanity will only improve if it stops being an alpha predator with no real need to evolve further, finds something more dangerous to it and either adapts to face it or becomes forcibly changed by being invaded by it eg. has to accept its ideas that make more sense, or learns its artistic methods through having to adopt its culture.
Some situations where surrender works where futile struggle does not.

It is impossible to appreciate the background music of a game by analysing it. Music is for letting go and surrendering to. If you are trying to ignore the background music of a game, you won't be able to concentrate on the game and you'll make mistakes. If you turn it down, the silence will mean other sounds from outside the game can distract you from playing. The music is there to decide the mood and flow of that scene. The same could be said for personal relationships, where someone needs to surrender in at least some way for the relationship to start at all.
Money is not the root of all evil. The lack of money is the root of all evil.

I respect both sides and I understand why many people believe that money is the root of all evil. But I have to disagree. The lack of money is the root of all evil. Back in the history of mankind, before money was invented, we bartered. Money was the result of hardworking process. Bear in mind that criminals are all born in poverty and some of them live in poverty. The fear of lacking money haunts them constantly. It is the fear of not being able to feed themselves and their families that make them commit unthinkable crimes. If money is evil, could you live in a world without money? If greed or desire is evil, have you ever wanted something that is not yours? Any of you ever want an Iphone? Any of you can live without computer, electricity and all of modern comfort? If you think money is the root of all evil, I'd like to recommend the Communist Manifesto for you. Marx talked about an utopia society in which people work based on their ability and get rewarded base on their needs. Money would not be necessary. I like to ask those who think money is not necessary to point out a successful communist example. Im from a communist, aka socialist, country. And we are moving toward a capitalistic market. I strongly believe that if you dont work for yourself, nobody will. Money motivates people to work harder, smarter. Would there be light bub if Edison work for just bread and milk only? You might say those riches keep getting richer without giving away their money to the poor. I'd like to ask you "Why the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer?" If you find the question somewhat interesting please spend sometimes read the book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." It changed a poor college student's way of thinking, I hope it will be helpful too. Money is not the root of all evil. The lack of money is the root of all evil.
Money represents positive value

It is a great American contribution to world culture, that they have coined the phrase "to make money". Money is made, by effort of muscle, willpower, and intelect. There can be no society composed entirely of thieves, as there will be no value to steal. Money represents the confidence of parties that the value of their efforts can be traded for the value of others' efforts. It is a recognition of the importance of society based on trade, rather than the only real alternative: violence. To be clear, money contributed to charity is also traded, for the value of achieving a social goal - this in contrast to taxes, which are forcefully taken.
Money can't be dispensed with

see the essence of of what I mean by "money" -- anything that is or acts as money i.e. anything that performs the recognized functions of money or serves the recognized purpose of money. I'd quote a definition "Money is a good that acts as a medium of exchange in transactions. Classically it is said that money acts as a unit of account, a store of value, and a medium of exchange. Most authors find that the first two are nonessential properties that follow from the third. In fact, other goods are often better than money at being intertemporal stores of value, since most monies degrade in value over time through inflation or the overthrow of governments." Now think-- can you do without money? Do you wanna go back to the days for barter system? Imagine no banks, no recognized/ standard medium to transact.
More

The desperation and greed caused by unlimited wants, unequal distribution of resources and a restrictive means(money) of getting anything. Is the sole and ultimate cause of stress,frustration,anger,rage and thus all crimes. Now you might argue that lust and the want of possessions is not the same as the want/need of money, but money is a means to that end. Everything has a price tag. Everything/person can be bought. If someone won't marry you because s/he finds you unattractive, you cosmetically/surgically alter your appearance using 'money'. The one you want does not like your personality : you can change your personality by paying for a course or workshop. Get private investigators, bribe the police, bribe lawyers or hire extremely expensive ones...you can spit in the face of justice/morality. You can get anything and everything. 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely'[[Lord acton]] Money is power.
There's no such thing as the root of evil!

This allegation is completely wrong. Satan is the root of all evil. Cozmo ---Satan is the root of all evil but Satan is also the one who made people use money to do bad deeds. he used people so they can satisfy their own needs however horrible so Satan IS the root of all evil, but also money because if Satan didnt have control over money, we would all use it for good wouldnt we? but noooo... we think its wuch a waste to use so much money on Salvation army blah blah blah... get my point? It's all Satan's doing
some evil clearly nothing to do with money

There are many roots to acts that would be considered evil - I will assume this means actions that harm others or denigrate the self, but the concept of 'evil' itself is by no means straightforward - that are nothing to do with money. For instance, a murder might be motivated by anger, a rape by uncontrollable lust, bullying and discrimination by ignorance. You don't need money to commit a crime. You need a big rock or stick to murder someone. You need the other person not to notice to steal something from someone. Crime has been happening before a monetary system. Religion has also led to a lot of destruction since a long time. Not only this even the greatest of problems dont have their root cause as money.The biggest example being Taliban.Why are they attacking people, they are not getting money from it but it is because they want blood, killing of Indians and Americans. This is called racism. So money is not the root cause of all evil.
More

To be fair the lack of money is one of the roots of evil. But still money is not the root of all evil :) ... Complaint: My opponent is not being clear about his views. ... "Now you might argue that lust and the want of possessions is not the same as the want/need of money, but money is a means to that end. " Imagine no money here in this situation. No money means either you don't want to ever buy/ sell anything ever in life; withdraw yourself from society n go become a sage (not 99.99% people ever would wanna do it) OR you wanna go back to the days of barter exchange- as for the drawbacks of barter, I've briefed on it as a separate point 3 blocks down- check it.