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

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) HistoryPro'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) PurposePro 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) SCSI 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 CostPro'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...