Our National Motto Should Remain "In God We Trust"

My Opponent: "What my opponent is doing here is what many people are guilty of - looking at only one part of history while ignoring other parts. Because of their bias and preconceived notions, they look at history with a limited view, ignoring the bigger picture. A very common example of this is the zeal Americans give when discussing the famous Normandy Landings (also known as D-Day), which were the landing operations conducted by the Americans during World War 2. It's been preserved in tons of movies and books, and almost anyone will tell you this was a pivotal moment in WW2 - they couldn't be more wrong. The consensus now is that the Normandy Landings did NOT have a very significant effect on the outcome of WW2, it was actually the Soviets who turned the tide! They fought off German invaders and despite heavy losses - peaking at 10 Soviet casualties per 1 American causality a day - they still gained the upper hand. " But does that mean that we shouldn't recognize such events as the Normandy landings? If you want to go and celebrate the Soviet maneuvers during WWII, than I suggest you move to Russia. The Normandy landings were actually very important in a Allied victory in World War II. If the Normandy landings hadn't occurred, or if they were a failure, the Axis might have won, or at the very least the war would have been dragged out. The US and UK moving through France/Belgium and the Russians advancing through Central Europe meant that Nazi Germany would now have to fight on two fronts, an east and west. This would require that they split their forces. My opponent should really get his history straight. As for "the zeal Americans give in discussing the landings", I have one question. Why shouldn't they? Even if we concede that the Normandy landings weren't a pivotal moment in WWII, it was a pivotal moment in the United States' involvement in Europe. So, it only makes sense that Americans feel a certain amount of pride in these events. This is why mothers are glad when their children first start to talk or walk, even though everyone learns to walk or talk one day. Should this mother not feel pride in this event because in the grand scheme of the universe, it doesn't really make much a difference? No. We have things in this country that we hold dear to are hearts, almost as if they are sacred, this is an important part of finding a national identity. My Opponent: "So what does this lesson from history tell us? That we can easily be guilty of misconstruing past events, which is what my opponent has done. He said it was totally irrelevant that the Pilgrims were no different from the English in their attitude towards religious tolerance, and that we should just focus on the fact that they ran away for religious reasons. This is a perfect example of willful ignorance. The IMPORTANT fact of the matter that remains is that the motive the Pilgrims is laced with religious tolerance. " Even though these events might be misconstruction, we hold certain things as a country to be sacred, that is why we attach value to them. The collective has said: "The pilgrims left England to escape religious persecution", and that is what people hold true. If my opponent refutes the collective than he is also negating is own argument that the collective definition of "God" is the true definition. My opponent could slap me with an argument stating that this violates the point I made earlier about historical relevance, and about how can a historical motto be relevant if it isn't even all the way true. Well, it must be relevant to Americans today, and most Americans claim that "The pilgrims left England to escape religious persecution", so how isn't it relevant today. Because it has the dreaded "G word"? That point we will be adressing later. My Opponent: "Now isn't this funny, my opponent completely contradicts himself! He states that the Indian relations and problem of slavery were resolved long ago, thus making them irrelevant. However, backtrack to his earlier statements and you'll see that he emphasis that "a nation that doesn't remember where it came from is a nation that doesn't know where it is going. " My opponent is telling us to ignore the past and not ignore the past? ! If he wants to avoid such embarrassing follies, then he should explain why the historical relevancy of religion matters while the historical relevancy of slavery and Native American relations do not. Otherwise, he is a prime example of a cherry picker. In order for a motto to be a good motto it must reflect the nation's history AND be relevant in the present day. "In God We Trust" does both. My Opponent: "My opponent completely ignores this point, he ignores my rebuttal that while the motto doesn't respect any particular religion, it does respect religion itself. The audience should take note of this. " I did not respond to this argument because I would be addressing it in a later argument, the "no intrinsic meaning argument" and I wasn't going to waste characters doing so. But I will address it now. No one is forcing you to observe the national motto. You don't have to where a t-shirt that says it, or have it tattooed on your forehead, or anything like that. The closest to that is that it appears on paper currency and coins, well if it really bothers you that much, such use debit and credit cards. Come up with your own national motto, and observe it, or send it off to Congress, maybe they'll approve it. But, its not like this national motto that "respects religion" is forcing you to go to church. The church does not benefit the motto at all, they're is so much division in the religious community that the term God when defined amongst religious people varies. Therefore, it doesn't respect any one religion, or even religion itself. Its just words on money. My Opponent: "My opponent is actually saying that he can define whatever he wants, and act as if that is that. And in sense, he's true. If he decides that the definition of God is a hairy flying monkey, then he can go on about and do so. " So, why can't your, sir? If I can define it that way, in a way that I am not offended, then why do all the people who are offended not? My Opponent: "The whole basis of having definition and dictionaries is because yes, the definitions of words can change, but there is usually a majority CONSENSUS on what they are. It is society that determines the meanings of words, and it's up to the dictionaries to keep up with this (which is why there are so many updated editions as time goes on). " So, the consensus gets to pick what words mean or not? Interesting argument. The American system of government is a somewhat-democratic system, wouldn't you agree? If you don't your just stupid, so I suppose you do. The CONSENSUS that my opponent loves so much, also has quite a say in what laws get passed and which do not (either by voting on legislators or objecting or supporting legislation by contacting their legislators). Well, 76% of the American people identify as Christian. This is obviously a CONSENSUS. So, why shouldn't the motto reflect the majority of citizens? ==Conclusion== I do admit, "In God we Trust" does have its problems. But what national motto wouldn't, lets look at some other options. (a) E pluribus unum "Out of Many, One" -This might offend those who believe that different ethnic groups should not reproduce together. (b) Together We Stand -This might offend those who are just plain Anti-American. (c) (Insert motto here) -(insert criticism here) We could go on all day. My opponent would probably inject that those who are offended by mottoes A and B make up a minuscule segment of society. Well, when 76% of Americans are Christians that leaves a lot less room for Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists.