BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
[Response to rebuttal] Equality is not just about same percentage of income; and certainly it's the government's role to prevent it from being so.

In capitalism, we have the liberty of choosing our destiny. At the level of this argument we have identified two main conflicts.The first one is about equality of chances and the second is about the concept of the articifial intervention of the state in the economy. First of all, the comparison between Prince William and an african-american our colleagues offered in their first argument is unreasonable.It is biased to imply that every rich person is born a prince, and what we tried to sustain is that meritocracy remains a main pillar of capitalism. There are many examples of poor-born people that, having worked hard, belong to the top earners category in present times. Salaries are offered in function of the number of hours spent working, in correlation with the level of difficulty of the job, and the qualifications a person has. Mainly, these elements depend on the motivation an individual has in order to achieve welfare. It is indeed, a different task for each of us, as we are all have different traits and characters. Does that also mean the Government should tax lower the ones who were born lazier? The final rebuttal from the opposition is that the main role in economy growth is held by private investors. The artificial system we refferd at is the idea of collecting money by taxing higher the rich people, with the illusion of sustainability. The state does not have the same power of producing and reinvesting profit at a large and spread scale as private corporations do if our goal is sustainability. The government should ensure the ideal conditions for the market to support itself and realize that taking money from the rich in order to pay social security is not going to produce profit. Finally, just because a rule is introduced in the Constitution, that does not make it automatically correct or desirable. Let’s take a look at all the rules included in the Constitutions of the ex-sovietic block to confirm that.
Bugil Academy (South Korea) Summary

The Proposition is confused about the Opposition’s standpoint. The Opposition lacks two elements in their case: core values and substantives supporting them. Due to such absence, we do not get why—and even whether—the Opposition opposes the motion. Its introduction claims that its strategy is not to disagree on closing the gap but to suggest a better alternative. It does not truly oppose the motion but drags the arguments to a policy debate which this isn’t. But even if this were to be a policy debate, the Opposition has shown no link as to how its policy can better achieve equality. It claims “Make the pie bigger, and there will be bigger crumbs left for the poor.” However the Opposition only argues how flat tax will promote economic growth, not how “growing the pie” will benefit the poor more—which is essential especially seeing how that slogan of neo-liberalism has only increased the gap for past decades. [1] As the opposition never proved the link between gap reduction and economic growth, virtually all of their rebuttals and one constructive point, except those about equality, have no place in this debate. The Opposition’s misunderstanding continues with straw man fallacies. Not responding directly, the Opposition rebuts superficially similar yet false representations of our points. We pointed out that the system does not guarantee fair opportunity, but the opposition argues that some of the poor did succeed. The focus is not the possibility, but extremely low probability; behind a few successes lies millions of the poor who won’t appreciate the opposition’s “liberty to choose destiny.” We pointed out the Opposition presumes—or purposefully pretends—existence of equality, or artificiality of governmental actions. The opposition responds that the latter being in the Constitution does not prove anything, while it was simply an example to show no line can be drawn for artificiality without sound reasoning. We pointed out progressive tax will better achieve redistribution. The opposition dangles on incentive and corruption, both of which are too minor to undermine our policy. The Opposition’s obsession on progressive tax is also a fallacy; the tax and our comprehensive education of the poor aim to amend the system itself with fair opportunity that leads to economic independence—a merit to which the opposition never responded. The Opposition’s ultimate regression to the straw man fallacy manifests itself in the example of the US progressive tax. Not only is our policy much bigger than a simple tax collection, but also the increasing gap in the US originates from various factors that altogether form the very system we try to reform. While we both have better understanding of the spirit of this debate and present arguments accurately reflecting our socioeconomic reality, the Opposition stumbles over lack of values, misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and ultimately, lack of a standpoint. 1) http://www.soci
Its purpose is not for worship.

The words "under God" does not imply that you believe in God. The purpose of the pledge is not so that people can worship or pray but it is a way to express patriotism. Reciting the pledge is just a way to show respect. Reciting it does not declare one's religion or declare their belief in God or not. It says "one nation under god " it's not specific toward what god there are many types of gods my god can be budah yet others god can be Jesus. Still when pledging to the flag we are not praying we are pledging honoring the flag of the United States.
The current pledge may no apply to everyone

We live in a country with a great diversity of people, we should take everyone into consideration. The pledge of allegiance should be able to be equally expressed by everyone, it is unfair that who ever does not believe in god has to stay quiet while the words under god are being said. The pledge it self sais "with liberty and justice for all" so who are they referring to when they say justice? only the believers? I thought justice was including all Americans, atheist citizens too!!
Taking the phrase out will cause conflict, leave it.

The U.S. troops fight together no matter what name they call God or what creator they praise. The troops understand the fact that they are still one nation united with liberty. =) Pretty week point there. It will cause more conflict than the one we are having now. Which is debating on taking out or leaving the line. Doing away with the line will not reslove conflict. There are more religious people than there are atheists. Taking the line out will spark some sort of religious war. I understand that Atheists do not believe in a higher being. The point that needs to be understood is that U.S. troops still stand together even if they believe in some higher being or not. They are still indivisible. So why cause separation of people. By saying "under God" it opens up a variety of certain higher beings a that people believe in. Yes, the word "God" goes for a certain religion, but we understand that the word is a higher being. The phrase isin't meant to divide Americans, but unite them.
Separation of Church and State

It is up to an individual whether or not to practice any religion at all. In putting the words GOD in the pledge we have changed the statement from a vow to a prayer. This country does not teach religions in public schools because they are government founded and thus would be in violation of the separation of church and state. However, in teaching our school age children the pledge we are teaching them to commend this country to GOD that makes the pledge a prayer. which have been outlawed in public school systems. That doesn't mean do not teach patriotism, it just means that for the pledge to be correctly written it needs to be reinstated to its original form not the one we have which came about in the 1950's after a Red scare.
Only put in "under God" in 1954 because of the war against famously 'atheist' Communists

God is American and it is un-American to leave God out. Hollywood wouldn't be producing X-mas movies with an almost entirely Jewish cast every year if God wasn't. Next thing you know cowboy images will be offensive. [[http://images.uulyrics.com/cover/d/dolly-parton/album-for-god-and-country.jpg]]
Vague reference to God

“ Congress is permitted to add the words “under God” to government materials because the phrase doesn’t “establish” any specific religion” (ProCon.org). The phrase “under god is vague in reference to a denomination. The phrase isn’t a preference over a religion, which the government is really not allowed to do. Under The Free Exercise Clause “Americans are (allowed) to Pledge to a nation under any “God” they choose, or to not use any such words at all” (ProCon) Dianaaa1 Joe 103- • The Pledge of Allegiance does not say under a specific God. By far, I have not heard someone one say the “one nation under Buddha” or “one nation under Jesus Christ.” There are a lot of different religions and sects, along with their distinct gods. “God” was used as a universal name to include everyone’s different god. I believe in separation of church and state, nevertheless we all believe in a God or “something” such as science or man. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance is not a religious practice, neither was it made to offend anyone. It is a demonstration of respect for ones nation. Atheists should not feel they are excluded from reciting the pledge. On the contrary, Atheists can demonstrate their love and affection for our nation by excluding “under God” as the recite the pledge
Leave it...

Yes, but why should atheist Americans be excluded from pledging allegiance to their country? No as an American you have to pledge allegiance to the country and flag. And currently to God first. This is wrong, you might as well ban atheists from joining the army; or government or being American altogether. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance]] In the contrary, the phrase was added during the 1950s to fight the Atheist. Atheism is/was associated with communism. Since this nation is a democratic nation, they did it protect the nation identity. If we go back to history, the US core principles are base on a supreme deity. The words were added to either force atheist, polytheistic, to convert to the dominant religion, which is Christianity, or to exclude them out. ------Mando 103 In addition, some of the founding fathers did not believe in a god. While most were Christians, believing in the divinity of Christ, some were deists, believing in a "watchmaker god" who created the universe but did not involve himself in its affairs, and a few, including Thomas Jefferson, are now widely believe by scholars to have been atheists.
It was not written to offend anyone.

It doesn't matter; it offends people now. Remember when the star trek intro was changed to say one instead of man as in the original? obviously "going where no man has one before" wasn't "meant" to offend anyone; but gender neutrality became important and desirable as times changed. The pledge needs an update according to the needs of the times. The need of unity is not met when/where atheists are not included or are being told to recite a different pledge from their fellow Americans.
The word god is symbolic to the faith of a nation

The phrase “one nation under god” should be included in the Pledge of Allegiance for the reason that the pledge is symbolizing an oath. The word god is symbolic to the faith of a nation. During the 1950’s our nation was in need of unity as a result the Pledge of Allegiance was re-written and the word god was added. Nevertheless, the word god does not refer to a specific god nor does it mention a specific religion. In fact, the pledge is a celebration of all religions because aside from fact that each religion has its own god the one thing everyone has in common is the belief of a creator. It is necessary to have faith in a higher being It is wrong to call Pledge of Allegiance a prayer because the phrase was added in order to demonstrate America’s patriotism for its country. Leave the pledge alone. Changing or habits would change everything we would have to learn a new pledge. In elemetary they teach us the pledge so that later in life we can have a perspective on life and develop beliefs. Yes the constitution does state freedom of religion which means one can choose whom to pray upon. Still the word "god " is a universal term so leave the pledge.
Under God proclaims Christianity

-rotciv1986 the word god is a general word The founding fathers created this nation with a creator in mind and most of the founding fathers were freemasons and the catholic church did not approve of them. So how can the the word god be address as someone that does not approve of them. The word god is a general use for any religions leader or creator and just because the majority of people in the Unites States believe in jesus chirst it does not mean it’s being use in that way
Unity

When the pledge of allegiance is said it is patriotic even when the national anthym is said we see the passion of all Americans so see the pledge as unity not as a way to divide the population. This pledge should be left alone instead of thinking negative of these words "one nation under God" we should think positive and instead of atheist being offend maybe they should respect the history of the united states and understand that little by little this country has wanted to seek relief and hope from something other than the laws of the country something that might be more powerful. The word god is unviersal to all to me he's Jesus to others he's buddah to another human being he can maybe be another saint either way this pledge has to stay it should be respected.
God doesn't exist.

It's a pretty whacked out notion with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Not only that it's fundamentally self inconsistent [[http://richardathome.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/quote-of-the-day-is-god/]]. Those that argue it's a moot point as there is no evidence to refute the existence of god need to accept that the burden of proof is on them for making such far fetched assertions in the first place. If you make a ludicrous claim it's on you to prove it, not me to disprove it. Mentioning god in the pledge is just pandering to fundamentalist cult members who oughtn't be encouraged in their superstition.
Only put in "under God" in 1954 because of the war against famously 'atheist' Communists

"composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The Pledge has been modified four times since then, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954. The Pledge is predominantly sworn by children in public schools in response to state laws requiring the Pledge to be offered. Congressional sessions open with the swearing of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, meetings held by the Knights of Columbus, Royal Rangers, Boy Scouts of America, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Freemasons, Toastmasters International and their concordant bodies, other organizations, and many sporting events. The current version of the Pledge of Allegiance reads: 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.''- [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance]] God was not mentioned by the founding fathers and the pledge has already been changed 4 times; changing it once again to include atheists as part of the American populous shouldn't be a problem. However excluding American atheists from the pledge because of a still-burning hatred for the Reds/'Commi's is unacceptable. Comrade N.S
"Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion"

Freedom to believe is also the freedom not to. Otherwise you wouldn't be free but forced to believe. Atheists believe there's no God. The pledge trounces their belief in no god whatsoever. Vero103- The U.S Government is set up so that the people are protected from tyranny and there are checks and balances in place so that one may not take over the other. In the Constitution itself it says "the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation. to support this constitution; but no RELIGIOUS TEST shall ever be required to any officer or public trust under the Unites States." why is it okay to violate its purpose? The first amendment states that "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 to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" The United States Congress VIOLATED this amendment in inserting under god because it makes the pledge a vow with respect to a religious figure.
the phrase "under God" should not be included

Including the phrase “under God” implies that Americans must believe in a creator. It does not provide comfort and unity because not all citizens believe in God. it is dividing instead of uniting people, as the pledge is not respecting those who disagree with the faiths it is endorsing. Citizens of America should be free to choose whatever they believe in. They should not be excluded only because their belief system does not include a deity. Bottom-line: Take 'under God' out because it is unconstitutional.
The phrase is not offensive

the phrase "one nation under god" was added in 1954, before the add, the pledge did not offend anybody. first amendment give the people the right to follow and belief in any religion and that give them the right to raised their kids with those views. public schools forces kids to recite the pledge of allegiance even though there suppose to be a separation of religion and state in the public school. it should be taken out because not everyone believes in one god or god at all.
It was not written to offend anyone.

First of all the pledge was never written in order to offend anyone. During the Soviet Union Era, the people of the US were afraid, much like when 9/11 occured. So, just like during 9/11, people needed something to uplift them and unite them. During the 1950s, inserting the words "under God" provided that comfort and sense of safety, that the people needed. As we have seen recently (9/11), unity is powerful and gives strength to our people in times of hardship. Issacson writes "it is probable, however that they would have disapproved of people on either side who used the Lord's name or Ten commandments as away to divide Americans rather than as a way to unite them" Exactly what this writer states supports this quote the pledge should be left alone it was not meant to separate Americans it was meant to unite all nations. If the founding fathers and editors of the constitution and the pledge knew that this "one nation under god " statement wad going to bring revival and separate people in general maybe this addition to the pledge would have never appear.
violates the constitution

It violates the first amendment "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" The pledge of allegiance indicates that we honor god for we are "one nation under god" I believe that times have changed and people today are no longer as religious as they use to be, so people do have a right to be offended by the phrase. If there is supposed be a separation between church and state, stating that were are one nation under god is not necessary and it clearly violates the constitution!!
Protection

The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is simply the protection of the Divine. Most people, Atheists, say our founding fathers wanted nothing to do with religion. That is not completely true; Benjamin Franklin proposed to pray before their labors for guidance. It was the protection of the Divine he was looking for, along with the best for his country. Laura103-- According to In: Law and Legal Issues, “When did they add under god in the pledge of allegiance?”-- “The phrase "under god" was added to the Pledge in 1954 by President Eisenhower, he said, after adding these words, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be country's most powerful resource in peace and war." America has a history of religious faith, religion is not going any where. Today the american citizens have the right not to have faith in nothing--if that is what they choose. President Eisenhower added the words in good faith, today the words want to be removed in for a lesser reason. Joe 103- Never did I say the founding fathers wrote the Pledge of Allegiance. In Gary Goshgarian and Kathleen Krueger's book "Dialogues An Argument Rhetoric and Reader" in Chapter 13 (pg. 574 -line 10) it says: "When Benjamin Franklin proposed during the Constitutional Convention that the founders begin each day of their labors with a prayer to God for guidance, his suggestion was defeated." All I said is most Atheists say "Not even our founding fathers wanted anything to do with religion." Benjamin Franklin obviously did. He wanted the best for his country, who doesn't? I understand our founding fathers were long gone before the line was inserted in the pledge and had nothing to do with inserting the line. After all, even you got that. Right? -rotciv1986 yes leave it When this was added it was with the intenions of bringing people together during times when people live with fear in their everyday lives and it worked out really good since no one brought it up. In 2001 when we suffered one of the worst attacks this country has ever receive no one ever said anything when on tv and radio commercials on stickers the words it read “in god we trust ” or even worse the commercials on tv had an American flag and in between the 13 red and white stripes id read in big blue letters “in god we trust ” no one ever said anything about it. So its ok to refer to god when America its hurting but not on our everyday lives?
Under God proclaims Christianity

Most Religions that proclaim the word GOD are Christian-based like Catholicism, Christianity, Protestant, Baptists, ect. That makes it a clear violation of the first amendment " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" by congress including the phrase under god in the pledge they have made a law with respect to establishing religion for the entire country; in the disguise of a pledge to the country,and by extension a religion that is mainstream in america that might include a majority of the population but is still clearly violating the first amendment. In addition, there are beliefs systems that worship more than one God, or none at all. Saying the "pledge of allegiance" to a god that you don't believe in, in school, at public functions, in government proceedings, etc is tantamount to forcing people to pledge against their religious (or non-religious) beliefs.
God has nothing to do with patriotism.

Not true; the cross on the flag, the founding fathers were all free masons: believers in a creator. The British crusades resonate deeply in American history. American patriotism is full of historical cross/jesus/prayer references. American wars were/are all about the merge of patriotism with faith. Be it the civil war, the world wars and the cold war(the latter not technically being a war). [[http://teetee199thlibgodandcountry49.webs.com/a20GOD20AND20COUNTRY_mgban2-1.jpg]] . The word “under god” were added as respect, it was expressed as patriotism, even with out the word “under god”.