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

I'll organize this round by reviewing each of the major issues covered in the debate and showing why I won each of them. == Originalism vs. Symbolism ==Pro's only defense of Originalism is the blatantly false assertion that I have "provided no alternative reasonable interpretation" of "Under God". I clearly did posit that "Under God" can be interpreted as being symbolic of the deistic tradition of the Founding Fathers and the "God-given rights" of the people, and I supported the validity of this interpretation by noting the presence of other such ceremonial references in currency ("In God we trust") and court rituals ("God save this honorable court"). The only time Pro responded to any of this is when he said my interpretation disregards the historical context of "Under God", but like I said, the historical context is *irrelevant* if Originalism doesn't hold true. Moreover, I actually gave a reason to *reject* Originalism by showing how it has been more or less discredited in the professional legal community, which, again, Pro didn't respond to. By dropping my objection and failing to provide any real positive reason to support it, Pro has essentially conceded that Originalism is false. On the other hand, my symbolic interpretation remains unscathed and validated, and it's the only interpretation left standing in the debate. The impact of this is that "Under God" has no theistic implications whatsoever; thus, there is no way for "Under God" to be considered a violation of SCS, nor can it justifiably be seen as alienating atheists. That leaves us with absolutely no reason to remove "Under God" from the pledge, and therefore the resolution is negated. Feel free to stop reading here and vote Con. == Separation of Church & State ==This comes down entirely to a single issue -- whether or not anyone is 'coerced' into saying the pledge. Without coercion, having "Under God" in the pledge cannot be construed as an infringement of religious freedom. Pro merely re-iterates that many states still have laws in place requiring the recitation of the pledge. However, as I said last round, while they may technically be around, they cannot be enforced. The reason why those states have yet to update their laws is that no legal issues have come up yet regarding the punishment of students who don't wish to say the pledge (which, again, shows how much of a non-issue this is). In response to my rebuttal that social pressure to recite the pledge is not very strong, Pro, once again, just says something about existing (unenforceable) laws, which has nothing to do with social pressures. .. Since Pro has not demonstrated otherwise, we can conclude that the right to opt out of saying the pledge does exist and can be freely exercised. Thus, regardless of whether "Under God" promotes theism or is symbolic, including it in the pledge does not violate SCS. == Purpose of the Pledge ==Pro argued that "Under God" contradicts the purpose of the Pledge by alienating atheists, but he misunderstands my rebuttal. My point was that the pledge, by virtue of its very existence, already alienates a significant minority of the population (Jehovah's Witnesses, etc), so we have two choices -- we either acknowledge that the pledge already fails at its purpose (which would nullify the impact of this argument), or we accept the Supreme Court's solution to the alleged problem of alienation (which would necessarily solve for atheistic alienation too). "Under God" does not contradict the purpose of the pledge any more than "I pledge allegiance" does. == Opportunity Cost ==Pro's only response is that this argument is a "fallacy of relative privation". However, I am *not* dismissing the "Under God" issue merely because more important issues exist; I was very specific in stating exactly why "Under God" should not be removed from the pledge -- because Congress would have to use a lot of time and resources in doing so, which could be better spent addressing political issues with actual empirical harms (which the "Under God" issue is bereft of). My reasoning here is *not* the combination of emotional appeal and non-sequitur which defines the fallacy of RP; it's a purely pragmatic utilitarian argument which demonstrates that implementing Pro's proposed motion incurs a massive opportunity cost. If Pro wanted to discuss this issue in an isolated bubble without regard for the practical consequences of implementing the resolution, he should have made the resolution something along the lines of "Including 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance violates SCS". Pro has not drawn any blood on this argument at all, which is a problem for him because it independently negates the resolution, showing that affirming the resolution is an empirically bad idea even if all of Pro's purely abstract/theoretical arguments succeed.