Our National Motto Should Remain "In God We Trust"

Such a short response will mean one of three things: he's a genius who needs only a few words to get his point across, my arguments were so horrid that large responses weren't necessary, or his responses are lacking. I opt with the conclusion that his responses are lacking - they are either strawmen or counterarguments that completely ignore what I said. In fact, he has even ignored some of my points. At this point the winner will be CON if PRO doesn't pick up his pace, and I will show why: ==================== PRO Claims: The current national motto reflects the history of our nation ==================== 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. 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. There should be no excuse. If you want to derive the national motto from the circumstance and reasons our Founding Fathers had for coming to America, then you must embrace the fact that religious INTOLERANCE was a major part of their motivation, which doesn't look too good, huh? "A nation that doen't remember where it came from is a nation that doesn't know where it is going, this is why it is in our motto. " ----> This sounds fancy and all, but I doubt you have any good reason for this. Wanna share? "The national motto was established in the 1950s, far after Indian relations had improved and after slavery was abolished. A national motto must be relevant. " ----> 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. ==================== PRO Claims: The current national motto doesn't respect any particular religion ==================== 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. ==================== PRO Claims: The "God" used in the current national motto could not even mean a deity ==================== This is quite an amusing argument. 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. However, what he fails to realize is that words are used much more than just that. 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). As I have shown, the modern coneption of God hasn't changed for hundreds of years - an "omni-entity" that is personal. This is the majority consensus, and thus is what the national motto depicts. ==================== My argument: The current national motto isolates a group of citizens, which is ill-suited for a national motto ==================== My opponent completely ignores this point as well, he has yet to show why a national motto that excludes a group of citizens should remain as it is. The audience should take note of this. ==================== Conclusion ==================== There really isn't much to say. His arguments either willfully ignore parts of history, contradict previous arguments, or attempt to argue definitions are always subjective. Not only are these arguments just plain bad, but he even ignores two of my arguments.