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

Thanks Romanii, this has been an entertaining debate. Final rebuttal: Con interprets the part my argument that “Under God” was added in response to communism to presume originalism. Rather, I was only providing historical context. Demonstrating that the justification used for adding the phrase is no longer a current concern. This was purely to provide context. The historical background provided as to what the phrase “Under God” means is essential to this debate as it is providing proper context. I have demonstrated thoroughly that the phrase was intended and still implies theism. Con wants to reject this context stating “that textual meanings are subjective and can therefore change over time.” This is unfortunately an incomplete contention. Claiming that phrases change meaning over time is only slight mitigation at best. Con has provided no justification to believe that this phrase has had a change in meaning. He has also provided no alternative reasonable interpretation it could possibly have. Thus the interpretation implied with historical context is preferred in this debate as it is the only interpretation provided. As this is the final round it is also to late for con to offer an alternative. Thus the meaning of “under God” has been determined in this debate to promote theism. Con contends that “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"? “ If anything this supports my case. As we see that in many cases saying the pledge is often compulsory. (1) This the Supreme Court agrees that this is alienation. Why does my opponent contend this? I demonstrated last round that in public settings (like public schools) reciting the pledge is often mandatory. Con attempts to refute this citing the Supreme Court case from above. The Supreme Court Case was 72 years ago. As we see, as of 2003 many States still require mandatory participation. This demonstrates the coercive element. While the Court may have ruled such laws unconstitutional and unable to be enforced, in many places it is enforced. Students unaware of their rights are coerced into saying the pledge often. Con then argues that social pressures have no bearing on the actual existence of rights. That may be true but it has a huge bearing on the reality or exercising of those rights. When rights are violated it does not cause rights to not exist, it is a violation of existing rights. Finally con contends that I have not demonstrated pressure to say the pledge is very strong. To the contrary showing that public schools all across the nation require it unjustly demonstrates real pressure and coercion. Con attempted to extend his opportunity cost contention. This is a fallacy. (2) Essentially con is arguing that my “arguments about issues are minimized, deemed unimportant, or dismissed on the grounds that more important topics and issues exist, regardless of whether these problems are relevant to the question at hand or not.”(2) This is known as the Fallacy of relative Privation. By doing so, he is side stepping the resolution. Overview of debate: Con’s first contention was negated soundly as I demonstrated that 1: In public settings (like public schools) reciting the pledge is often mandatory. 2: The intent of the phrase is to promote theism 3: Historical context shows the phrase not purely symbolic. As the phrase clearly imposes theism it is clear that this constitutes a violation of the SCS. Even if you buy that the meaning of phrases change over time, he has not argued for or justified a different interpretation. Con’s second contention is entirely off topic of the debate and is a fallacy. Rather than address this topic head on my opponent attempted to argue it unimportant. My contentions stand. The phrase “Under God” imposes theism. As many are coerced into reciting the pledge this is a violation of the SCS and personal rights. The result of removing this phrase would allow the pledge to fill its purpose as a unifying demonstration of patriotism, and support the Constitutional value that church and state should be separate. Thus, "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of allegiance. Thanks for reading, Vote Pro. Sources: (1) http://undergod.procon.org... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org...