Religious references should be removed from national obligations.

======================== The Pledge of Allegiance is Irrelevant ======================== All arguments about the Pledge of Allegiance are irrelevant to this debate. 1. The resolution is: - - - - Religious references should be removed from national obligations. 2. My opponent stated: - - an obligation is "an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound. " 3. My opponent stated: - - my argument has nothing to do with the morality or the immorality of the words "under God. " 4. My opponent stated: - - there is no legal obligation to say the Pledge. 5. Thus, from 3 & 4: - - - -The Pledge of Allegiance is not an obligation. 6. Thus, from 1 & 5: - - - -Altering the Pledge of Allegiance does not affirm the resolution. ========================== Coinage and Paper Money are Irrelevant ========================== This is the exact same argument as above, except my opponent has not conceded #4. PRO argues that using money is somehow a legal obligation. I suppose I'll ask him, then, to provide some law which requires us: 1. to Use United States currency 2. to use specifically paper money or coinage as opposed to other forms of payment (check/debit/credit/etc. ) Simply the fact that almost all households currently use paper money in no way makes it a legal obligation as my opponent claims. ======= Conclusion ======= My opponent has in no way affirmed the resolution. He gives us 2 examples, the Pledge and US currency, and says that we should remove religious references from them. Even if this is true, that is not the resolution that he has laid out for us to debate. He needs to prove that religious references should be removed from national obligations. Removing references from the examples he gives is not an example of that. ======== Contention 2 ======== My argument is that: 1. Such references refer to the society, not the government. 2. Such references are true of society. He openly agrees with the 1st half when he says: I agree with you that it is a reflection of society and the American people. He then makes an illegitimate rebuttal of the 2nd half. He argues that the number is dwindling; he does not argue that Christians are not the majority. Therefore my argument stands: 1. Such references refer to the society, not the government. (he openly concedes this) 2. Such references are true of society. (He fails to rebut this. 81% of the US is Christian, according to that same source) =========== The Double Bind =========== My opponent has put himself in a lose-lose situation, even if we disregard my 1st 2 contentions. He states: "You have attempted to argue the point that the endorsement of Christianity in the Pledge and on currency does not stifle the freedom to practice other religions. Although I disagree with this statement, let's pretend that I accept it. If Christianity being present does not hurt any other religion, then certainly by Christianity being absent, Christianity itself will not be damaged. " PRO gives us 2 options: 1. Accept that endorsing a religion won't harm others. 2. Reject that endorsing a religion won't harm others. If #1 is true, then my Contention 4 is false, but Contention 3 remains true. If #2 is true, then my Contention 3 is false, but Contention 4 remains true. This means you, as a voter, have two options: 1. Accept that freedom of religion is not violated. 2. Accept that PRO's argument is logically contradictory. Both result in a vote for CON ====== Summary ====== So here is how this debate plays out: 1. The easiest way for you to make up your mind would be voting on my 1st contention. He states in the opening paragraph of his Round 1 post that he is only arguing for removing religious references from the Pledge of Allegiance and US currency. Neither are national obligations. Therefore, he hasn't affirmed the resolution. 2. If you don't buy that, read my 2nd contention. He agrees that the references should be representative of society. He doesn't disprove the fact that most of society accepts Christianity. Therefore, the references are correctly representing society. You can vote CON right here if you haven't yet. 3. If you didn't agree to that either, you can vote for me on the double bind situation that PRO voluntarily puts himself in. He gives you 2 options for a decision. One affirms my C3, one affirms my C4. No matter which you choose to believe, he has lost. Either, a. We aren't violating freedom of religion like he claims, or b. He is contradicting himself in silencing religion to promote religion. =================== As a Side Note to a Side Note =================== There are 2 illogical arguments that my opponent makes. They really have no bearing on the debate, but I'll address them simply for the sake of making the truth known. Both are found under his rebuttal of my 3rd contention. 1. "If I asked you 'Do you like the color blue? ', your response can only be yes or no. If I asked you 'What's your favorite color? ', you have a limitless amount of options. By removing references to God in the Pledge and in US currency, the false dilemma of Christianity is removed and true choice with regards to religion can occur. " The logical fallacy here is that he, himself, creates a false dilemma. The underlying assertion in this is: If we ask people to choose 'yes or no' to Christianity, they cannot choose other religions. Here's the problem, he ignores 1/2 of the possible answers. Answering "NO" to Christianity (though I personally wouldn't advise it) doesn't restrict you to one option. Answer "NO" and your options remain limitless. You can use the same example that he gives: If I asked you, "Is your favorite color blue? " does that stop you from having any one of an infinite amount of colors? No. If you answer "No, my favorite color is not blue" can you still have any favorite color at all? Yes. Asking somebody "Are you a Christian? " in no way creates a false dichotomy as PRO would have you believe. 2. "As a side note, in your third contention, you employed the reductio ad absurdum argument, committing the fallacy of reducing a claim to absurdity. My argument does not deal with the words Christmas and Easter, does not refer to closing churches, and certainly does not deal with abolishing the Declaration of Independence. Let's try to stay topical. " He dismisses my example as irrelevant and even seems somewhat condescending about it in that last sentence. The problem is, he isn't even correct in the first place. One word: Analogy Obviously, my opponent never talked about Christmas. That's why I called it an example. Christmas and saying "under God" both reference Christianity. If religious references are bad, it would follow that Christmas is bad. Christmas is not bad, so religious references aren't necessarily bad. Please, don't dismiss my example so quickly.