Our National Motto Should Remain "In God We Trust"

My opponent "laments" at my bad manners and personal attacks, but I have done nothing of the sort. Sure, I have criticized his arguments using words such as "willful ignorance", but this is nowhere near an ad hominen attack. Because not only are such phrases directed only towards his arguments, but they are substantive and reasonable. In many argument he really did ignore major claims and facts, so what other word should I use besides that? ==================== PRO Claims: The current national motto reflects the history of our nation ==================== After reading my opponent's response, I could once again see the lack of understanding and knowledge on his part. Not only is his understanding of the history of WW2 lacking (a simple 10 minute Google research can get you the answer), but his rationale for including religion in the motto because of it's history is still punctured with holes. To set things straight, the Normandy landings did NOT have a significant impact on the outcome of WW2. You will find that though the Allies were able to secure a foothold in Europe -- which was significant for the sole fact of keeping Communism out after WW2 -- it didn't do much for the future of the war as many Americans would make it out to be[1]. A brief reading of history will show that the Allies were unable to advance too much further into the mainland, and in fact most of the work thereafter was done by the Soviets. As I said before, the Soviets and Germans fought so much more that many times the ratio would peak to 10 Soviet casualties per 1 Allied causality. However, even if my reading of history is wrong, this shouldn't be the focus of attention. My main point is that there are parts of history that can't and shouldn't be ignored. A historians job isn't just simply to piece together facts of history, it's also to INTERPRET, as best as one can, what events led to what. This is why there are debates among historians about many events. But I'm not saying we should just ignore the Normandy landings - I never stated so, and my opponent is misrepresenting me. Of course Americans should be allowed to praise such actions, it's perfectly fine! Hell, I loved the movie Saving Private Ryan, and I honestly thank the WW2 veterans who conducted the landing operations. However, what I am saying is that we shouldn't forget about who created a bigger impact during the time - the Soviets. If we want to have an objective understanding of the war, then you have to admit to yourself that the Soviets at the time made a much more significant impact than the Allies. So really, my opponent's argument is totally irrelevant. I'm not saying we should ignore events that aren't as significant as others, I'm saying that we SHOULDN'T replace or ignore events that were the most significant - otherwise it's just arbitrary, or cherry picking. So now let's focus on my opponent's reply - how does he account for the main motive that the Pilgrims had? A SIGNIFICANT motive for the Pilgrims was to spread their own religious tolerance, namely Protestantism. If we want to reflect an objective understanding of the historical effects of religion in our national motto, then we would in fact have to include religious intolerance - which I doubt even my opponent would agree to. Seriously, reading some of my opponent's responses make me almost twitch. He actually claims that the national motto is relevant because "most Americans claim that the pilgrims left england to escape religious persecution." This is a blatantly obvious example of an argument ad populum. SO WHAT if most Americans believe that, is history dependent on the beliefs of ignorant Americans? As I said before, if you want an honest, objective understanding of history of religion reflected in our national motto, then you must concede to the fact that the desire to spread their own religious intolerance was a major reason for the Pilgrims departure from England. "In order for a motto to be a good motto it must reflect the nation's history AND be relevant in the present day. "In God We Trust" does both." ----> Ah, so another reason? At face value, my opponent does nothing to explain why a national motto must reflect the nation's history. WHY must a suitable motto do this? I recall in previous rounds that my opponent stated something along the lines that a nation who doesn't remember where it came from doesn't know where it's going (presumably meaning it won't function well). Of course, this is a mere assertion that my opponent has NEVER backed up - he treats it as if it's common knowledge. This is why I'm not accepting his rationale; he has yet to even give a reason for it. ==================== PRO Claims: The current national motto doesn't respect any particular religion ==================== My opponent's argument here is so illogical I'm almost at a loss of words. He states that since no one is "forcing you to observe the national motto", it doesn't really matter what the national motto says - you can just ignore it. This is incontestably wrong. Even if no one is forcing you to observe it, what it does do is prevent you from wanting to observe a national motto - since it isolates you (assuming you're an atheist, agnostic, etc.). For example, let's say I am a proud American patriot (to some extent, I am). However, I can't even acknowledge my own national motto because it excludes me! What more of a backlash then that; if citizens are denied just the opportunity to relate with the national motto, then the motto is unjust. "The church does not benefit the motto at all, they're is so much division in the religious community that the term God when defined amongst religious people varies." ----> Yes, but all religions still use the word GOD meaning it still applies to them, irrespective of their personal definitions. ==================== PRO Claims: The "God" used in the current national motto could not even mean a deity ==================== "Well, 76% of the American people identify as Christian. This is obviously a CONSENSUS. So, why shouldn't the motto reflect the majority of citizens?" ---->This sums up my opponent's argument, revealing it's fallacious nature. There is a difference between arguing that a word's definition is granted by consensus and the justification of a national motto via justification - TOTALLY different situations. Words themselves are inherently just incoherible sounds; they need some sort of consensus to even make sense. However, the justification of a national motto is not dependent on consensus, because right and wrong are not determined by popular vote. These two situations are so different that I can't even imagine why my opponent has a hard time distinguishing between them. As I've said before, the definitions of words are placed by consensus - you can have your own private definition of a word, but no one is going to go along with you. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Just because other mottos might offend others does not mean they should be used - feasibly anything can be considered offensive. Even if we are to believe all the other mottos my opponent presented are faulty, this doesn't mean the national motto should stay as it is. All I need to do is to show that the current national motto is unfit, which I say I have done. In fact, we could feasibly have no motto! There is currently no reason my opponent has offered, so why should this be not considered? ---References---1. http://en.wikipedia.org...