This statement is false: Found in the cirriculum of the first US Public Schools, 1647... "...one chi

Now onto the debate. My opponent starts of by admonishing me for my personal remarks. As I said, the paragraphs were a reply to your confusion. But, if you like, I'll just take a page out of your book and tell you that if you don't like it don't read it. I didn't say anything that I did not back up with a factual analyse of the situation. Pro wants me to stick to the facts? I contend that I never did anything but. I did not call him a liar, I merely said that his actions taken were those of an unhonest man. If he wants to argue that those are the actions of an honest man, or that he did not commit them, then he is welcome to. He can go ahead and accuse me of poisoning the well, but I believe that the events preceding this debate should also be included as they have a bearing on some arguments either of us could provide. Now, con says that, in his words, "The underlying problem here, in my opinion, is the view that many hold, that our country was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. ". This is a fact, affirmed in the treaty of Tripoli. He then goes on to say "My purpose for putting that in my sig was to show that from the time the settlers stepped foot in the new world, religion was a huge part of their lives". Why he continues by saying this I don't know. there is no connection between the first settlers certain parts of a country, most of which being British were monarchists, and the anti-monarchist rebels that wanted America to secede from British rule. It is also a little nonsensical, because at the beginning he puts that "from when the settlers stepped foot in the new world, religion was a huge part of their lives" This implies that it wasn't before hand, and it also ignores those that weren't religious. Included in that lot, later on in history, were a portion of the founding fathers. Yes, religious beliefs are reflected in law, funny thing that con should mention that as it is declared illegal for such to happen in the United States under constitutional law. Now, lets get into the good stuff. First I'd like to make my strongest argument as I find it funny. Now, con claims that my claim that his use of the word U. S is just nitpicking. I'm willing to agree to an extent. Though, I do thank him for essentially conceding the debate. Thank you con! Now, some of you are probably a bit confused, but for those who know their definitions, it is probably more obvious. Nitpicking is defined as being overly critical or to criticize minor details. And what is a detail defined as? A detail is a feature, fact, or item. Now the detail I'm criticizing can't be considered an item, but it could be considered a feature or fact. And seeing as a feature is a fact about an object, that means that my opponent has admitted that my claim is based in fact. This makes him factually incorrect. This means he has conceded the debate. Now instead of just stopping there I'll continue in case my opponent finds a hole in that logic that I didn't. So, con claims that "[he] think[s] it unreasonable to assume that teachers wouldn't use the very wording of the law to show kids why it's necessary for them to be educated" and I agree. I would also say that it is unreasonable to assume that it was used. And until my opponent can provide a record of the specific curriculum in which he claims this is found my hands are tied. I can no more say it wasn't in any specific curriculum then he can say it was, so this point is moot. My only option, considering the lack of information, is to contend that even if what he says is true, that it was mentioned, this would not make it part of the curriculum. And this point is made even more useless when you consider that the school he claims the curriculum belonged to came before the law and so would not have anything, and I'll repeat my self because con didn't get this point last time, anything to do with this school, and so would not come up in the situation he mentioned. Again, I can't say the it wasn't used until I see some records. But I can say that the facts are against it. Now in con's next paragraph he makes points that don't logically follow. He also makes an argument Ad Populum, by saying that because most people wouldn't make these arguments they are unreasonable. And he does this right after conceding the debate. So, how does my stance that because the U. S constitution wasn't created until a century later mean that I'm saying historical models can only exist for things in their current state and therefore previous history doesn't apply to them. Even if he claimed that is an implication of my claim that one can argue the U. S didn't exist until a few decades ago, it still doesn't follow. First of all I just said that it could be argued, second of all I am applying this to the U. S because as the name says it is the United states of America, not the divided colonies of America as it was in the past, and not the partially dived states of America. Just like there used to be two Germanies. Well, historically, the second world war didn't end until the Germanies united in 1990 because the war started with Germany and as such had to be ended by Germany, not east and west Germany. And Germany didn't exist to end the war. Now, another interesting bit as my opponent claims I'm complaining about minutia. But what is minutia again? Minutia is trivial details. And what are details again? So, this would, in fact, make it not minutia as the details are in no way trivial. My opponent claims a refutation of my point that the law doesn't even have anything to do with the united states. I will concede to an extent, as I went a bit far. It can be said to have something to do with the U. S in that it is apart of its history. Regardless, this fact is irrelevant. This last point is a reading error on my part, I read it as "first school's curriculum" Instead of "First school curriculum". I apologise for the error. Finally, I would like to address con's comment that I'm potraying my self as a crusader for truth. I don't see my self as a crusader for anything especially not truth, and I apologize if it seemed as though I was trying to portray my self as such. But in my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth. I lie, I'm more then willing to admit it. I'm also willing to admit I'm a hypocrite. I'm not happy to admit those things, but I am willing. What I am happy to admit is that I am slowly growing out of my lying as I come to understand the harm of lies, and the wonder of truth. And as this understanding come's about, it angers me more and more when I lie and when others lie as well. But lying is like a gun in that it can be used to commit a travesty, but it can also be used to prevent one. It all depends on intent. I lied yesterday and told my mother that her cooking was delicious to prevent hurting her feelings. In my opinion, which I have shown to be backed by fact, you lied to try and back up the claim that the U. S is/was a christian nation. They're both lies, but one is bad and has good intent. The other is bad and has bad intent. Which is which, do you think?