azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

If that definition of constitution doesn't suit you, there are several others.Merriam-Webster2b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something3: the act of establishing, making, or setting up5b : a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization Yes, keep looking. If you find a vague enough definition, it might fit your argument. Of course I say this facetiously. What you are doing is called 'Equivocating'. That you preceded constitution with "the" makes it a little difficult to equivocate here."the constitution" only refers to one thing (at least in regards to this nation). So you cannot claim you were talking about the Declaration of Independence. You made an obvious blunder, and now you are trying to cover it up. You also made the additional error of calling me an idiot. You can humble yourself, or you can let your ego get the best of it. Your call...Second of I never said anything about the "Constitution", I clearly said "Declaration of Independence"Really? Your first sentence:Thewayitis: "The Treaty of Tripoli was made 21 years later than the constitution on which we declared independence from Britain."I dismantled this statement and showed that it was false in more ways than one. You got pissy and called me an idiot, then you provided a definition which was also unsuccessful. That I was able to elicit such an emotional reaction shows how weak your argument was.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Amazing. Talking to you is like talking to a bag of rocks. I have stated very clearly twice already, that the people who wrote and approved the CONSTITUTION .....not the Declaration of Independence.And of course it wasn't the same congressmen. Merely that the same people, the same orators, and the same prevailing attitudes, had allowed the The treaty to be ratified UNANIMOUSLY. John Adams for instance had the same cabinet as George Washington who shaped the treaty.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

I suggest you get your head out of your ass, you started disputing me about the "Declaration of Independence" and lay claim to another dispute.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

This is what I said:"To my knowledge none of the primary founding fathers had died in that time, So the treaty of Tripoli was written and approved by largely the same people who wrote the U.S. Constitution." (Exact quote)Try addressing my argument.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

1) 26/56 does not even constitute a majority2) only one member of the seven key founding fathers was deceased at the time that the Treaty of Tripoli was signed in 1797.Franklin (1790-deceased)Washington (1799)Adams (1826)Jefferson (1826)Jay (1829)Madison (1836)Monroe (1831)Hamilton (1804)
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

By you must really excell in math to know that 26 is less than half of 56.Each members vote only counts as one and no more, so it doesn't matter even if one man wrote the entire thing. There are no key voters or signers.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

A man's contribution to this nation's foundation is not determined solely on his ability to vote. Thomas Paine's sharp political essays inspired a people to war, George Washington led those people to war and to victory, Thomas Jefferson's ideas have laid much of the foundation for the U.S. constitution. Who exactly was Button Gwinnett and why should we consider his contribution equal to any of the other founders I have mentioned?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

1) If we are going to stoop to mathematical ability, you claimed more than half of the signers were deceased. As far as I am concerned, stating the obvious is superior to being incorrect.2) American historian Richard B. Morris, in his 1973 book Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries , identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers:Benjamin Franklin,George Washington,John Adams,Thomas Jefferson,John Jay,James Madison,James Monroe,and Alexander Hamilton
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Would you have a read a book eight times thicker called the "The 56 who shaped our destiny"?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

If you are seriously claiming that all 56 were equally influential, why stop at the people at the convention? if all men are created equal, why not write a book detailing every last one of the billion people on Earth at the time?unless of course, you are stating that these 56 people were better than the rest of the world.Or, you can agree that it is reasonable to say that seven people out of fifty six were the most influential, just as fifty six out of one billion people were more influential
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

You, sir, must have had a wonderful time taking a history class. For those of us who have the ability to discern intentions from actions and evidence, it is not necessarily so difficult. Perhaps you may want to consider reading a book. Or doing researchhttp://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7500.html
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

At 16 you know little about history and even less about the present.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Generally you have to prove an assertion.After all, I too am capable of stating that you do not know any history.That does not necessarily make either of us right.However, considering that the basis of studying history is to understand motives and trends in the past, it seems self-evident that one can act on the intentions of the deceased. I can, after all, go to the public domain and read letters written by the founding fathers, or read journals that they may have kept. Although it is not a fool-proof method, it is generally accepted that people's motives and intentions can be derived from their actions and recorded thoughts.As to your quip concerning my understanding of the present- I do not find this to be either factual or relevant. How many news sources to do have on your bookmarks? I have seven. Not to mention access to archive institutions through school. Between world news, science, and technology alone, I probably read the equivalent of a short novel on a daily basis.And were you to read my arguments, it would seem evident. I use examples. I link sources. I am generally able to convey complex ideas in a relatively clean fashion.You should not be able to disregard my input on the grounds of my age. If you have no other tactic than to belittle me- or utilize any other of ad hominem- it may be in your best interest to simply stay quiet.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Is this an argument? No evidence. No sources. No reasoning. Have you been bested by a teen, it certainly looks that way.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Is it that strange that I am a teen? I do not think it should be considered a factor. Although I appreciate your sentiment, your implication is that it should be easy to best a teen...
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

He's trying to use your age as grounds to dismiss your argument, without realizing that it only makes his argument look worse for resorting to such appeals.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Our country was not in any way based on God's teachings. There are 10 unbreakable commandments, not a single one is enshrined in the constitution - not one. The states never made more than 4 illegaland 3 of those prohibitions (murder, theft, and perjury) also exist in every civilization on the planet - including those that predate monotheism. There are seven deadly sins - not one is illegal. In fact greed is encouraged. Didn't Jesus say "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god" ... I looked for a wealth limit in the Constitution but didn't find any... Our declaration of Independence says "All men are created equal" which is an anathema to god's teachings (women are inferior, slavery is perfectly fine, etc).Our Constitution mentions religion only twice - the 1st amendment (separation of church and state) and prohibiting any religious test for any office of the united states. Hardly sounds like a document based on religious teachings.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

you forgot adultry whic is what happens when you rape or cheat on someone oh and the liberty bell has a verse on it
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

The Liberty Bell is not authoritative on the laws of the land, the Constitution is. Furthermore rape does not require adultery or vice versa.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: Yes

We are the exact opposite, we for founded on NOT respecting an establishment of religion.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: Yes

You mean the part where we kill all non-believers, or what about the part about slavery?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Considering the majority of people believe in a 'God' and the USA is the people's country and serves the majority why should it?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Well, for two reasons. The first reason is that to prevent a tyranny of the Majority we have the U.S. Constitution which limits what the government an do, and one of those limits is on the establishment of religion. The second reason is that, the United States is a very diverse nation, we are a nation of immigrants, with many different beliefs, and our motto should reflect that. With such a diverse nation the dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever before. Certainly no group should want their tax money to support an ideology they do not believe. Many people believe in many Gods, many people believe in no gods, are these people not tax paying Americans as well?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

I can understand where you are coming from, but surely your argument is invalid as if we remove it those who believe in God could see it as an attack on them and pro-atheism (thus creating the problem you claim would happen with it in the pledge and currency). This would only create difficulties as those who believe in a God are in the majority in the US. Plus, do you really think a tyranny is being presented by the majority by having a few words in it? Either way, someone is going to be offended (and the believers would be even more so because it would be taking something away, whilst for the non-believers it would merely be adding something - the loss of the believers would outweigh the victory for the non-believers)
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

if we remove it those who believe in God could see it as an attack on them and pro-atheismThose who view it as an attack are, for lack of a better word, idiots. The pledge as it was originally written did not include the phrase "One Nation Under God", and the pledge was written by a Baptist minister. He certainly would not see his pledge as pro-atheism and neither should anyone else. They are only offended because they want the state to favor their religion above all others.The problem is that people are ignorant of history. In God we trust did not appear on money until 1954, for over a century our currency lacked any reference to any deity and nobody construed that as "Pro-atheism". The lack of something can not be legitimately offensive to any reasonable person.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

I am not disagreeing with you here, but the fact is some people can be stupid and the majority would see it as an attack. I am not condoning their logic, nor supporting it (I myself am a Christian and wouldn't be offended), but on a realistic scale it would cause upset as it has been there for as long as most people can remember - if we never added the statement I don't think it would be a problem but because we HAVE therein lies a problem.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

This is really more of a question about SHOULD we remove it from the Pledge/Currency rather than CAN we remove it from the Pledge/Currency. Your first few posts made it sound like we should leave these phrases because most people want them. I don't disagree that many people would be upset if we removed these phrases. The majority will almost always be upset when you remove some aspect of their favoritism, even if just symbolic. I'm making the case based on history and constitutionality.Imagine you wrote a popular song or anthem, and somebody decided to change your words around for political reasons, and without your consent. This is exactly what has happened to Francis Bellamy. If we want to respect his contribution should we not leave the Pledge, as he originally wrote it?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

This would be a good point if you made it right after the Pledge got changed, though I think that it is too late. The fact of the matter is that now, many people don't look back to how the Pledge WAS, but rather how is it now and how is has been for a, relatively, long time. Because it has been left unchanged for so long it has become part of the Pledge and I do not think many people would respect a decision to change it back as they perceive it as seemingly always being like this.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

"It's been this way for a while, why change it now?"A similar argument could have been made for slavery.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Yes agreed, everything has the right to be challenged but it doesn't necessarily make the point in question evil / bad - anybody can make an argument like that it doesn't prove your point.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

No, that the argument can be used to support other unsound arguments, however does make it a bad argument. You seem to agree with what I'm saying, but you are still caught up on something.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

I can't understand what you are saying, could you please phrase it differently
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

A valid argument cannot be used to support simultaneously both a false and a true conclusion. If an argument is invalid in one case then it is invalid in all cases. If we are to agree that "...because that is the way it has always been, why change it now?" is a bad argument for slavery, then it is also a bad argument for keeping "In God we trust" and "One nation under God". It cannot be a good argument in one case and a bad argument in another.You want to best as you can, to avoid arguments that may also support other dubious conclusions.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Ah right I can see what you mean now. Well, you make a valid point but you have to note that I was talking about it in the mind of the public. I was merely discussing how THEY would see it to be a weird thing to change and we all know the average person isn't deeply philosophical and so would see little contradiction in what you have pointed out. If you put yourself in their position you have to realize the logic behind why they would see it weird to have it changed - it doesn't benefit anybody, they would see it as an attack because it was seemingly done for nothing (nobody obviously gains i.e. it doesn't save a life like changing slavery did). My main point was based around this as for one, it could cause a public out roar and mainly because it wouldn't serve any direct and needed purpose. It being there doesn't kill anybody, and removing it wouldn't save anyone and this is built upon, in the eyes of the public, that it has been there for a long time - 'why would it need changing?' they'd think.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

My question is what do YOU think. I'm well aware of how the public feels about it.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

If you know how the public feels then why do you still seek to remove it?Personally, I feel that there is nothing evidently wrong with it. I don't feel like it forces anybody to be something there not, yet I can understand why some people would want it removed. I just think there is a lot more going on outside this seemingly meaningless topic that could be discussed as many other things actually carry meaning. Also, on a practical level, it would be extremely hard and would achieve little.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

For constitutional matters, it doesn't matter how the majority feels. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. The general public is not knowledgeable of history, and not knowledgeable of the Constitution. To put it succinctly -- The public is wrong.While it seems like removing these phrases from money and from the pledge accomplishes nothing I must digress. Restoring the pledge to it's original wording I think honors Francis Bellamy, but more than that i think the greatest benefit is to honor our Constitution. For me it is a matter of principal. No violation of the Constitution is to small to be rectified. A small violation of the Constitution paves the way for others.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

You are wrong; it does matter. Sure, in an ideal universe if things went well and everybody was chums then it wouldn't matter. But sadly, my dear friend, we do not live in that world. Politics and laws have consequences, hence why some get passed and others do not. It would be simply inviable to remove it and a waste of time as in order to do so it would have to go through so many levels not only would it be failed, but it would be failed for multiple reasons. You have to, again, think about it realistically (as we do live in an imperfect world) - it would not be worth it and it isn't even a bad situation! If it was something like black people being used as slaves then I would agree with you, but it is mere letters on a page. Also, I have already proved to you it does not violate the Constitution. It isn't like you are the first one to this it does, many have tried to get it removed but again and again it is told that it does not violate anything.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

You are wrong; it does matter.No, you are still wrong. The U.S. Constitution is the Law of the Land, it was created specifically to prevent a tyranny of the majority. There are some things even a majority cannot impose regardless of the level of popular support, and those 'things' are enumerated within the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is non-negotiable. The establishment clause, which outlaws any state endorsement of religion, is not subject to popular will. It would be simply inviable to remove it and a waste of time as in order to do so it would have to go through so many levels not only would it be failed, but it would be failed for multiple reasons.You say this and yet, you have not provided a single such reason aside from "Many people would be outraged". You say it is a bad idea but cannot explain why. Your argument thus far has been little more than Argumentum ad populum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Also, I have already proved to you it does not violate the ConstitutionAnd what was your proof?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Your argument would be decent if you actually had the backing of what you are saying.http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/03/court-under-god-and-in-god-we-trust-are- constitutional-/1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States http://www.christianlawjournal.com/featured-articles/appeals-court-rules-in-god-we-trust-is-constituional
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

As long as we are looking at prior court cases let's look at a few more:Bradwell v. Illinois, An Illinois women was prevented from practicing law because she was in fact a women. The supreme court ruling supported the prior Illinois Court ruling which supported her rejection from the Illinois Bar. This was in clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause and openly discriminated against women.In Plessy v Ferguson, the Court determined that "Separate but equal" did not violate the 13th and 14th amendment, only to be overturned 54 years later in Brown v Board.In LDS v The United States, the Supreme court upheld an act which seized LDS (latter-day saints) Church property, stripped Mormon women of their right to vote and other marital rights, and removed Mormons from public office. This was not overruled until nearly a century later.Your argument rests upon the assumption that the U.S. Supreme court cannot be in conflict with the Constitution, which is demonstrably false by the fact that it has made contradictory decisions in similar cases. In your first link it says "The same court sided with him in 2002 when it struck down the pledge, which he challenged on behalf of his daughter. Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that ruling, saying Newdow had no legal standing to challenge the pledge because he did not have legal custody of his daughter." In essence the court said that he was right to challenge the pledge but due to a technicality he was not legally able to challenge it.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

So you are saying you are better to evaluate whether something is against the Constitution than the Supreme Court of Justice? This is getting quite pointless to be honest because, at current standings, it is found not to violate it and so you have no argument (other than 'I know better than them') to stand on. We could argue for hours over whether they are right to say what they did, but at the end of the day they said that it didn't violate it. What else is there to argue? I am not saying that the SCJ is without a doubt right but this has turned into little more than trying to prove something that isn't factual (at the current times). It could all change, but as we speak this is what is being presented.