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

Perhaps you didn't understand, I've given 3 specific examples where the Supreme Court has been undeniably and unequivocally wrong. I'm arguing that this is simply another of those cases of the Supreme court being wrong. So to say that the Court currently agrees with you is not all that significant in regards to it's constitutionality, especially considering how long it generally takes to overturn unconstitutional decisions (it took over a century to overturn the LDS v United States ruling). If your argument is that the Supreme Court is infallible, then you have no argument.I don't need to be to be a Supreme Court Judge to know that "Under God" is an unconstitutional tax-payer funded endorsement of religion, just as I do not need to be a Supreme Court Judge to know that denying women the right to vote also is not Constitutional. I have read the U.S. Constitution, I know what it says.Do you think if we put "One Nation Under No God" in the pledge and "In No God we trust" on money people would view that as being constitutional? Of course not, so why is the inverse? Are these phrases being supported by tax payers? Yes. Are these phrases representing all the Tax Payers? No. The government should not be making theological statements. As Jefferson himself wrote "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions."If you look at the history of these phrases, they were basically written into law as a F#ck You to the atheistic Communists. It was created as an insult to atheists, that was the intended purpose. It marginalizes a minority group, that alone is reason enough to remove the phrases. America is a nation of many beliefs, many faiths, and even people of no faith. The role of the government is to represent the people, all of the people, and not to marginalize them, and unfortunately it has a long history of doing just that.E PLURIBUS UNUM "Out of many, one" is an excellent motto on it's own. Our motto needs to unite Americans and not to divide them.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

This wasn't just said in the SCJ though, but also ratified and decided in other courts (as I showed). I can understand why you are saying it but I think it is frivolous and kind of arrogant to suggest that your view upholds the view of many others, using your own logic against you, YOU have been wrong in the past - perhaps this is an example of you being wrong again?And your latter arguments rest solely on your view about how it presents religion and is against the Constitution and such things will have no conclusive end and thus should be ignored (it would be merely pissing in the wind as one could say).Do you really feel that the phrase signals out people and that they wake up every morning and go 'that phrase makes me feel segregated from society :('?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

This wasn't just said in the SCJ though, but also ratified and decided in other courts (as I showed).As was the contrary. It was in a 9th circuit Court of Appeals case, that the Pledge was originally declared as unconstitutional, the decision was only overruled by the Supreme court due to a technicality. The man in the case did not have full custody of his daughter, and thus could not bring forth a claim on her behalf.I can understand why you are saying it but I think it is frivolous and kind of arrogant to suggest that your view upholds the view of many othersI can assure you that what I am saying is not a fringe view, but is in fact held by many Americans. I am not the first nor will I be the last to suggest the removal of these phrases. The United States is a secular nation from it's founding, not despite it's religiosity, but BECAUSE of it's religiosity.YOU have been wrong in the past - perhaps this is an example of you being wrong again?Perhaps so. Can you show that I am?And your latter arguments rest solely on your view about how it presents religion and is against the ConstitutionIt does and it is. I can point to other court cases where the use of the word "God" is deemed to be inherently religious, and is barred from public schools on that basis. In Dover v Kitzmiller, intelligent Design is declared as religious and it doesn't even use the word God instead using "Intelligent designer". Do you really feel that the phrase signals out people and that they wake up every morning and go 'that phrase makes me feel segregated from societyI don't presume to know what anyone wakes up feeling, however it does single out certain groups of people. Not just atheists either, but Hindus and Neopagans who believe in many Gods, and certain Jewish sects that refuse to write out the word "God" because they feel it is disrespectful and instead only write "G_D". What I do know is that the Government shouldn't, as Jefferson said, be making religious opinions on behalf of the people. Perhaps God is some incorporeal impersonal force detached from any human characteristics, if that were the case to have "One Nation under God" would make about as much sense as having "One Nation under Gravity". Point being the government shouldn't be taking sides on a theological and philosophical question, and leave the people to form their own opinions.It should be our goal to eliminate all instances of favoritism, symbolic or otherwise.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

"As was the contrary. It was in a 9th circuit Court of Appeals case, that the Pledge was originally declared as unconstitutional, the decision was only overruled by the Supreme court due to a technicality. The man in the case did not have full custody of his daughter, and thus could not bring forth a claim on her behalf."It was actually declared as Constitutional as it was 'ceremonial and patriotic' from a separate ruling. "I can assure you that what I am saying is not a fringe view, but is in fact held by many Americans. I am not the first nor will I be the last to suggest the removal of these phrases. The United States is a secular nation from it's founding, not despite it's religiosity, but BECAUSE of it's religiosity."This doesn't prove, nor add anything to the debate.'It does and it is. I can point to other court cases where the use of the word "God" is deemed to be inherently religious, and is barred from public schools on that basis. In Dover v Kitzmiller, intelligent Design is declared as religious and it doesn't even use the word God instead using "Intelligent designer"."We have already be shown how it was deemed Constitutional so this is invalid until the courts say otherwise. Sure, we can go back and forth all day but it won't get us anywhere."question, and leave the people to form their own opinions."I don't think the Pledge and the phrase necessarily force people to have that view.I think you must agree this debate is getting nowhere - want to call a truce? We could argue all day but it is boiling down to self-held beliefs and things which can get ridiculous.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

It was actually declared as Constitutional as it was 'ceremonial and patriotic' from a separate ruling.We have already crossed this bridge. The supreme court is not infallible, and has been wrong before and as I contend is wrong now. To simply say that it is currently supported by a supreme court decision is of no advantage to your argument, so it would behoove you to provide more substantial reasoning for your argument. Your response was to say that it wasn't just supported by the supreme court but it was supported by prior lower court rulings and as I quickly pointed out, so has the contrary ruling (that the pledge was unconstitutional) which is also supported by prior lower court rulings.Now you have just reverted to your initial argument, without regard to the fact that the supreme court is sometimes wrong. You still have yet to address this fact.This doesn't prove, nor add anything to the debate.You claimed that my view wasn't held by many others, I claimed that my view is held by many others, and now you claim this adds nothing to the debate....So why did you bring it up? We have already be shown how it was deemed Constitutional so this is invalid until the courts say otherwise.Something being deemed constitutional, and something actually being constitutional are two entirely different matters. Also your argument would suggest that racial segregation was constitutional. Is this something you are prepared to defend? If not you might want to find a new argument.Sure, we can go back and forth all day but it won't get us anywhere.It won't get you anywhere because you refuse to budge from an incorrect proposition without either presenting new arguments or addressing the problem with your current argument.I am having no such difficulty.I don't think the Pledge and the phrase necessarily force people to have that view.Well forcing people to have a particular pinion is quite difficult if not impossible, however the phrase does endorse a particular religious view not shared by a large portion of Americans.I think you must agree this debate is getting nowhere - want to call a truce? We could argue all day but it is boiling down to self-held beliefs and things which can get ridiculous.A truce implies both sides are near equal, if I were to call a truce it would be rather generous of me. The personal belief of which you refer is the desire to have government favoritism.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

The conclusion of Aronow v. United States is ridiculous, and clearly incorrect. "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise". In what way does the phrase not sponsor The religious exercise of trusting in a existing single god, typically understood to be anthropomorphic... It is an official recognition and statement of validity in a set of religious beliefs, and in how they tie into national beliefs. Also, in what way is America a theocracy(aka, mentioning of god and trust in it is patriotic)?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

You know what they say 'don't shoot the messenger'. You can ask them yourself.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

It wouldn't be an "attack", quit being so dramatic although if you wish, it'll be more like a "Defense". Not supporting a belief, isn't supporting a lack of belief. Also your argument depends on an ad-populum. It is tyrannical for the minority to be stepped on by the majority in such a way, especially when the highest law of the land expressibly forbids it. Its not about someone being offended, its about the structure and nature of government.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

First of all, please read the article posted (it shows how you are wrong). Secondly, I would like to challenge you calling me 'dramatic' which, for one, is a bit of a low blow (I have feelings too), but more importantly many people would feel strongly about this issue as they do trust in God. By removing the statement it would hurt them and they would see it as an attack as it would be removing that identity of their perception of the country.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Your article doesn't prove me wrong, and the establishment clause in the constitution is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state clause. Their feelings are irrelevant, and their personal feelings don't need inclusion in the pledge or else it might as well include how we Americans like hot dogs and base ball. Their perception would still remain, besides the "in god we trust" was added in the mid 19 hundreds as an "attack" on "foreigners" and those "godless pinkos".
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

I think your comparison of believing in a God to baseball and hot dogs is a bit demeaning, you have to understand that it means a lot more to those who believe than a sport and food. You say that their feelings are irrelevant, but the whole point of this debate is about whether we should remove it and feelings can play a huge role - religious groups could lash out at the state, cause friction etc. etc. which would be bad for the US (especially during the given time period). You have to see it from a rational point of view that by keeping it, peace is being kept to a larger degree (I don't see many people getting too fussed about it being there) and there is no harm done - it doesn't force you to believe in God. And the article does prove you wrong as you said the 'in God we trust' goes against the Government values etc. while it clearly does not.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

There is nothing demeaning about the comparison, logically they are the same, rationally they are the same; you are reading into it. If people rebel against the state for the removal of something that should of never of been added, then you throw them in jail or kill them(depending on the specific situation). Friction is sometimes wanted, justified, and should be faced head on. what is correct and right, often isn't easy. It should also be noted, that it isn't a peaceful thing to have that phrase in the pledge. It is an assault on secularism, one of the true foundations and continuers of this great nation and it is part of the on going social institutionalization of religion. If your religious your likely desensitized and blind to the various coercions that take place to assimilate people, and when government partake in such things even subtlety it is the beginnings of a theocracy and carries much weight. We already have too many laws based on nothing more then religious insensibilities rather than logic, too many tyrannies of the majority, too many laws which are really injustices, and then state has the audacity to include in its very pledge an endorsement of various religious beliefs. The article was a ruling, an interpretation via someone not a definite demonstration; such things can be easily over ruled. There is no evidence in the article either, nor reasoning that I saw. It creates and supports a toxic environment and supports a set of religious beliefs, particularly the Abrahamic ones.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

I can't believe I am actually reading this... how old are you? 8? First of all you have to understand the concept of religion in order to argue against it - people who believe in God see it to be a larger factor than the other concepts it doesn't matter how you try to phrase it that is how they see it (you can't just assume your views are right). You say that those who rebel against the state should be killed? What happened to freedom of expression? Do you also suggest killing those who Occupy? And now you are just going back against yourself... you say the phrase is an assault on secularism, yet when I said the removal of the phrase could be seen to be an attack on theists but apparently that was only a 'defense' - please sort yourself out. Then you go out and generalize all religious people? I see you take on the classic 'religious people are blind' kind of view which is sweet, but also illogical - I am not saying they are all extremely aware but they are not all blind. And please enlighten me on how it supports the Abrahamic ones? It merely states 'God' as a concept. You seem to be a nice kid, in future please check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Should the state really just shrug their shoulders when they are attacked? Terrorists should not be meet with apathy. Most religious folk in this country wouldn't really care, and the ones that likly would are indeed old enough to remember not having it. Sure, one or two nut jobs might swing a gun over it, and those people will be handled the same as any nutjob of any ideology or religion. Occupy are not rebels, they are protesters. Although, if they reach sizable mass and violently revolt it would just be the right of revolution in action. Please be aware of the history of the phrase and its significance at various times. Secularism was seen as too close to "communism", as not being opposite it enough due to soviet policies, those times and the presence of it in the pledge are used to rewrite history in order for anti-democratic and anti-individualistic-rights special interest groups to gain power. Religious people categorize and segment their thoughts, in general they are very diverse but when it comes to some particulars there is never much difference except amongst those who are part of less traditional religions of america. Its due to various social forces that this phenomenon exists, one of which is a certain degree of a lack of secularism(which promotes absolutely no religious position, nor degrades any). There are reasons why religion exist, and its probably not because a sky man is hovering over people whispering in their ears silently, there are reasons why otherwise perfectly rational people will participate in the most absurd rituals and support empirically unsupportable political positions.God is a religious concept, that just so happens to be common to various religions(which are all closely related). In God we trust is a even more specific religious concept, referring to a small set of particular religions, just because something supports a set of religions doesn't mean it doesn't violate the establishment clause. All faith, even the necessary kind, is blind by definition. It is belief without evidence. Religion is nothing more than a collection of logical fallacies, especially appeal to emotion. Even you don't have a problem with bohemian's logic, but you recognize the irrationality of others who are religious and are attempting to use it to prove yourself correct(kinda oxymoronic eh?). Btw, your argument is a slippery slope.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

OK my good sir, my hat goes off to you that was a good response. I can more understand where you are coming from, though I still am not fully convinced. I do not agree with you on the 'rebel' aspect as they shouldn't deserve to die that would be inhumane. Furthermore I think you are going quite off topic (and by quite I mean heavily) trying to break down religion as a whole (a job many before you have tried to do and I am sure many more will try to do so also). Let us get back to the basis of the argument: you suggest that barely anyone would mind and I think we should both resign ourselves in that case as it can neither be proved nor disproved, though let us look at it from the two sides. One the one hand let us assume they do not mind and they are all happy and loving and don't get mad. Everything would be fine that way. But if they DO find a problem with it, there could be huge problems across the country and create rifts in society potentially segregating the religious from the non-religious. Breaking it down into basic points, if your view if true the religious people are happy and the non-religious are happy. Though if what I perceive is true then the religious people are not happy and the non-religious are. Is it really worth taking that risk? Especially since such a small minority call for it? I would also like to comment on your suggestion of the majority bullying the minority but in the same sense what seemingly superior right should the minority have to change the majority? Neither the minority nor the majority should be favored and the only far way to solve it would be to take a national vote (of which we both know what the answers would be). We have to look at it from the realistic side: is it worth creating a potential risk for a minor gain? You tell me.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

First of all, that guy owned you there.Second of all, there is a big difference between pro-atheist and pro freedom of choice.Third, it may be a majority, but only around 65% of the US is religious, and there are other religions than Christianity, which is what the pledge & currency is referring to.And anyway, doesn't it seem unintelligent for a writing to support both God & freedom of religious choice?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

In currency it says in God we trust, but you should know in the pledge, if you have ever said it, that it says one nation under God. Now if you have never said the pledge you have no right to be making this debate. We may have every religion in the world in the United States, but our country was first founded by people who followed Cristianity, and besides there are at least 2 religions that follow the Lion of The Tribe of Juda, and they are christianity, and judyism. All of the other religions follow different gods. so what are the chances of them being right compared to the ones that follow the Lion of The Tribe of Juda.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: Yes

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

This amazing place was originally founded on the the beliefs of GOD. I am not anything I don't believe in one thing or another. I grew up in a home where my father didn't believe in God, and my mother does. I grew up saying "In god We Trust" due to the face, when the English man came and settled here it was Christian beliefs the founded. I like having on the money and the pledge cause it reminds me of how we all came to be here. Allah, and all the others or just another name for God in different languages if you think about it. It may explain thing differently, but in the end, they all still pray and talk to the person they believe in. I say do not remove it, cause it reminds us how the USA of founded. Rules of the Bible and God.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Like it or not, this nation was founded on Christian principles. In fact the only reason we have the liberty to worship whatever religion we want is because America is a Christian religion. Just think of it. If America was a Muslim nation, you'd only be allowed to be Muslim. If America was an athiestic nation, you'd be laughed at because you believe in God... Sound familiar? America was based on Christian values,but today we are losing them...
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: Yes

Like it or not, this nation was founded on Christian principles.Like it or not - no, it wasn't. Is Liberty a Christian principle? Capitalism? Security? Taxation? Representative Democracy? Separation of Powers? Speedy trial by jury of peers? Privacy? Right to Bear Arms? etc. etc."no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" - Constitution"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" - 1st Amendment"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); " - Treaty of TripoliFounded on freedom to be Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Deist, or Muslim, or whatever else...