frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Should "God" play a role in United States politics?

Debate Information

Should religion play a part in goverment?
  1. Live Poll

    Should "God" play a role in United States politics?

    19 votes
    1. Yes, we need religion
      36.84%
    2. No
      63.16%
    3. I don't care, I do not live there
        0.00%
I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

I friended myself! 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • There is a specific reason why we are a secular government in the first place. That reason is because, if we were to say "Religion should have a place in government", then people will ask which one. Then my dear readers, we will have large amounts of bloodshed over which one's religion gets to be on top. Secular, is what a government must be, if it wants to keep its citizens from clawing at each other's throats. Secular Government in short = A safe and fair government. 
    BaconToesPogueDrCerealSkepticalOneGeorge_Horse
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    There is a specific reason why we are a secular government in the first place. That reason is because, if we were to say "Religion should have a place in government", then people will ask which one. Then my dear readers, we will have large amounts of bloodshed over which one's religion gets to be on top. Secular, is what a government must be, if it wants to keep its citizens from clawing at each other's throats. Secular Government in short = A safe and fair government. 
    Although it might not entirely be safe or fair, it would help.
    brontoraptorGeorge_Horse
    i fart cows
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  

    The U.S. Government is not secular:

    Secular: Not connected with religious or spiritual matters.

    ‘secular buildings’
    Contrasted with sacred


    Cotting v. Godard, in 1901, the Supreme Court makes the case that the Constitution is but the “body and the letter” of the “thought and spirit” of the Declaration’s founding principles:

    The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.
    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/republic-found-the-relationship-between-the-declaration-and-constitution

    Above is a perfect example of exactly how the Government is not secular.  The U.S. Supreme Court formally and officially acknowledges that the Constitution of the United States is merely the body and letter of the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence.  Since one of the prominent founding principles established in the Declaration of Independence is the bestowment of the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness by our "Creator"...then the principle that these rights are God given is also formally and officially recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Our Presidents of the United States have formally recognized this publicly many times over.  Our Declaration of Independence also establishes that the U.S. is subject to the "Supreme Judge of the World" and that our independence is completely dependent on "Divine Providence".  

    In short, if the Constitution is the body and letter of the Declaration of Independence (As established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Cotting v. Godard) then the Constitution is to be legally interpreted with respect to the "Supreme Judge of the World" and our "Creator".  Now I suppose you could argue that this doesn't objectively establish which God is being referenced...but understanding who the Founding Fathers worshiped and who was prayed to upon the meeting of the Second Continental Congress...you can easily and safely deduce that it was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

    The U.S. Government only appears to be secular at the surface...everything underneath is rooted firmly in Christianity and to say otherwise is wishful thinking.
    SkepticalOnebrontoraptor
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • I assume the "God" the OP refers to is the Christiam deity. Correct me if wrong.

    The US government is built on the concept of religious freedom (among other things).  If government priveledges one religion over another, then religious freedom of other religious views are infringed. Religious freedom only exists where all religous views are equal in the eyes of the government. 


    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    The U.S. Government is merely the body and letter of the thought and spirit of the Declaration of Independence.  The U.S. Supreme Court holds firmly that the Constitution must be read, interpreted and understood with regards to the Declaration of Independence.  The U.S. Supreme Court also acknowledges that our Free Government is based upon religious principles.

    Also, when the Declaration of Independence was created and also when the 1st Amendment was officially added...the U.S. had multiple State Churches...none of which were removed or dissolved because of the 1st Amendment.
    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • DrCerealDrCereal 193 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    The U.S. Government is merely the body and letter of the thought and spirit of the Declaration of Independence.  The U.S. Supreme Court holds firmly that the Constitution must be read, interpreted and understood with regards to the Declaration of Independence.  The U.S. Supreme Court also acknowledges that our Free Government is based upon religious principles.

    Also, when the Declaration of Independence was created and also when the 1st Amendment was officially added...the U.S. had multiple State Churches...none of which were removed or dissolved because of the 1st Amendment.
    Sources for, "Also, when the Declaration of Independence was created and also when the 1st Amendment was officially added...the U.S. had multiple State Churches...none of which were removed or dissolved because of the 1st Amendment. "?

    Bis das, si cito das.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @DrCereal

    By the year 1702 all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion. This support varied from tax benefits to religious requirements for voting or serving in the legislature.  The following excerpts with sources will show that State Churches existed, were formally and officially recognized by the States under law and that their existence persisted (In many cases) LONG after the adoption of the 1st Amendment. Documented State supported religions by State with sources:

    For cross referencing, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was adopted December 15th, 1791

    1. Virginia
    Official Religion: Anglican/Church of England
    Original Charter Date: Apr. 10,1606
    Full text: The First Charter of Virginia  (PDF) 15.5K
    Ended Support: 1830 
    "Every Person should go to church, Sundays and Holidays, or lye Neck and Heels that Night, and be a Slave to the Colony the following Week; for the second Offence, he should be a Slave for a Month; and for the third, a Year and a Day." 
    Governor Argall's Decree
    1617

    "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other." 
    Virginia Declaration of Rights
    1776

    2. New York
    Official Religion: Anglican/Church of England
    Original Charter Date: June 7, 1614
    Full text: Charter of the Dutch West India Company  (PDF) 22.8K
    Ended Support: 1846 
    In 1697, although the Anglican Church was never formally established in the Province of New York, Trinity Church was founded in the City of New York by royal charter, and received many civil privileges and the munificent grants of land which are the source of its present great wealth." 

    3. Massachusetts
    Official Religion: Congregational Church
    Original Charter Date: Mar. 4, 1629
    Full text: The Charter of Massachusetts Bay  (PDF) 29.1K
    Ended Support: 1833 
    "Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments. provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.
    Massachusetts Constitution
    1780 

    4. Maryland
    Official Religion: Anglican/Church of England
    Original Charter Date: June 20, 1632
    Full text: The Charter of Maryland  (PDF) 22.6K
    Ended Support: 1867
    Article XXXV. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion." 

    5. Delaware
    Official Religion: None
    Original Charter Date: 1637
    Chartered by: South Company of Sweden
    Ended Support: 1792 
    One of the very few states at the time that had no official religion but still officially and formally recognized "Almighty God as the ONLY Lord of Conscience.

    "BECAUSE no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship: And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare, That no Person or Persons, inhabiting in this Province or Territories, who shall confess and acknowledge Our almighty God, the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the world; and professes him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the Civil Government, shall be in any Case molested or prejudiced, in his or their Person or Estate, because of his or their consciencious Persuasion or Practice, nor be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious Worship, Place or Ministry, contrary to his or their Mind, or to do or suffer any other Act or Thing, contrary to their religious Persuasion. 

    AND that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World, shall be capable (notwithstanding their other Persuasions and Practices in Point of Conscience and Religion) to serve this Government in any Capacity, both legislatively and executively." 

    Charter of Delaware
    1701

    6. Connecticut
    Official Religion: Congregational Church
    Original Charter Date: Jan. 14, 1639
    Full text: The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut  (PDF) 10.6K
    Ended Support: 1818 
    Article VII. Section 1. It being the duty of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and their right to render that worship in the mode most consistent with the dictates or their consciences, no person shall by law be compelled to join or support, nor be classed with, or associated to, any congregation, church, or religious association; but every person now belonging to such congregation, church, or religious association, shall remain a member thereof until he shall have separated himself therefrom, in the manner hereinafter provided. And each and every society or denomination of Christians in this State shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights, and privileges; and shall have power and authority support and maintain the ministers or teachers of their respective denominations, and to build and repair houses for public worship by a tax on the members of any such society only, to be laid by a major vote of the legal voters assembled at any society meeting, warned and held according to law, or in any other manner." 
    Connecticut Constitution
    1818 (This was written into state law approximately 27 years AFTER the 1st amendment was adopted)

    7. New Hampshire
    Official Religion: Congregational Church
    Original Charter Date: Aug. 4, 1639
    Full text: Agreement of the Settlers at Exeter in New Hampshire  (PDF) 5.08K 
    Ended Support: 1877 
    Senate. Provided, nevertheless, That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion...
    House of Representatives. Every member of the house of representatives... shall be of the Protestant religion...
    President. [H]e shall be of the Protestant religion." 
    New Hampshire Constitution
    1784

    "And be it further enacted, that each religious sect or denomination of Christians in this State may associate and form societies, may admit members, may establish rules and bylaws for their regulation and government, and shall have all the corporate powers which may be necessary to assess and raise money by taxes upon the polls and ratable estate of the members of such associations, and to collect and appropriate the same for the purpose of building and repairing houses of public worship, and for the support of the ministry; and the assessors and collectors of such associations shall have the same powers in assessing and collecting, and shall be liable to the same penalties as similar town officers have and are liable to--Provided that no person shall be compelled to join or support, or be classed with, or associated to any congregation, church or religious society without his express consent first had and obtain--Provided also, if any person shall choose to separate himself from such society, or association to which he may belong, and shall leave a written notice thereof with the clerk of such society or association, he shall thereupon be no longer liable for any future expenses which may be incurred by said society or association--Provided also, that no association or society shall exercise the powers herein granted until it shall have assumed a name and stile by which such society may be known and distinguished in law, and shall have recorded the same in a book of records to be kept by the clerk of said Society, and shall have published the same in some newspaper in the County where such society may be formed if any be printed therein, and if not then in some paper published in some adjoining County." 
    The Toleration Act, Section 3D
    1819

    "House of Representatives. Article 14. Amended 1877 deleting requirement that representatives be Protestants. 
    Senate. Article 29. Amended l877 deleting requirements that senators be Protestant." 
    New Hampshire Constitution
    1990 (OVER 200 years after the 1st Amendment was adopted).  Mind you that this was undone by the State, not the Federal Government.


    The other 6 can be found here: 
    https://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000069









    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • averyaproaveryapro 150 Pts   -  
         I do not think that using religion in politics is a good idea for our country. First of all there are so many different religions and having that much disagreement between people would, in my opinion, lead to more protests and violent shootings and just think about it, our country has seen 2 huge mass shootings within 4 months this year and that is when religion hasn't been involved. For example, if a Christian person were to be voting for somebody who believes in Christianity that would make sense but then when that candidate starts rambling on about God and how he is the greatest person and how everyone should believe in him, think about everyone else that has a different religion like a person that believes in Buddhism might not be happy with all that this candidate is saying so this Buddha person is going to go to a Catholic Church and create a mass shooting. Also, our country is already splitting at the seams with Trump leading it and all of the nuclear bomb threats, talk about World War 3 etc. Imaging if we just added another element for people to disagree over, I don't think it's right for our country no matter how strongly people believe in something. 
  • MikeMike 97 Pts   -  

    I do not know if “God” plays a role in US politics; but what I do know, those who believe in God have a role in US politics. As far as I know, there is no law stating only those who are secular have a role in US politics; if there is, it is unconstitutional.   

    Thomas Jefferson (authored the U.S. Declaration of Independence) included the phrase, “… the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God….” There is little doubt that Jefferson and those of faith, both in his day and today, believed that God, or some Divinity, created the universe and everything in it, including the physical “Laws of Nature,” of which we are a product thereof.  Expanding on this belief, it would be beneficial for those of faith (a formidable segment of the global population) to embrace Jefferson’s subtle point that the laws of nature are the handwriting of God; and therefore, the scientific method is a way to read God’s handwriting. Relative to this induction, those who are scholarly secular should consider the reality that those who believe in Divinity are not going away any time soon, and to wisely use Jefferson’s phrase as a uniting factor in the constructive evolution of civil society by the moral benefits found in diversity of belief in US politics. Hence, freedom of religion.    

    That is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” (clause one of the First Amendment to the US Constitution).

     Therefore, those who have a role in US politics and believe in God, “Congress shall make no law of prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is also known, that Congress made “no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

    Vaulk
  • brontoraptorbrontoraptor 123 Pts   -  
    @BaconToes
    It's a tough question. I think Christianity is the bulwark to worse ideologies that act like a religion without advocating God. Far left liberalism dictates morality and what is right and wrong according to its followers. Taking God away doesn't rid the government of religious-like ideologies dictating politics.
    VaulkSkepticalOne
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Yes, I think a God-complex is very necessary to go far in politics as well as total disregard for anything any religion teaches us to abide by morally. :)

  • Vaulk said:
    The U.S. Government is merely the body and letter of the thought and spirit of the Declaration of Independence.  The U.S. Supreme Court holds firmly that the Constitution must be read, interpreted and understood with regards to the Declaration of Independence.  The U.S. Supreme Court also acknowledges that our Free Government is based upon religious principles.

    Also, when the Declaration of Independence was created and also when the 1st Amendment was officially added...the U.S. had multiple State Churches...none of which were removed or dissolved because of the 1st Amendment

    It is true the SCOTUS uses the Declaration of Independence to interpret the Constitution, but that is only part of the story.  The Supreme Court also uses the writings of the founding fathers. The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" were first used by Jefferson 1802 in regards to the meaning he assigned to the religion clauses. The Supreme Court enlisted this phrase in Everson vs Board of Education (1947):

     "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

    Another case with relevance to this matter s Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) in which the court stated:

    ... The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact laws” prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantwell_v._Connecticut

    To that end, SCOTUS acknowledges separating church and state (referring not only to the federal state) was fundamental to the Founders’ intent.


     
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne Who cares what the founders thought or not? They are dead and gone and are just as fallible as you and I.
  • @someone234

    By that reasoning, we can discount most historical persons (provided they've died).  That is not a position I find meaningful or wise.
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne In time you will realise that what you find meaningful or wise only matters to you and your decisions in life. the whole concept of teaching itself is flawed for these reasons. Every single human should be an adversary of all other humans in the ideal utopia we can all debate but because that would cause war due to how far people take arguments IRL, they worked out how to brainwash the masses, imprison the few who take it to physical levels and let the few smart debaters waste away their talents on sites like these.

    Am I saying I matter more than you? Of course not, I'm an internet troll just like you.
    NopeSkepticalOneDrCereal
  • MikeMike 97 Pts   -  
    @someone234

    Good point about our founders are “as fallible as” we are. However, we should honor those great thinkers of past ages whose “thoughts” advanced our standard of living. For example, Sir Isaac Newton’s (1642-1727) “thoughts” on the laws of motion we honor today for without them there will be no automobiles or weather/GPS satellites orbiting the Earth, etc. Newton’s thoughts were in alignment with the matrix of those physical laws of nature which transcends time, those laws of nature that created life.

     The same with our founders, more specifically Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), who unknowingly discovered the constructal law through his celebrated thoughts of “unalienable Rights” known as “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Based on Jefferson’s “thoughts” our founders develop the US Constitution, an experiment in governance. Within a short period of 200 years, this governance brought global change like no other in recorded history through advances in technology, food production, and medicine; a social empirical data point offers a compelling example of what can happen when our “unalienable Rights” are free to flow within the awesome machinery of nature. The empirical results of a constitution that follows a physical law in nature, like all those laws of nature, which are omnipotent and cannot be changed by any man-made law or philosophy.

  • George_HorseGeorge_Horse 499 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Of course not. There's no 'being' controlling politics, keep religion out of politics. 
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill

    We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
  • AkulakhanAkulakhan 23 Pts   -  
    Absolutely not. Religion shouldn't influence politics, as much as we can help it.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    U.S. Supreme Court Case: Cotting V. Godard 1901

    Summary: The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

    No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."


    http://candst.tripod.com/doisussc.htm

    From this U.S. Supreme Court Case and the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court finding stated above we can easily and safely deduce the following:

    1. The Constitution is merely the body and letter while the Declaration of Independence is the Thought and Spirit.
    2. The Constitution is required to be read and interpreted with regard to the Declaration of Independence.
    3. The U.S. Supreme Court maintains that the absolute highest duty of the court is to enforce constitutional provisions that secure equality of rights.
    4. The U.S. Supreme Court formally acknowledges that Free Government is founded upon equality of rights.
    5. The U.S. Supreme Court formally acknowledges that Equality of Rights is God given.

    So then the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges that Free Government is founded upon a religious principle and securing that religious principle is the absolute highest duty of the court. 

    The U.S. Government is Secular.  We don't have a Secular Government.  The U.S. Supreme Court makes an outstanding case for the underlying religious principles that our entire Constitution is built upon.  So we can argue all day that Religion Shouldn't influence politics...meanwhile it does influence politics so long as our politics are influenced by the principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • Secular:
    1a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal  -secular concerns
    b : not overtly or specifically religious -secular music
    c : not ecclesiastical or clerical -secular courts -secular landowners
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular

    Secular does not mean an absolute void of religion or religious influence, only that religion is not a priority. 

    To introduce a god-concept into government would nullify the intended secular nature of US government.


    DrCereal
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @SkepticalOne

    I've already mentioned several times, your "God Concept" has already been introduced and formally recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Secondly,

    Secular: Not connected with religious or spiritual matters.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/secular

    In order for the U.S. Government to be secular, according to the Oxford Dictionary, it would have to be completely disconnected with religious matters...but it's not.  The entire concept of Free Government is based wholly upon religious ideology established within the Declaration of Independence and is formally acknowledged as being so by the Supreme Court.  This is the documented association between Religion and our Free Government, one was created from the other.  
    Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)
    http://candst.tripod.com/doisussc.htm

    As has already been remarked, it may well be doubted, [40 U.S. 518, 556] whether such a stipulation would be within the treaty-making power of the United States. It is to be remembered, that the government of the United States is based on the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, by the congress of 1776; "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted."
    The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (1841)
    http://candst.tripod.com/doisussc.htm

    The summary points we should be able to take away from this are: 

    1. The Government of the United States is based on the principles promoted within the Declaration of Independence.
    2. The Prominent principle in the Declaration of Independence is the unalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
    3. The Prominent principle above is recognized by the same Government as "God given" and therefor non-secular.
    4. If the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges that our Government is based on a religious principle...then how can you even suggest that our Government is Secular?

    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • @Vaulk

    I do not except "secular" as you understand it. By that understanding, there could be no secularists and virtually no secular person on the planet.

    The rest of your post is built on this dubious eisegesis of secular and deserves no response.


    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    If you refuse to accept the oxford dictionary as a legitimate reference to the meaning of Secular then perhaps you could suggest a reputable dictionary to serve in its place.  I'm of the understanding that if you believe that words can mean whatever you want or think them to mean then you'll never hold a solidified belief in anything.  Simplified: Words mean things.
    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • @Vaulk

    I provided a more nuanced definition of secular in the post you originally replied to:

    SkepticalOne said:
    Secular:
    1a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal  -secular concerns
    b : not overtly or specifically religious -secular music
    c : not ecclesiastical or clerical -secular courts -secular landowners
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular

    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @SkepticalOne

    Even with the definition you've provided, the U.S. Government would have to be devoid of overtly or specifically religious association. It's impossible to conclude that it is devoid of such due to the references by our Declaration of Independence as well as the establishment of the basis of our Constitution and entire Government by the Supreme Court.  Essentially, if the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest Arbiter of the Law and the same U.S. Supreme Court upholds that the Government is based upon the religious principles of the Declaration of Independence...then there can be no doubt that our Government is NOT secular.
    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • @Vaulk

    The Declaration of Independence (DOI) makes no mention of religion and terms such as Nature's God, Creator, and Divine Providence were commonly used by deists of that era. Thomas Jefferson, a deist,authored the DOI and was famously known for editing the New Testament to remove all references to the supernatural including miracles, resurrection, and divinity of Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible ; Furthermore, the DOI explicitly states the power of the human governments is derived from the governed (not god and certainly not religion). In short, the DOI does not support the notion that government should be guided by a specific religion or any religion at all.
    DrCereal
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @SkepticalOne ;
    @Vaulk

    The Declaration of Independence (DOI) makes no mention of religion and terms such as Nature's God, Creator, and Divine Providence were commonly used by deists of that era. 
    Firstly, you are riding a very thin line and depending on the perspective, this could easily be a Red Herring because as of now I have made four total arguments for the formal recognition by the U.S. Supreme Court as to the religious principles in the Declaration of Independence and now that the argument has narrowed, you're attacking the idea that the references in the Declaration (Including "Creator") are somehow not religious in nature because of the commonality of the usage.  This is also a solid Appeal to Common Practice Fallacy, one which you're unfortunately not going to be able to get out of due to the boldness of your statement.  

    Secondly I don't really understand how pointing out that, deists commonly used these terms in that era, could possibly be an argument against the existence of religious principles in the Declaration.  This part actually doesn't make sense.  If I were to try and grasp your reasoning, I would take it as "It was common practice to use the term "Creator" and therefor this common practice is an indicator that the mentioning of "Creator" holds no religious significance and more specifically...doesn't mean that the principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are religious principles".  If this is what I'm supposed to take away from your argument then I'm afraid it just doesn't hold water.

    Thirdly...what?!  You're contending that Thomas Jefferson...edited the "New Testament" and removed all references to the supernatural.  I THOROUGHLY checked your WIKI source (And we should really refrain from ever using wiki as a reference or source) and found NOTHING that suggests the Jefferson "Edited the New Testament".  I did however, find a reference to one of his religious works called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth", which was not in any way, shape or form "The New Testament".  Jefferson did in fact use a razor, sliced portions of the New Testament and then pasted them into his book...but that book was not the New Testament or the Bible.  Your Wiki source did provide that Jefferson didn't copy the entirety of the New Testament and I'd even concede (Without even looking at it) that he most likely did specifically and intentionally leave out passages of the supernatural but again...this is nothing alike and is incomparable.  This is also a Straw Man Fallacy argument, you've suggested that, Jefferson, by literally cutting passages from the New Testament in order to supplement a book he was writing...was "Editing the New Testament".  This is an affront to the Debating Method.

    Lastly, you've conveniently forgotten that the Declaration of Independence makes specific and reverenced mention to "The Supreme Judge of the World".  

    "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions", 

    If this somehow ISN'T an indication of the belief and worship of a Superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods...then please explain how it is not.  There were 56 Men assembled in a room, all of which proclaimed publicly with their signature that they were appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of their intentions.  Please explain how this is specifically NOT religious.

    My argument still stands unchecked that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are formally recognized as God given rights, making these principles just as Religious and "Of" Religion as our 56 Founding Fathers all relying upon Divine Providence while simultaneously appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World.  

    "As has already been remarked, it may well be doubted, [40 U.S. 518, 556] whether such a stipulation would be within the treaty-making power of the United States. It is to be remembered, that the government of the United States is based on the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, by the congress of 1776; "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted."

    Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/05/the-declaration-of-independence-and-god/?utm_term=.87cf5e9c67b3
    http://founding.com/natures-god/
    https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02/why-god-is-in-the-declaration-but-not-the-constitution/
    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
    https://www.providenceforum.org/story/declaration-of-independence/
    http://candst.tripod.com/doisussc.htm









    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • @Vaulk ;

    The proposition of this debate is "Should God play a role in United States Politics", and the strongly relevant part of my argument in regard to the DOI has been neglected: the DOI explicitly states free governments derive their power from the people.  This is significant because injecting a god into such a government would mean taking power away from the people and making it less free. You advocate in direct opposition to what the DOI advances as proper human government.

    As to the your rebuttal...where to start? Well, you've drawn attention to part of a single sentence as though it were my argument. Yet, you fail to follow where the sentence takes us - References to a god in the DOI would necessarily need to be compatible with Thomas Jefferson's philosophy: deism [1]. You mistakenly conflate these references with your own religious understanding thereby giving them religious connotations they were never intended to convey [6]. You have done the same to the SCOTUS rulings you've referenced. You've provide no formal SCOTUS acknowledgement of religious principles in the DOI, only your eisegesis of SCOTUS rulings.

    Thomas Jefferson edited [5] the New Testament?!  Well, yes, as a matter of fact, he did. "The Jefferson Bible", as it is commonly called, has a prologue, a few pages of Jefferson's thoughts, and cut and paste from the Gospels. It never occurred to me someone as knowledgeable as yourself would be unfamiliar with this work. I only intended the Wiki source to be informational for a non-controversial matter, but that is apparently not the case so I'll provide others below. The reason I mentioned this is because even if I were to agree mention of Nature's God", "Creator", etc., were religious phrases (rather than philosophical), the Jefferson Bible shows us these would not be in reference to the Christian god you read into the DOI.

    [1] https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm
    [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/how-thomas-jefferson-created-his-own-bible-5659505/
    [3] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html
    [4] https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/life-and-morals-jesus-nazareth
    [5] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edit
    [6] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

    image
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @SkepticalOne


    @Vaulk ;

    Thomas Jefferson edited [5] the New Testament?!  Well, yes, as a matter of fact, he did. "The Jefferson Bible", as it is commonly called, has a prologue, a few pages of Jefferson's thoughts, and cut and paste from the Gospels. It never occurred to me someone as knowledgeable as yourself would be unfamiliar with this work.
    I'm afraid that calling something "The Jefferson Bible" does not make it a Bible.  If it's necessary for me to explain how this isn't possible then the rest of this will be pointless.  "The New Testament" is one of the halves of 
    "The Holy Bible"...it is not a book titled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" that's commonly referred to as "The Jefferson Bible".  You see how this makes zero sense?  Can you see how calling this "Editing the New Testament" is in no way, shape or form accurate?  Creating an entirely new book with your own writings and placing excerpts from the New Testament into your new book does not constitute "Editing the New Testament" otherwise it would have the words "The New Testament" somewhere in the title, instead the Author, Thomas Jefferson titled the book "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth".  What other people commonly refer to the book as is irrelevant in this argument as it does not in any way, shape or form suggest that your supposition is accurate and if you DID try to use it to support your argument then it would be an appeal to common practice fallacy.
    SkepticalOne
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • @Vaulk

    You take issue with my use of the word "edit". I have no issue allowing a better word could have been used to describe Jefferson's works. This is nothing more than an issue of semantics.

    As for the alleged fallacy of common practice - it doesn't apply. What I call Jefferson's work and whether that is the same as what is commonly practiced is completely irrelevant to my point. I could call his works "Ode to the Tooth Fairy" along woth everyone else and the meat of my argument remains completely unaffected. 

    It should be noted the rest and most relevant of my arguments have been dropped.
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @SkepticalOne

    I have no issue with your use of the word Edit.  The issue is with your reference to the "New Testament".  Jefferson DID NOT edit the "New Testament".  Jefferson didn't do ANYTHING to the New Testament, what he did was write his OWN BOOK.  I am not using personal interpretation here, what you have stated as objective fact is that Thomas Jefferson edited the Bible...when he has never done such a thing.  The "New Testament" is a portion of "The Holy Bible" and to say that ANYONE edited the New Testament is to say that they edited the Bible.  This is an affront to the legacy of our Founding Father and the original drafter of the Declaration of Independence.  The other issue here is that you've taken my argument as if it were an attack with semantics against the use of the word "Edit" when I've clearly and concisely pointed out the true issue with your argument as being the suggestion that Jefferson edited the New Testament.

    Do you understand how your argument that "Thomas Jefferson edited the New Testament" means that you think Thomas Jefferson "Changed" a part of the Holy Bible and that this new edited Bible is somewhere out there available for reading.  The "New Testament" is located within the Holy Bible, it is not in "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" but portions and excerpts are.

    Your argument is based upon the premise that somehow...some way...Thomas Jefferson writing his own book with excerpts from the New Testament equals "Editing the New Testament".  This would be gross sacrilege.

    To your other points, you've failed to acknowledge the Logical Fallacies contained within your argument and the systematic degradation of the entire debate as a result of them.  You've also gone to lengths to justify and defend your appeal to common practice fallacy as if there could be a justification for degrading the debate.  As such... I am no longer of the impression that you have any intention of debating here...this is more of a petty attempt at gaining some semblance of a victory when adhering to the debating method didn't work.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1628 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @Vaulk

    In that case, I thank you for your opinions and look forward to future debates. As previously stated, my most relevant arguments have been dropped. 

    *edit: absent-minded typing. Irrelevant corrected to relevant.
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • DrCerealDrCereal 193 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Firstly, you are riding a very thin line and depending on the perspective, this could easily be a Red Herring because as of now I have made four total arguments for the formal recognition by the U.S. Supreme Court as to the religious principles in the Declaration of Independence and now that the argument has narrowed, you're attacking the idea that the references in the Declaration (Including "Creator") are somehow not religious in nature because of the commonality of the usage.  This is also a solid Appeal to Common Practice Fallacy, one which you're unfortunately not going to be able to get out of due to the boldness of your statement.
    ...
    You incorrectly called out an "Appeal to Tradition" which Skeptical did not commit.
    You therefore, since you implied that Skeptical's conclusion was incorrect because of this "fallacy", committed an Argument from Fallacy.
    SkepticalOne
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @DrCereal
    DrCereal said:
    You incorrectly called out an "Appeal to Tradition" which Skeptical did not commit.
    You therefore, since you implied that Skeptical's conclusion was incorrect because of this "fallacy", committed an Argument from Fallacy.
    I'll bite.  So if the following statement from start to finish is not an appeal to tradition fallacy or "Appeal to Common Practice Fallacy":
    @Vaulk ;

    The Declaration of Independence (DOI) makes no mention of religion and terms such as Nature's God, Creator, and Divine Providence were commonly used by deists of that era.
    Then what is it?  In the context of the argument, the statement that these terms were commonly used by deists at the time does not refute anything I've argued.  I haven't argued that deists didn't use these terms commonly.  So this statement doesn't conflict with ANYTHING I've stated.  So then what is it?  In short, it's a premise designed to serve as evidence against my conclusions that the Declaration of Independence contains Religious principles and that those same principles are formally recognized as the foundation of our Government.  So to state that something was "Commonly" done and to use that statement as an indirect argument against mine is an "Appeal to Common Practice".  If it is not an appeal to common practice then I say again...what is it?
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • DrCerealDrCereal 193 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Vaulk said:
    @Vaulk ;

    The Declaration of Independence (DOI) makes no mention of religion and terms such as Nature's God, Creator, and Divine Providence were commonly used by deists of that era.
    Then what is it?  In the context of the argument, the statement that these terms were commonly used by deists at the time does not refute anything I've argued.  I haven't argued that deists didn't use these terms commonly.  So this statement doesn't conflict with ANYTHING I've stated.  So then what is it?  In short, it's a premise designed to serve as evidence against my conclusions that the Declaration of Independence contains Religious principles and that those same principles are formally recognized as the foundation of our Government.  So to state that something was "Commonly" done and to use that statement as an indirect argument against mine is an "Appeal to Common Practice".  If it is not an appeal to common practice then I say again...what is it?
    It's an inductive argument. He's not appealing to anything. (I urge you to read the article I linked you.)
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    If God is real then how exactly can we stop him/her/it from controlling our politics?
    DrCereal
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    DrCereal said:
    Vaulk said:
    @Vaulk ;

    The Declaration of Independence (DOI) makes no mention of religion and terms such as Nature's God, Creator, and Divine Providence were commonly used by deists of that era.
    Then what is it?  In the context of the argument, the statement that these terms were commonly used by deists at the time does not refute anything I've argued.  I haven't argued that deists didn't use these terms commonly.  So this statement doesn't conflict with ANYTHING I've stated.  So then what is it?  In short, it's a premise designed to serve as evidence against my conclusions that the Declaration of Independence contains Religious principles and that those same principles are formally recognized as the foundation of our Government.  So to state that something was "Commonly" done and to use that statement as an indirect argument against mine is an "Appeal to Common Practice".  If it is not an appeal to common practice then I say again...what is it?
    It's an inductive argument. He's not appealing to anything. (I urge you to read the article I linked you.)
    Alright then, since you haven't specified what general laws from particular instances he's referring to...then please specify for the sake of the argument.

    And while I admit I really dislike reading wiki articles for source information, mostly just because of the huge amount of misinformation that's present within wiki pages generally, I did read the article and I still contend that his statement is an appeal to common practice fallacy.

    "The Declaration of Independence (DOI) makes no mention of religion and terms such as Nature's God, Creator, and Divine Providence were commonly used by deists of that era".

    I never argued that these terms weren't commonly used by deists of the that era.  I did however present evidence of the verbiage of our Forefathers, sources and references to show how their words took meaning in the Declaration.  His response was the statement above which includes the statement "Terms such as Nature's God, Creator, and Divine Providence were commonly used by deists of that era".  There's no follow up to this point and SkepticalOne moved onto another point immediately after this one.  So without any further elaboration provided by the arguer...it can be easily read as an argument from common practice.

    "Appeal to Tradition or Appeal to Common Practice is an argument in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition".
    And of course, your wiki source:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

    Can you not see how arguing that something was used commonly by people is an attempt at justifying a position based on the idea that it's correlated with some past or present tradition?  

    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • DrCerealDrCereal 193 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    DrCereal said:
    Vaulk said:
    @Vaulk ;

    The Declaration of Independence (DOI) makes no mention of religion and terms such as Nature's God, Creator, and Divine Providence were commonly used by deists of that era.
    Then what is it?  In the context of the argument, the statement that these terms were commonly used by deists at the time does not refute anything I've argued.  I haven't argued that deists didn't use these terms commonly.  So this statement doesn't conflict with ANYTHING I've stated.  So then what is it?  In short, it's a premise designed to serve as evidence against my conclusions that the Declaration of Independence contains Religious principles and that those same principles are formally recognized as the foundation of our Government.  So to state that something was "Commonly" done and to use that statement as an indirect argument against mine is an "Appeal to Common Practice".  If it is not an appeal to common practice then I say again...what is it?
    It's an inductive argument. He's not appealing to anything. (I urge you to read the article I linked you.)
    Alright then, since you haven't specified what general laws from particular instances he's referring to...then please specify for the sake of the argument.

    And while I admit I really dislike reading wiki articles for source information, mostly just because of the huge amount of misinformation that's present within wiki pages generally, I did read the article and I still contend that his statement is an appeal to common practice fallacy.

    "The Declaration of Independence (DOI) makes no mention of religion and terms such as Nature's God, Creator, and Divine Providence were commonly used by deists of that era".

    I never argued that these terms weren't commonly used by deists of the that era.  I did however present evidence of the verbiage of our Forefathers, sources and references to show how their words took meaning in the Declaration.  His response was the statement above which includes the statement "Terms such as Nature's God, Creator, and Divine Providence were commonly used by deists of that era".  There's no follow up to this point and SkepticalOne moved onto another point immediately after this one.  So without any further elaboration provided by the arguer...it can be easily read as an argument from common practice.

    "Appeal to Tradition or Appeal to Common Practice is an argument in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition".
    And of course, your wiki source:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

    Can you not see how arguing that something was used commonly by people is an attempt at justifying a position based on the idea that it's correlated with some past or present tradition?  

    I wrote 1 sentence, and you wrote 7.
    You're miscontruing what the appeal of tradition means, and I no longer have the will to try and explain it to you.

    Cry fallacy all you want, but he didn't make an appeal.
    (There's an argument to make that his induction was hasty, but that's in an entirely different direction from where you're going.)
    SkepticalOne
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @DrCereal

    Then I understand that your arguing that I'm wrong because you say so.  
    someone234DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • DrCerealDrCereal 193 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal

    Then I understand that your arguing that I'm wrong because you say so.  
    You're wrong because of information independent of my specific articulation.
    You don't need me to uncover where you're wrong.

    (Also, I have never once claimed that you were wrong because "I said so". I have linked you to the articles you can use as resources to understand what I'm trying to say. Use some reasoning.)
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    @DrCereal

    Firstly,
    DrCereal said:
    You therefore, since you implied that Skeptical's conclusion was incorrect because of this "fallacy", committed an Argument from Fallacy.
    If you go back and read my argument, I never in any way suggested that SkepticalOne's conclusion was false because of the fallacies contained in his argument.  I explained in detail (Probably too much detail) why his argument was wrong and THEN pointed out that his argument was ALSO a fallacy.  Using a fallacy does not necessarily make your conclusion incorrect...it just degrades the debating method and undermines the purpose of the debate. 

    Secondly,
    DrCereal said:
    You're wrong because of information independent of my specific articulation.
    You don't need me to uncover where you're wrong.

    (Also, I have never once claimed that you were wrong because "I said so". I have linked you to the articles you can use as resources to understand what I'm trying to say. Use some reasoning.)

    The information you provided that stands independently of your "Specific articulation" was two Wikipedia pages.  Even Wikipedia admits: "If the topic under research is Wikipedia itself, then Wikipedia is the preferred source of information. ... If the topic under research is unavailable through other means, then Wikipedia might be an acceptable source".

    And this stands as all the reason you will ever need to understand that Wiki...is not an acceptable source.  There's only about 30 other reputable sources for logical fallacies and their explanations. 

    There should be a formal recognition for a Wiki Fallacy: "A Wiki fallacy occurs when someone presents a premise or conclusion and cites Wikipedia as their source of evidence or supporting information".
    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • PotterWatchPotterWatch 41 Pts   -  
    I believe so. I mean, do believe we should have freedom of Religion, but this country was founded on Christianity so I do believe that our government should stick to that or something similar.
    VaulkDrCerealSkepticalOne
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch