Instigator / Con

fauxlaw

1702

rating

debates

69.37%

won

Topic

#6075

The U.S. Constitution does not make mention of the “Lord,” or “God.”

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!

Tags

God

US Constitution

Lord

Parameters

Publication date: 04.15.2025 03:15AM
Last updated date: 06.04.2025 02:04PM
Type: Rated
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open
Minimal rating: None

Contender / Pro

Sir.Lancelot

1561

rating

205

debates

54.63%

won

Description

It is conventional wisdom that the Lord is not referenced in the Constitution of the United States. As initiator, I repeat the common refrain that one distinction the Declaration of Independence enjoys over the Constitution is that the former makes mention of the Lord God in its text but that the Declaration is not considered a legal statute, but effectively is only putting Great Britain on notice that the American Colonies, in 1776, rejected British sovereignty, declaring their God-given right to be the United States of America; an independent sovereignty. As a long-standing convention of British official documentation, allegiance to God was accepted and expected language. For example, refer to the Magna Carta,[1] and the Mayflower Compact.[2] But the later U.S. Constitution, being an official, legal Document, the self-declared “supreme law of the land,”[3] and in keeping with the as-then unwritten language of the First Amendment, later composed and included for constitutional ratification, in 1791, understood the necessity of avoiding mention of religious dogma, including, apparently, reference to God.

I am taking the Con position of the Resolution; i.e., that the Lord is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, contrary to the above conventional wisdom.

Notice: Rounds 1 & 2 are for argument and rebuttal. Round 3 must not contain new argument not contained in R1 & R2, but must be rebuttal and conclusion, only.

Notice: Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. To accept this debate, Pro, as well as voters and commenters must agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.

Definition:
For purposes of this debate, “Lord,” and “God” are considered to be the same personage by two different but equal titles, but these are not names. This debate is not construed to represent a Christian-only limited condition, considering the title-not-name of “Lord,” or “God,” so there will be no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration, and therefore need not be mentioned, because by the language of the 1st Amendment, no specific religion, by design, is mentioned. This is a generic debate which does not exclude atheists or agnostics from accepting the debate because belief in, or acknowledgement of the subject is not required, but merely a desire to debate the subject.

Refewrences:
[1] Magna Carta, 1215, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/magna-carta/british-library-magna-carta-1215-runnymede/
[2] Mayflower Compact, 1620, https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/The Mayflower Compact.pdf
[3] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Round 1

fauxlaw

04.23.2025 12:27AM

Con

Forfeited

Sir.Lancelot

04.23.2025 09:52PM

Pro

This is the link to Con's Round 1 for reference.:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/6075/comments/63600

Welcome, users.

I'm going to transform this Round 1 into a teaching lesson for you readers, debaters, and spectators who are likewise voting on this debate.

This resolution and debate itself is intentionally setup as a trap. While obvious itself by the wording, as Con himself concedes intent in the comments.

The problem is that lesser experienced debaters may not see or identify the trap and take the bait.

The specific technique of this debate relies on securing a victory through a technicality. Con defines his winning conditions as people taking the resolution literally, and narrows his burden of proof by quoting something that mentions the words, "God" or "Lord." Con's version is setup to win by referencing "The Year of The Lord."

This rigged setup is known as a Truism.

A truism is completely one-sided and does not allow room for discussion, as it uses an established fact as the resolution which makes the victory automatic.

The technique I am going to be using is a reverse-trap. A strategy that experienced debaters like Barney and Whiteflame would encourage you to use in this specific debate known as a Kritik.: http://tiny.cc/Kritik

Alternative

Fighting dirty and unfair methods like the one Con are using are actually encouraged by the site culture. However, the DART tradition also encourages you to fight back.

Therefore, I am rejecting and making an alteration to Con's rules that shall become the new established framework.

For a fair and balanced discussion, this debate should focus on the context of the message as the creators of The Constitution have intended it, rather than just the wording itself. As I have already demonstrated that using only wording, this debate falls under the category of a truism.
Con, as the initiator, shares the majority of the burden. Con must show that The US Constitution mentions Lord or God. The natural assumption may be to assume a christian god, but Con clarifies this is not the case and is actually broader than that. Which is entirely vague. Meaning here that God and Lord are currently undefined.

Merriam-Webster defines God as:

The being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe.

Lord is defined as:

A ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due.

Con has to prove that the US Constitution is referring to a powerful, wise, and good being that is either jewish, christian, muslim, or hindu and that it created and rules the universe. And that the Constitution refers to a ruler that was granted authority as a birth-right.

If Con falls short of either of these things, then he loses.

I shall make one slight concession to a part of Con's framework, as it does not violate the principles of fair debate. That which prevents new arguments in Round 3 that did not exist in the predecessors. A violation of this is forfeiting the conduct point.

Message

Now according to The Journey of The American Revolution, God is not referenced in the US Constitution.:

Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution contains no reference to God.

Why God is in the Declaration but not the Constitution - Journal of the American Revolution

Round 2

fauxlaw

04.26.2025 09:52PM

Con

Forfeited

Sir.Lancelot

04.29.2025 03:14PM

Pro

Con is the initiator of this debate, and I am the contender.

Contenders need not be the creators to change the rules of the debate, if the rules be unfair.

Con is not arguing in good faith if he insists on the original rules of his debate, as it is a truism.

Truism - a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.

Therefore my new framework and BOP is officially established as the new rules of this debate. Accepting debates does not mean agreeing to the resolution on the initiator's terms.

The US Constitution is crystal clear about maintaining strictness on its religious neutrality without endorsing a god.

Con keeps throwing around adjectives like "god-like," but without narrowing down his criteria to what he means by a god and allowing the terms to remain vague, he has failed to establish his end of the burden of proof.:

To maintain neutrality, the government must permit the free exercise of religion without endorsement or interference by the state

Freedom of Religion

VIII.b.2 More: Articles II & III established order for the Executive and Judicial branches. Article IV set further order to the States. Article V ordered the government to allow “inalienable rights”[20] to the People. Therefore, a government “house in order.” Rather god-like, as the Resolution implies.

As Con is not arguing how the context implies religious significance or god of any sort, he has essentially given up on proving his BOP and conceded the resolution. I declare his arguments about necessity and all other references to the constitution irrelevant.

Round 3

fauxlaw

05.02.2025 03:14PM

Con

Forfeited

Sir.Lancelot

05.05.2025 02:04PM

Pro

At this stage, Con has not efficiently challenged the Truism kritik, or given enough information to suggest that our forefathers implied a spiritual being of religious significance. The correlation between Con's sources and a supreme deity is weak, meaning Con has failed their BOP.

Extend that The Constitution is strict about maintaining religious neutrality.
Extend sources about God not being referenced in The Constitution.

Why God is in the Declaration but not the Constitution - Journal of the American Revolution

Freedom of Religion

Clausewitzian

04.15.2025 04:37PM

-->

@fauxlaw

The core claim of the Con position is that “the Lord” is mentioned in the Constitution. Yet we see no quote from the Constitution itself to substantiate this — because no such quote exists. The only possible reference is a dating convention in the closing line: “in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven.” That phrase is ceremonial, not theological. It has no legal or religious significance, nor does it reflect divine authority behind the Constitution.

Con instead leans on other documents — the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact — none of which are the U.S. Constitution, and none of which have binding constitutional authority. The absence of any direct citation proves the point: the Constitution is intentionally secular. The authors knew how to invoke God if they wished — as they did in other writings — and they chose not to.

Sir.Lancelot

04.15.2025 05:42AM

I knew you were Con before I even clicked this.
I knew it was a bait and switch

Barney

05.16.2025 02:22AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

— CON DID NOT FORFEIT! —
See comment section for his arguments…

Just placing this here as an PSA for voters.

I might get around to placing a real vote later, at which point I’ll remove this.