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

Best discussed further in private message, and then offsite completely

Btw, to clarify a claim made by Clausewitzian in this string of comments, and who knows nothing about me, but has made sufficient claims to and about me that I have silenced him from contact with me on this site, has incorrectly claimed that I self-publish. I do not pay a penny to publish; my readers buy my books out of their pockets entirely, from which I earn an undisclosed sum annually [and which justifies a mention in my profile], but I will say nothing further because I will not violate the rule of personal promotion for any reason, Santa's wit on war, or anything else, notwithstanding.

Done

Delete my vote pls

I appreciate your vote, but the only thing is fauxlaw didn’t forfeit. He was experiencing technical difficulties and was unable to publish a round, so he had to publish his arguments in the comments

Fauxlaw posted his rounds in the comments, which was allowed per the rules. He didn't forfeit.

Clausewitzian appears to be stuck in the mud of only my first round, but I'm not the one with a tossed bucket of water.

"Certainly, that is one of the shortcoming's of this website"

Well, its just the selected topic and definitions, just like in many other debate area.

Maybe if there were only neutral topics selected specifically, like on Modern day debate, that would be different.

But this is a site which simply lets users select topics, and that of course results in trap debates being made.

We could set neutral topics, but who decides what is a neutral topic?

Because only undefined "should" topics could maybe count as neutral in many cases there.

As soon as there is a clear definition, it is usually strongly in favor of either Pro or Con.

Certainly, that is one of the shortcoming's of this website.
Note, he is a self-published author who's entire professional reputation relies on the premise of this argument (Otherwise his book is pointless), so he wouldn't dare argue this topic in public if he also didn't get to make the rules.

I can't blame him either, but you can see by his arguments he is going to great lengths to make people think that isn't what he is doing, when clearly it is.

Think about this:
If he's arguing that "In the Year of our Lord" constitutes a religious invocation, then he has to confront this simple fact: the year “1776” itself is based on the Anno Domini system — a calendar system created by Christians to count the years since the birth of Christ.
So if the mere use of religiously-originated phrasing equals religious intent, then every reference to the year 1776 would also be a religious act. He can’t have it both ways.
That forces a choice:
If he says it doesn’t count, then he's admitting that religious origin doesn’t automatically mean religious meaning.
If he says it does count, then what is he actually proving? By that logic, every government document ever dated using the Gregorian calendar would be a theological statement — which is absurd.

Common sense tells us that saying “1776” isn’t a religious invocation. And by that same logic, neither is “In the Year of our Lord.” Both are ceremonial phrasing, nothing more.

I cant really blame him for wanting to limit a debate to only one argument which works for him. The usual goal of a debater is to protect his arguments and negate opponent's. Setting up a topic to do that as well seems logical.

FauxLaw:
You didn’t present an argument — you delivered a sermon in footnotes just to avoid saying the plain truth:
Yes, the Constitution says 'in the Year of our Lord.' That’s not divine revelation — it’s 18th-century date formatting. A timestamp, not a theological thesis.

It doesn’t establish doctrine, it doesn’t endorse a deity, and it certainly doesn’t mean James Madison was invoking Horus, Ra, or the cosmic spirit of due process.

So no, you haven’t shown that the Constitution meaningfully 'mentions' God. You’ve just taken a throwaway formality and tried to canonize it.
Yes you did frame the debate so as to afford you maximum room to operate, while confining your opponent to basically having to prove that it doesn't mention god period, not just, it doesn't mention god in any meaningful sense.

Sir.Lancelot:
I don't know if you feel this way, but if I was in your position, I would feel as though I've just wasted hours of my time debating someone who is here in bad faith.
He 100% framed the debate to favour his opinion, which affirms what I said a few comments ago which is, FauxLaw would never debate this topic publicly unless he could make the rules, and place his opponent in a box with no possibility of deviation.

You know what would be a good idea? Make the same debate, but frame it in a way which makes it neutral, i.e. state that "In the Year of our Lord" is mentioned, but one has to prove it was done so, as a clear invocation of religion. Then challenge him to a debate and watch him not answer, or decline. As it stands now, he has limited what you can do, forcing you to recognize what everyone already knew, that the lord is mentioned, but with the added implication, that His mentioning was done so in violation of "separation of church and state" in mind. He won't accept that debate, I almost guarantee it, because it would show that he is guilty of Truism, since he can't prove the mention was meaningful in any sense.

Thank you!

FYI, I have posted my R3

Welcome to Round 3 [05/01/2025]

X Rebuttal: A limited debate
X.a I had a different R3 planned, but I am shocked by Pro’s R2, line 2: “Contenders need not be the creators to change the rules of the debate, if the rules be unfair.” That is a fair statement, but, only applicable prior to accepting the debate. Pro did not close with any mention of the debate being unfair. Pro accepted this debate as is. I cite from DebateArt Information Center, Debates: “Once any user in good standing accepts the challenge, most of the debate settings lock, and it advances into the next stage.”[26] Two of the locked features are the Resolution and Description. The time to request alteration of them is during the Challenge phase via Comments, but not after the debate has begun; in this case, on 4/21; 8 days prior to Pro’s rule-change demand. That is “not fair.” Refer to my R2, V [all sub-¶s, V.a - V.c]. I did not define God, nor assign attributes, including to what religion he bears allegiance, if any.

X.b Pro’s R2, line 3; “Con is not arguing in good faith if he insists on the original rules of his debate, as it is a truism.” Debate rules are truisms? My, but how that definition inflates. My R2, Section V rebutted Pro’s charge of “truism.” I stand on that rebuttal. I also rebutted in R2, Section VIII, and did not begin or end my arguments in R1 with my single reference to Article VII. Let my R2, Section VIII have its full weight of added argumentation, to which I note, with the exception of my VIII.b.2, Pro did not rebut.

X.b.1 Pro said, re: my VIII.b.2, “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 remind of the Resolution and Description: referring readers to these as given on the top page of this Debate #6075 .

X.b.1.A I’ll remind of a statement in the Description, and now underlined for emphasis: “…no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration… 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…

X.b.1.B This in no way implies that religious argument cannot be made, and I did so in R2, citing the Holy Bible, the Qu’ran, Doctrine & Covenants, and The Egyptian Book of the Dead.

X.b.2 It is Pro who suggests, after acceptance, to limit this debate: “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.” Compare this quote to the Resolution and Description/definition.
Do they match? No.
Did the Resolution even suggest that God created and rules the universe? No.
Does the Description define God by any traits or birthrights? No.
Is Pro the initiator? No.
Has the true initiator conceded? Hell, no.
Is the Pro suggestion that the initiator, Con, concede a fair debate argument? No.
Has Con suggested Pro concede after the latter’s demand that Con concede? No.

XI Rebuttal: A limited-technicality

XI.a Pro’s R1 2nd ¶ accused my “…technique of this debate relies on securing a victory through a technicality.” Pro points to my reference to the US Constitution’s Article VII “the year of our Lord…” as my only possible argument. Recall my R2 rebuttals, V, VI, VII, and VIII, which added references from nearly the full balance of constitutional Articles, and “at least” six added Amendments which carry cursory, godly advice, about eleven separate arguments with references. There were added supporting references from various holy writ as specified above, X.b.1.B. I might accept the single reference of Article VII is a “technicality,” on the basis of which Pro charged that I expect to win the debate. I never said that. I am using all three rounds; two for argument; two for rebuttal. These should not be considered a “technicality.”

XI.b Pro’s R2, 4th line claimed: “Truism - a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.” New or interesting? Can Pro, or readers, truly say they are not moved by revealing, as I did in my R2, VIII.f, that such a grand concept as due process, enshrined in the US Constitution, finds relevance in an antiquated source of gods interacting with man with such a gift as old as the 3rd millennium B.C.E, in E.A. Wallis Budge’s translation/transliteration of Ani’s The Egyptian Book of the Dead [R2, [25]]; rites that age still older by two to three millennia before being documented by Ani, the scribe.[27] Who among you is so intimately familiar with these antiquities? Truism? No, but absolutely true. Due process brought to and for man by gods named Osiris, Thoth, and Horus, Ra, and even Isis, etc… By the time our boy, Jimmy Madison came along, it was already an ancient gift of gods. It was ancient even to Genesis.

XII Rebuttal: A limited-Description

XII.a From my debate Description: “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.” I did this to avoid what Pro argued, anyway, in his R1, ¶9, that my BoP was to prove a god of specific religion; but only from a choice among four. This is an attempt to impose limitation on me to one of the four types, violating the open-season, unlimited Resolution and Description.

XII Rebuttal: A limited-Description
XIII Rebuttal: A limited alleged kritik

XIII.a Pro made reference to “kritik,”[R1, ¶3] citing the DebateArt.com “Kritik Guide.”[28] Its four categories are [from which I first quote directly in each ¶ below]:

XIII.a.1 “Analysis: The main complaint:” Pro attempts to limit Con’s argument to a single argument that could not be expanded, making Pro’s own case a failed kritik. Refer to my R2, or its summary above, XI.a, relative to added arguments beyond Pro’s alleged “technicality” of my R1 alleged “truism.”

XIII.a.2 “Link: Specific element of the opponent’s case:” Pro said, “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 [sic] and that it created and rules the universe. And that the Constitution refers to a ruler that was granted authority as a birth-right.”[29] However, Pro can make no reference to any citation of mine claiming any demonstrative attributes or allegiances of/to God relative to creation nor rule; only that he exists, and, I suggested in argument [R2, VI.a.2.A] that he assures our existence after death as an ontological proof of his existence.

XIII.a.3 “Implication: The damage done if the kritik is ignored:” We often fail by arguing our own limitations when thinking we identify those of others, but we are boxed by them. Consider: “Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?”[30] An alleged Oscar Wilde quote is relevant when occupying someone else’s head: “Be yourself, everyone else is already taken.”[31] “Physician, heal thyself”[32] is useful warning when we dare suggest another begin their debate by “…fire all of your guns at once and explode into space…” [not quoted because Pro argued this lyric, but because it’s a Steppenwolf lyric, deserving citation[33]. I repeat: I did not end my argument against the Resolution in R1, nor only by Article VII of the US Constitution. No, my arguments, and attending source references average in number much more than the number of rounds. So, even if voters agree my R1 argument of Article VII fails to impress, the volume of other arguments that avoided successful rebuttal by Pro are to be considered for merit by voters to defeat the Resolution.

XIII.a.4 “What better solution the kritik suggests:” Do not suggest a debate opponent is limited to a single argument only because it is overly obvious. That limitation, itself, is a boxed truism shown to be a flag’s wind flagging, particularly when the claim is accused of the first round of a multi-round debate; by Pro declaring personal victory, and the opponent’s defeat. It may ultimately bite back. Does attempt to change the parameters of a debate after accepting it potentially become its own truism?

XIV Conclusion: A burden lifted

XIV.a By calling my first argument a truism, then alleging I had no other, then suggesting the debate protocol be changed [alleging I have no more to say] then floating a modern-day revolution as expertise of constitutional intent when its words simply mean what they say, I suggest my 2 rounds of argument, and 2 rounds of rebuttal, have successfully taken flight.

XIX.b No, my rounds of argument and rebuttal did not allege that “Lord,” or “God” is not specifically referenced in the Constitution other than in Article VII, but denial of specific reference was not Con’s BoP of the Resolution nor Description. The Being[s] “mentioned” by reference to principles he/they suggest, such as “due process,” and they are not the the godly Beings of any specific religion, but of all, is demonstrated in my arguments/rebutals, multiple times.

Adieu.

Thank you, Sir.Lancelot, for the debate, and readers for reading it. I encourage our readers to render thoughtful voting based on sourced evidence within the accepted debate, when accepted, and without attempted alteration after acceptance.

Sources:
[26] https://info.debateart.com/help/debates
[27] https://ischool.uw.edu/podcasts/dtctw/egyptian-book-dead#:~:text=A document that changed the,equipment, by about 1600 BCE.
[28] https://info.debateart.com/kritik-guide
[29] Debate #6075, Pro R1, ¶9
[30] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 7: 4
[31] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/20/be-yourself/
[32] Holy Bible [KJV] Luke 4: 23
[33] Steppenwolf, “Born to be Wild,” Mars Bonfire, Dunhill/RCA, 1968

Update of a minor error in my posts 32, 33, 34 comprising my R2 rebuttal/argument: : for the line following my last entry, [#32 - they run in reverse order, 34, 33, 32] R2, IX.a, I make reference to pro taking R3. Pls. read that as R2. Sorry.

Welcome to Round 2 [04/25/2025]
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot, for your R1.

V Rebuttal: The Alternative “Truism”

V.a Pro accused a “truism;” by me; that I set a trap for this debate in citing the U.S. Constitution’s Article VII use of a common “mention” of “…in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven…” That is the obvious mention. However, “mention” can be subtle. My Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines “mention” as speaking of, referring to, or naming something or someone, especially briefly or ‘cursorily.’” I emphasis the latter point, cursorily, which is, itself, defined as: quickly, without attention to detail.

V.b Pro attempts to change that to which he agreed to by acceptance of this debate as is. His ¶’s 5, 6, suggest to modify the function of the debate because he objects to “words” of the Constitution in favor of its “context.” No. That suggestion is not an acceptable debate action. As-is, when accepted, is the “fair and balanced” desired; this one stands as is. There is fair balance in the language of the US Constitution that refers to God without detail. I deny Pro’s accusation of truism.

V.b.1 Pro offered a non-cursory definition by saying in his R1 ¶6: “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.” Then Pro offers in ¶9: “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.” ‘Vague’ would seem to agree with ‘cursorily,’ but it appears Pro prefers specifics, [more requested change] which do not fit “mention’s” definition. I accept vague, thanks, because I am certain the Framers intended a wide scope beyond Pro’s limit of 4 “gods.” How about Wiccan? Sure; and a 5th? More? Why not? That fits the 1A’s words.

V.c Pro further insists I “must” prove the US Constitution refers to, as quoted from Pro’s R1 in my V.b.1, above,… a string-of-traits-god that “rules the universe,” and was “granted birth-right authority.” If I fall short, I lose? [Pro, R1, ¶12] Pardon my interruption, but Pro was not the author of this debate Resolution nor Description, but is the other participant in a debate that was proposed, resolved, and described by me, and, therefore, Pro is not authorized to dictate the specifics of my burdens of proof [BoP]. Whereas, as instigator, I have them generally defined. They are agreed to as documented in the Resolution and Description as accepted by Pro.

VI Rebuttal: Necessity of God

VI.a Some may protest that this “make mention of God” does not count because there is no religious significance to the mention I’ve cited in R1. I refer to the Resolution, which is, after all, the point of debate, regardless of Pro’s attempt at truism, change, and let alone any a.k.a.’s. The Description did not assign religious importance to the topic, although arguments are free to do so, as noted in my R1. In no wise does the Resolution, Description, or my Round 1, indicate to mean by my “vague” that Article VII is the only “mention of God or Lord;” cursory words, after all. Further, I challenge an explanation of what is “dirty and fighting and unfair” [from Pro’s accusation in R1, ¶4] in my language within this debate.

VI.a.1 That God represents religion is a foregone, and dependable circumstance. That God can represent a secular territory is, however, a matter separate from religion, and requires that one take a step entirely out of religion into a secular environment with the effect, generally, of embracing an ontological argument that insists on God’s necessity of existence to demonstrate his existence at all; something not often considered in a secular sense. Within context of the US Constitution, this is sensible.

VI.a.2 Consider the following syllogism:

“P1 It is at least possible for God to exist.
“P2 If God’s existence is possible, then necessarily, God does exist.
“C. Therefore, necessarily, God exists.”[12]

VI.a.2.A Possibility is a territory in which secular agnostics are in a comfort zone. Atheists may find this territory uncomfortable, even in a secular sense. Necessity becomes the primary conversion point. As God can be demonstrated as necessary, even in a modern world where religion tends to be lacking in necessity, because we are no longer superstitious about observed natural phenomena that were once only explained by a God figure, then God can exist for a purposeful necessity, such as assuring that mortal life on Earth will extend beyond death in some other realm of existence, and not total oblivion. This is not necessarily exclusive to religion. Typically, we do not know how to accomplish that in an entirely secular realm without ontological argument.

VI.a.3 Some may have us ignore the Constitution’s Article VII as being a non-active Article. Whether the Article is completely inactive at present is beside the point of the Resolution. There are no religious points of necessity, and the Constitution not only does not have them, but disallows them within its words, though it can be informative argument: There is more to mortal life than random chance; a common explanation of life on Earth. The hedonist would argue that since life is fleeting, and perhaps non-existent following death, what matter if we abuse constitutional principles? The matter is, the Constitution disallows that, too. Something about being “supreme law,” even if not written by a supreme being. Nor was any holy writ known by this debate participant.

VI.b. I challenge a question that turns on the success of the due process of US Constitutional fame: From whence do we derive due process? The source is higher than we may think. We often have pointed to the Magna Carta, clause 39 [13], the product of the early 16th century. But that’s when, not where. See XIII, below.

VII Rebuttal: The Journal of the American Revolution

VII.a I appreciate Pro’s final R1 reference [Last ¶] to The Journal of the American Revolution. I am familiar with this website[14], but, unfortunately, they did not contribute to writing the Constitution, and I deny their inference that they did. They claim the Constitution “contains no reference to God”[15] I demonstrated the reference in R1, ¶II.b. But there is more…

VIII Argument: Further “mention” of God in the U.S. Constitution

VIII.a Refer to the Preamble; Jimmy Madison’s introduction to the Constitution; the first words of the Document: “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”[16] A previous question [or two] are repeated [R1, III.1]: “Is there anything that is not god-like that is associated with perfection? Therefore, to what purpose is the Constitution if not that…” Consider: “Perfection is not a destination, it is a never-ending process.”[17] The Constitution is a GPS for it.

VIII.b More: 2 Kings 20: 1 “…the prophet Isaiah… came to [Hezekiah], and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die…”[18] With this advice in mind, consider the original organization of the U.S. Senate, which members’ terms were established at every six years. However, that first organization was immediately segregated into 3 roughly equal “classes”[19]. There were 26 Senators, and they ordered into classes of 9, 9, and 8 [26, total], and their initial terms would, by class, be of 2, 4 and 6 years, thus electing only 1/3 of the entire body every six years following in the second year from this first organization; setting the Senate’s “house in order” for future operation.

VIII.b.1 More: Article I, Sections 4, 5, & 6 established still more fed government “order.” Sections 8, 9 established an order to the legislative scope of Congress. Section 10 established order for the States. Thus, the Legislative Branch established its “order.”

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.

VIII.c More: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”[21] Often, people ignore the 2nd phrase in order to justify the first. They are both of equal strength, and both devoted to any religion [even if the target of devotion is Satan, or the Blue Spaghetti Monster], and not any specified one to which Pro suggests I am restricted by BoP. In his own instigated debate, sure, but not in this one.

VIII.d Further, I will direct you to investigate Amendments VI, IX, XIII, XIV, & XIX, at least.

VIII.e Further, from still other holy writ, from the Qu’ran: “…and that each man shall be judged by his own labors; that no soul shall bear another’s burden, and that each man will be judged by his own labors…”[22] And further, from the Doctrine and Covenants: “And above all things, clothe yourselves with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace.”[23]

VIII.f Further, to the Magna Carta, Clause 39[13], the Bible, Matthew 5-7[24], and the Egyptian Book of the Dead[25]: “Beautiful in the boat of millions of years, the seat of peace for doing what is right and true among the favored ones to make the bark of the sun great to sail forth the right and truth.”[25], the latter three offer sourcing of the right of due process, not merely a “modern”constitutional invention. Relative to the last reference [25], consider that this is not merely appeal to a god [the eye of Ra] for the mortal due process against accusation of a person’s faults, but for that person’s immortal soul. The appeal of due process functions not just for us, in this 3rd millennium C.E., but to the ancient Egyptians of 2 millennia B.C.E. How about a scope of 5,000 years of due process for billions upon billions of us benefitting from multiple gods some of us in society still revere and worship for these blessings, such as the US Constitution.

IX Conclusion: A burden proved

IX.a Not have I offered singular cursory mention, as Pro charged, but eleven additional examples of cursory mentions of God in and by the US Constitution, and four sources from elsewhere, to satisfy my burden to establish that the Resolution is false; God is not just mentioned, but integral to the US Constitution. So much for Pro’s singular truism accusation.

Thank you for your attention. To Pro for R3 [rebuttals only].

Sources:
[12] https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/12/03/modal-ontological-arguments/
[13] Magna Carta, Clause 39
[14] https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02/why-god-is-in-the-declaration-but-not-the-constitution/
[15] ibid
[16] U.S. Constitution, Preamble
[17] Jim Bouchard, https://www.primermagazine.com/2009/learn/think-like-a-black-belt-perfection-is-not-a-destination-its-a-never-ending-process#:~:text=on a Budget-,Think Like a Black Belt: Perfection is Not a Destination,steps in the right direction.
[18] Holy Bible [KJV] 2 Kings 20: 1
[19] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 2 [also, Articles II, III, IV, V, etc.]
[20] Declaration of Independence
[21] U.S. Constitution, Ist Amendment
[22] Quran, 53: 39
[23] Doctrine & Covenants 88: 125
[24] Holy Bible [KJV], Matthew 5-7
[25] E.A. Wallis Budge, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” Plate XXXVII, pg. 242

You realize, right, that your response essentially was a parody — of yourself?
I didn’t even need to exaggerate you. You did it better than I ever could. You broke your own sacred vow of commentary silence — which you had announced with all the solemnity of a hermit monk retreating to a monastery at 7,500 feet — just to lecture me like I’d triggered a constitutional crisis.

You compared a mock quote on DebateArt to impeachment proceedings. You invoked Adam Schiff, Pelosi, and House Rules as if we were drafting federal indictments, not casually exchanging satire. That alone proves my point better than anything I could write.

You accuse me of misrepresentation while misrepresenting parody itself — demanding proper quotation in a parody, which by definition isn’t meant to be literal. That’s not logic, that’s ego. You seem less upset that I mocked you and more upset that I did it accurately — which is why you’re now spiraling into tangents about hieroglyphs, spiritual studies, and declassified Pelosi scrolls like a man possessed by a poorly footnoted ghost.

Also — and this part you keep conveniently avoiding — you still haven’t responded to a single argument I made before your theatrical vow of silence. Not one. You wrote pages about satire, honor, rules, and ancient coursework, but never once addressed the actual points I raised. The “wise elder” act collapses when the scrolls are empty.

You posture. Constantly. Your bio is a performance. Your book is self-published constitutional fanfiction. Your reaction to satire wasn’t an argument — it was a public spiral into the exact pseudo-intellectual melodrama I mocked you for. And the best part? You didn’t realize you were doing it.

This wasn’t a personal attack. It was observation. And you proved it with your own keyboard. So next time, before storming down from your digital monastery to deliver another self-important sermon, remember — all I did was hold up a mirror. The meltdown was yours. Not mine.

I want to take a moment to address readers & voters.:

You will likely have times in debates where people feel strongly about the subject you are debating, which has the potential for confrontation in the comments.
Avoid these at all costs. It will derail the debate and could influence voters against you. Especially if you end up giving away the arguments you intend to use for later rounds.
That's as good as showing your hand of cards. Do not do this.

Con only had one way to win, which relied on successfully executing the trap. By using the technique that I did in Round 1, I've already won. As Con here has already played all his cards, whereas I still have an entire deck to use.
Now there's no way for Con to win, as this debate was a double-edged sword. By flipping the other side of the coin, the Con position is basically self-sabotage.

Parody my arse. Yes, I know parody.
When you quote, quote, do not transliterate by whim of parody. That is the glaring mistake that claptrap House member from House 30 Calif, Adam Schiff made is his "parody" of Trump in that House Rules violating !st Impeachment so poorly overseen by Pelosi. Can't keep her own Rules [IX, X, XI], and allowed her managers the same poor keeping of congressional rules. Get it? Yet? Hell, even theives have some honor.
And, all your "parodies" make the wrong assumptions. Lke I said, stay in your own head; you don't know mine. Not a clue, my friend.
Hint: Yes, university coursework in Egyptian hieroglyphs. What the bio does not say is an additional personal study of the last 50 years. Get it? Nope.

Re: Your #26

Have you ever heard of parody? You're acting like I forged a statement to congress or something.
But because you sent a truly hilarious response, so comes more parody.

"Must break my own rule of commentary during debate...."
Translation: "I swore I wouldn't speak, but this affront to my legacy has forced my hand" further translation "How dare you disrupt the sanctity of my digital constitutional convention with parody"

"I never wrote those words, If I did, cite it, please, or I demand a retraction"
Translation: "Please respect the constitutional sanctity of my DebateArt comment section"

"That amounts to personal attack, and that is a losing argument, always"
Translation: "I am above this, but also deeply wounded by it"

ITS PARODY!
You're responding like I forged the Magna Carta and stapled it to my resume. You can write all the fictional books about candy, mint shortages, shortages of letters (Manufactured a supply chain issue for a children's book?), and Constitutional angels, but I can't write a fake quote?

I did a quick google of your book, evidently I found other books too. I am less than impressed. Your Bio rang like a founding fathers, a true intellect, someone who James Madison would quote if he were still alive, but I must say I was disappointed to see that all your books were...... self published...... i.e. its a hobby, not a job.

Because I can't critique every part of the bios under your books, I will just critique your bio on here.

"Freelance writer and illustrator"
Translation: "I'm not just a thinker, I produce culture" should just write renaissance man.
"Business and personal experience in over 30 countries"
Translation: "You can't debate me, I've been everywhere" not enough elaboration either.
"Fluent in English, French, Italian, and Egyptian Hieroglyphs"
Translation: "I'm not just well-read - I can decode dead languages" (It's funny you label here that your fluent, but elsewhere you state it was just a university course.
"Enjoy gourmet cooking, gardening, woodworking, greeting card fabrication with original illustrations and verse"
Translation: " I am not bound by your narrow concepts of expertise"
"Two Phd's, History and English Lit"
Translation: "You better come correct - I'm academically untouchable" (Also, you have a double Phd, but working in what is essentially Quality Control in an industrial setting?)
"Fauxlaw is the title of......"
Translation: "The Supreme Court, the president, congress, and the American people, are all wrong, I alone see the truth"
"Although I am monetarily affluent, my true wealth... is the knowledge I've gained"
Translation: "Yes, I have money, but I'm enlightened- not materialistic. So much so, that I need to showboat on an online debating forum"
"I approach that subject [Debate].....
Translation: "I am the wise elder, and even your naive rebuttals have value to me"

For a double Phd. you write like an undergrad.

I appreciate your help!

The Pro position on this is definitely a great opportunity for a free-win, but I may not necessarily be the guy to pull it off.
It's less of a debate of skill at this point and more about whose trap is superior.

This debate is a trap, but I have a counter-move to play that I believe is a better reverse trap.
It depends on successful execution.

must break my own rule of commentary during debate due to this absurdity in your post #25 in these comments.

"detractors note, I will now not answer any comments with pseudo-intellectual rubbish, for fears that my clear and obvious inability to confront your points, and sidestepping/deflecting are becoming much too obvious".

You allege to quote me. If you are going to quote me, then. quote me, do not use your own interpretation as a quote from me. I never wrote those words. If
I did, cite it, please, or I demand a retraction. I will not be quoted incorrectly. That amounts to personal attack, and that is a losing argument, always. Stay in your own head.

You are right, perhaps what I said was harsh, however I would like to point out that what I wrote was only done after Con repeatedly sidestepped any calls for clarification or proof. Now as you have seen he has gone shy and stepped off the stage. "detractors note, I will now not answer any comments with pseudo-intellectual rubbish, for fears that my clear and obvious inability to confront your points, and sidestepping/deflecting are becoming much too obvious".

In any case, if you, Lancelot, want any good points, I'd be happy to help, though you seem to got this well and handled. I'll be back to vote, unless Plato comes back to feed some more nonsense.

Thank you. This will be a fun debate.

Assuming playing cards correctly:

Aye, there's the rub. looking forward to your R1, and the rest. Good hunting.

That is actually a clever strategy IMO.

All too often, debates can get derailed a lot of times in the comments. For the record, I don't object to your methods. I see it as a clever ruse, but I do believe the strategy is entirely exploitable by Pro. That is, assuming that Pro plays his cards correctly.

Thank you, Barney.

I'll post the link in my Round 1.

You are completely right about the setup and the Con position.

But I can't help but feel that the criticism towards fauxlaw comes off a little too aggressively.

It is true that a debate like this is intended as a trap, but the site culture normalizes and encourages tactics like these. If all debaters were to fight fairly, then lesser experienced contenders would be unprepared to defend themselves whenever the instigator decides to fight dirty.

I have, on occasion, on. this site, taken a position in debate with which I personally disagree, all for the effort of research for personal enlightenment, but also to challenge wider consideration of personal opinion, so, to detractors of my methods, take note. I will, other than by specific posting of debate rounds, avoid commentary within this comments field for the duration of this debate, and I often make that choice to not engage commentary during debate. So, see you in the rounds, only. unless absolutely necessary, which is often not.

Barney, relative to your comment on a link to my R1, note that though instigator, I am Con, not Pro.

Someone remind me at the end, and I’ll make a wiki page in this, in large part to put the arguments into proper order.

Oh and Lancealot, not required by any means, but to make things easier on readers, the link to pro’s R1 is https://www.debateart.com/debates/6075/comments/63600

What a pathetic response. Your position is not defendable. Either you concede your entire argument is predicated on one mention of the lord being "In the year of our lord", or you continue to look like a pseudo-intellectual, whose shallow comments and clear attempt at wit (though failing), and acumen in debating continue to do you no good. The choice is yours.... now cue another long-winded labyrinth of mumbled nonsense. People usually go to sites like these to learn the ropes of debate, not frame a debate to work entirely in their favor, and not only not debate anything meaningful, but basically act as a word nazi, deflecting any such jab at the clearly flawed basis for this so called debate. As said previously, you will not concede because you have written on this topic, and miraculously been published to-boot, so one cannot expect you to throw that all away. One must at least ask why someone who writes on the topic, would then attempt a debate? It seems to me that the purpose of this is to merely reaffirm what you already believe. What strikes me is, how can someone write a whole book on such a topic. I am published as well, but I don't debate on public forums the things I have been published on, no, I debate in public, where the rules are not made by me.

Strong first round 1 from Con.
I look forward to the rest

Round 1
I Argument: Due process: an invention of God or man?

I.a The Fifth Amendment gives us the Constitution’s first mention of “due process of law:” saying to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”[4]

1.b The XIVth Amendment does, as well: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[5]

I.c The Magna Carta, from 1215, without using the specific words, gives us the same sense: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in anyway, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”[6]

1.d The concept is older, still, from “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” but known anciently by another name: “Spells of Coming Forth by Day” from about 1400 B.C.E, “I have driven away for thee wickedness. I have not done iniquity to mankind. Not have I done harm to animals. Not have I done wickedness in the place of Maàt. Not have I known evil. Not have I done what is abominable to God…”[7] These spells had the purpose of preparing the dead, not the living, to encounter God in supplication for their eternal soul by a commitment of right-doing during mortal life; a “due process” process, that is obviously a God-centered process, not merely secular.

1.e But we were introduced to the idea of due process earlier still, from Genesis, from Eden, at creation: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat…”[8] but there were consequences. Due process is a process of obedience and consequence for legal obedience or disobedience. There is the source of due process: God.

II Argument: Words mean things
II.a Contrary to conventional wisdom, Con contends that the Lord God is mentioned within the text of the U.S. Constitution. The argument is simple, and cited from the Constitution, itself, even if the citation is couched within the typical context of official documents of the 18th century to acknowledge God even in the mundane necessity of dating the document:

II.b “…done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,”[9]

II.c It is granted that this commentary is not a legislated philosophy or legality of the United States by the present Constitution, but, the matter of the Resolution does not require the language therein to have a specified purpose above and beyond being the “…supreme law of the land…”[10] but merely mention for the same of convention, as the Description describes.

III Conclusion: A warning

III.1 It is further contended that as the U.S. Constitution is “…the supreme law of the land…” it stands as a beacon, like a lighthouse, which warns of malfeasance, but does not register the the ships that sail safely through the warned waters of treacherous result for lack of careful sailing. The results of careful “sailing,” by abiding by the caring words of due process, are marked in the words of the Constitution’s Preamble: “…in order to form a more perfect union.”[11] Is there anything that is not god-like that is associated with perfection? Therefore, to what purpose is the Constitution if not that, according to our author of these words, James Madison. No, God may not be otherwise mentioned constitutionally but in Article VII, but Madison intended by the Preamble that God be part and parcel of the Constitution.

III.2 Note the argument of I.a, above. It is not so much that the the Ist Amendment warns that Religion must not impose itself on Government, and thereby the infamous, “separation wall,” as alleged to Tommy Jefferson, but he happened to have been away from both church and state at the time, in France, and so never signed the U.S. Constitution, or its Ist Amendment. No, but the matter was that Government not impose itself on Religion, and thereby avoid its own violations of due process of law.

III.3 It is, therefore, proposed that the Resolution is defeated by these arguments. It is a matter of simple adherence to law; namely, due process of law; both man’s, and God’s.

Thank you for your attention. To pro for R1.

Sources:
[4] U.S. Constitution, Vth Amendment
[5] U.S. Constitution, XIVth Amendment, Section 1
[6] Magna Carta, Clause 39
[7] E.A. Wallis Budge, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” Plate XXIX-Appendix, pg 194
[8] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 2: 16
[9] U.S. Constitution, Article VII
[10] U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2
[11] U.S. Constitution, Preamble

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, however, in another debate proposed bye another member was engaged by me a few days ago and I attempted to enter my 1st round argument last night and could not, so I suppose this debate will not be accepted in the argument field, either, though I will make the attempt. We will all see the result together. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.
By accepting this debate, Sir Lancelot, per the Description, has accepted to have my arguments posted in these comments fields. Further, readers amid voters are asked to ignore the otherwise automatic forfeit notices of each round since they will be evident in each round of the site refuses my entry of arguments as should be allowed, but may not be. I will be making the attempt today or tonight.

Your #11: "The only remotely relevant reference — “in the Year of our Lord” — is a standard 18th-century dating convention, not a theological or doctrinal inclusion. "

And who insists that God is only to be discussed in those terms; "theological" or "doctrinal?" I do not think of him elusively in those terms. I call him "Dad," on occasion in addressing him, and have those kinds of conversations. It is a personal reelationshbp. Shouldn't it be?

Re: Your #12:
You hee not yet consulted https://allthingsliberty.com. suggested on my #5, have you? Do so, you may have a better understanding of my perspective in launching this debater. Also, consider that I am currently wresting a sequel to mat previous volume re: the Constitution, proposing that the Document may be considered holy writ. Being perfectly serious.

You’ve clearly established a debate which — yes — in its framing makes it difficult to win from the Pro side. As Sir.Lancelot correctly notes, Pro isn’t unwinnable, but fauxlaw is focused entirely on plain textual observation rather than contextual interpretation or implied meaning. This debate is not about whether the Constitution is implicitly secular or religious — no amount of historical comparison or appeals to other documents will matter here. What Con cares about is isolated words, and words alone. And that highlights a larger issue with self-authored debates: they can be framed however the instigator wants. Given that Con has written on this topic professionally, it makes sense he would construct a resolution tilted toward his own strengths. In a more balanced, open-ended debate — one not designed by him — he would have a harder time convincing anyone with sound judgment and no financial stake in the matter. Because to most reasonable people, the Constitution is clearly not a religious document, and “in the Year of our Lord” is no more an invocation than “Thursday” is a tribute to Thor. The rhetorical flourishes and pseudo-intellectual framing are just that — a mirage of depth, obscuring a debate that ultimately lacks substance.

The Constitution of the United States does not mention “the Lord” or “God” in any legal, structural, or substantive way. The only remotely relevant reference — “in the Year of our Lord” — is a standard 18th-century dating convention, not a theological or doctrinal inclusion. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, or Mayflower Compact — all of which openly invoke God — the Constitution was deliberately drafted without religious language. That was a conscious choice made by the framers, most notably James Madison, to ensure neutrality and protect both government and religion from mutual interference. The lack of a religious test in Article VI and the First Amendment further reinforce this secular character. Appeals to other documents, personal faith of the founders, or historical tradition are irrelevant to the legal text of the Constitution itself, which speaks clearly through its silence on the matter. It’s also worth noting that you (Con), who has written about this topic professionally, may have an understandable but entrenched reluctance to concede the plain meaning of the text — one shaped more by commitment to a viewpoint than by what the Constitution actually says.

Perhaps that was Con's intention, but the Pro position is definitely winnable.

No, you're right.
Labeling this a bait&switch isn't fair because the setup makes the case very straightforward. It's not a trick.

I wouldn't say the description is hidden though. And obviously it helps set the parameters of the debate, or there would be no point in including it.

"Did I offer conditions for the debate in my Resolution, or description?"

Yes, when you say "For purposes of this debate..."

You claim from post #4 "Debate is designed to make 'the year of our Lord' win this for Con."

You have implied a "hidden agenda" by your claim of "designed." i.e. "to win the debate" No, I claim the Resolution, as worded, will not win the debate as a burden of proof for Pro. That's not a "design;" that's in- your-face obvious, isn't it?

I didn't say the agenda was hidden...

All threes of you have demonstrated the point of my resolution, when attempting to poke holes in it, yet substantiated it, regardless, making the debate totally unnecessary. Thank you. You might find the following website interesting: https://allthingsliberty.com. It is the origin of the "Journal of the American Revolution," which shares your "godless Constitution." The real problem with your shared position is that the Constitution does not warn against an illegitimate incursion of God into U.S. politics, but, rather, prohibits the illegitimate incursion of politics into religion. There is your "wall," gentlemen. Consider that at the time, Tommy Jefferson, for example, during the calculated composition of the Constitution, was separated from both church and state, being located in France as our first minister there [that was his curious title, then, when we now call them ambassadors, so, how separated is that?] and not in the Constitutional Convention. He never signed the Document.

Sir.Lance: What bait and switch? My every word in the negation of the Resolution stands with merit. I made no remark, nor any conditional illusion in the Resolution that is true. The Constitution does "make mention" of the Lord, when no less of a puffed-pastry institution than the website noted above spends a good deal of cyberspace proudly claiming the Constitution is unconditionally Godless.

Clause: " Yet we see no quote from the Constitution itself to substantiate this." You want my entire argument presented in the Description? Pray tell, what are following arguments for? So you can prematurely efactulate all over them?Just clean up, please.

Savant; Did I offer conditions for the debate in my Resolution, or description? No. Take them at face value. You seem to think I have a hidden agenda. when the agenda is there to see at face value, religious, or not. It truly does not matter.

Perfect!

It’s good to know Con isn’t debating the Constitution — just proofreading it for bonus points.

Debate is designed to make "the year of our Lord" win this for Con.

i.e. "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."

It arguably does have religious significance, but Con doesn't even need to argue that.