Private School vouchers should be utilized in the United States.

I accept the parameters of the debate. I will attack this topic on multiple levels. First, that if neither side is winning you vote Con. Second, I will show that the specific way my opponent is going to implement school vouchers(his parameters) are not how vouchers should be used. And third, that vouchers in general should not be utilized. Either one of the points is sufficient for me to win. If the way my opponent would use vouchers is a good way to use them, but vouchers themselves are a bad idea, then they still should not be utilized. It would be like finding a good way to commit murder, it may be a good way to do a certain thing, but that thing is still wrong. If my opponent defeats my third point and shows that in general vouchers are good, but I show his implementation of them (his parameters) are bad, then it's still a bad idea because the topic is to be debated with the parameters. First, if there is no reason to use or not use vouchers you vote CON. Justifications: 1.Logically, it is on the proponent of an argument to provide evidence for that argument, absent justification for it that argument is rejected. 2.This is a public policy that is being discussed, and any public policy that is being considered ought not be implemented if there is no reason that it is a good thing for society. If the status quo is the same as the change, there is no justification for making changes. 3.This specific policy goes against how taxes are commonly used. In no other situation can I think of that individuals can say they do not want to receive a specific state provided benefit and instead get money back to provide it on their own. For example, you cannot say you do not want to use the fire department and receive tax money back that was to pay for the fire department. Second, Implementing school vouchers in the way my opponent would is bad. 1.There is no justification for why this should only apply to low income families, if vouchers are in fact justified then the tax money should be given to any individual who wants to send their children to a private school. 2.If you are only giving money to low income families, then there is a cut-off point at which a family will not receive any money from the government to send their children to private school. For example, say the cutoff for being considered low-income is $40,000, a family that makes $39,800 a year will receive money to send their child to private school, but a family that makes $40,200 will not receive any assistance. While they may not be low-income, they still will need the assistance to be able to afford most private schools, given all their other bills(mortgage, utilities, savings for retirement, food, car payment, etc). This is an unfair way to delineate who gets money to assist them in sending their children to public schools. 3.Only providing $5000 a year(even if that is the average) will still limit individuals from attending at least half of all private schools, so you are still creating inequalities, so if solving inequalities is a justification for this then this plan fails to do that. Instead there are other ways to better solve these inequalities, which I will address later. 4.The money must come from somewhere, and it generally comes from the funds that are provided for the public schools. A big part of what pays for education is property taxes, which means that schools in poorer neighborhoods already receive less money for their schools. If you implement a voucher program then these schools will receive even less money, harming all of the students left behind by giving them an ever worsening education system. This answers back any argument about equalizing access to education. Third, vouchers in general are a bad idea. 1.This is the same argument as just presented, for it applies if anyone is allowed to have vouchers as well. 2.This is not an effective way to provide equality of opportunity to students, especially as it harms the lower income students who do not go to private schools. It would be far better to reform the system of public education to provide a better quality of education to all. As it is on the proponent of this policy to justify it, I will let my opponent provide his justifications and respond to them.