School vouchers are unconstitutional because they go against the separation of church and state.

He says that the money from the voucher goes into your bank account, but would that not imply that it was your money? But it is not, it is the government's. Why would they put their money into your bank account when they can just as easily pay it directly to the school? We both agree that the government paying for your car is direct. A voucher is nothing more than a payment. Even if it comes into your hands it is still the government's money, and they gave it to you with a requirement to use it at a school. If your mom gives you money to walk up to the store and buy milk, then your mom is paying for the milk, not you. This is because their still controlling the money. This is direct because the money never leaves the government's (or your mom's) possession. If it ever did leave their possession then you could do whatever you wanted with it, you would not be restricted to spending the money on school or milk. So at that point a voucher is direct aid because it is a payment of the government's money to the school just like the government paying for your car would be direct. I explain that the government has to approve what your going to do with it's money. My opponent does not really refute but says it does not matter because the government approves everything. He says they do it through not stopping you from doing things. However my opponent confuses approve with allow. If the government allows you to go to church then their not approving of it. If that were the case then they would also have to approve of atheists not going to church. But they do not, they simply let it happen. I may not approve of muslims going to mosques but I would not stop them and neither would the government, even though it could. My opponent said that if the government does not stop you they approve of what you do, but this wrong they simply allow it. Going to my voting issues: 4: "The government pays for the voucher in the same way that they pay for the car. However, the government indirectly pays for school in the same way that they indirectly pay for church. " Wrong. The voucher is a payment in and of itself because government maintains control and possession over the money. The payment is going directly into a religious school because it never leaves the government's hands. 5: My opponent says I mix up choosing with approving. Well he mixes up approving with allowing. My opponent's definition of approve is flawed so you are going to drop his attack. Approving means saying that "that's good. " At the point when the government approves a voucher they are looking at a payment to a school and saying "that's good. " So if it's a religious school they are saying that the payment is good. So by approving a payment to a religious school the state violates the separation of church and state. But the point still applies: the government has to choose what to do with it's money (otherwise it would not use the money). If they give it to a student for a religious school then it is choosing to pay that school which violates the separation of church and state. In conclusion: my opponent's attacks fall and we are force to accept that school voucher is a direct payment to a religious school because it is the government's money. You also have to accept that the government approving (or choosing) this payment.