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

"Now, he says that it does not aid religions because it simply targets private schools. However if you target private schools are you not aiding them by giving them government money for a student's education? And if you give it to a religious institution it aids them." The government gives the voucher to the student. The student then uses the voucher at a religious school. This is not direct, but indirect. My opponent then proceeds to talk about how school vouchers could still discriminate against religious schools. However, I don't really have to attack anything until this next quote: "But this ignores the fact that the money from the voucher is going directly into a religious institution, to fund it. When the government buys you a car, their money is not going into a religious institution but a secular item. You may use that item to go to church the same way you may use the education from a religious school to get a job but those are indirect effects. The direct effects are that the government is paying for a religious school or a car. So vouchers do directly aid religious schools." Wrong. This is not direct aid. When the government gives you a voucher, the money is not going into a religious institution but your own bank account. You may use that money to go to a religious private school in the same way you may use the car to drive to church. Both of these are indirect effects. Government -> Your Voucher -> Religious School -> Education in Profession and Religion Government -> Your Car -> Church -> Education in Religion See? They're the same. They're both indirect. Thus, it is not in violation of the Supreme Court ruling, which my opponent agreed only applies to direct effects. "So if the government gives a student a voucher then they have to approve what you are going to do with it. If the state gives you money for a car, then they have to approve which car you get. So for every school voucher the government is going to approve the school. At this point the state is not simply choosing every private school but has to specifically approve each one. So the government is directly choosing to approve religious schools. So it does violate the separation of church and state." If the government gives a person a car, then they have to approve of where they drive. They do this through traffic laws. If a policeman stops a man on the road and asks, "Where are you headed?", and the man answers, "Church," and the policeman says, "Okay, you can go," would that be unconstitutional? No, because that would be ridiculous. If the government gives a person a voucher, then they have to approve of where they spend the money. They do this through approval/disapproval. If the government stops a kid with the voucher and asks, "Where are you going to spend that money?", and the kid answers, "Christian Academy," and the government says, "Okay, you can go," would that be unconstitutional? No, for the same reason. Again, the two situations are the same. The government does not choose for a person to drive to church, but they approve of his doing so. The government does not choose for a kid to go to a religious school, but they approve of his doing so. Essentially, they are both the same situation, and they are both indirect, and they do not violate the Supreme Court ruling. "1: We have established that the Supreme Court has the authoritative interpretation of the constitution. My opponent has never refuted this." True. "2: The court ruled that any law that would aid religion would be unconstitutional, although my opponent and I have agreed that it must be direct aid." True. "3: Discrimination against religious schools and in favor of secular schools is perfectly constitutional. My opponent never brings any argument to the contrary" Fine, then. That argument didn't have any effect on the resolution, anyways. "4: School vouchers are direct aid for religious schools, because the government is paying them to educate a student. The same way that the government would directly pay for a car. This violates the separation of church and state." Wrong. 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. This is indirect, and not direct. This does not violate the Supreme Court ruling, and therefore does not violate the separation of church and state. "5: Every private or religious school has to be approved by the state, at which point if the state approved vouchers for religious schools it would be specifically choosing those schools. This violates the separation of church and state." My opponent mixes up choosing with approving. See the policeman example. Therefore, there is no more reason for school vouchers to be unconstitutional. The resolution is negated. And that is why you should vote CON. Thank you.