The Pledge of Allegiance should be required in schools of the U.S.A

Thank you! My opponent has accepted the BoP, which means I need only negate her arguments. However, I retain the right to employ my own, should I feel I need to do so in order to help negate the resolution. In this particular instance, I feel that doing so would be beneficial. Contention 1: A Compulsory Pledge Contradicts American Values America is a nation founded, as the rhetoric loves to remind us, on liberty and democracy. Individuals are free to pursue their desires. Everyone is treated equally under the law. So what would it say about the United States, a nation of freedom, if it forced everyone to swear obedience? This seems to me like a fairly clear-cut ethical position. If someone is compelled to do something, they cannot be said to be doing it of their own free will. Thus, by mandating people to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, we are not instilling loyalty and patriotism. If anything, we are sowing the seeds of confusion, as people are being forced to sweet-talk liberty, and we may even be fostering resentment. Indoctrinating people into a belief system is far inferior to having them choose it. Indoctrination discourages dissent and critical discussion, both of which are critical to society today. If people are never challenged in their beliefs, those beliefs will be forever shallow. Essentially, students will repeat their allegiance over and over without ever understanding why their country deserves their allegiance or even asking if it really does. They will form a base opinion and never be able to support it. Mandating the Pledge instills a mindless, robotic obedience. It becomes a display of rote memorization, not loyalty or passion. In essence, forcing people to recite the Pledge makes it a chore and strips it of all meaning. Subpoint: Forcing Students to Recite the Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional In the Supreme Court Case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the court ruled that making the Pledge of Allegiance compulsory is a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments to the Constitution [1]. Thus mandating the Pledge is not only incompatible with liberal ethics of freedom and liberty; it is also illegal and unconstitutional. My opponent did not divide the rounds into arguments and rebuttals, so I shall also include rebuttals in this round. Rebuttal to Contention 1 I am not 100% certain what my opponent is saying here. It seems like she is saying that Constitutional rights do not apply to students and uses a rather absurd example to argue that. However, in the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, the court ruled 7-2 that "students don't shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates" [2]. This means that constitutional rights, such as the freedom of speech, do, in fact, apply to students and are relevant to this discussion. Rebuttal to Contention 2 There are numerous reasons why a student might decide not to say the Pledge. For some, it violates their beliefs. Atheists, for example, may object to the phrase "under God" as they don't recognize the existence of such a being. Forcing them to recite the Pledge, then, is forcing them to adhere to traditional Judeo-Christian morality, which is a violation of their constitutional right to freedom of religion. In other cases, students may feel that the United States does not live up to the values expressed in the Pledge. A lesbian student in Georgia, for example, may not feel like "liberty and justice for all" applies to her, since not only is she unable to marry in her state, but she can also be fired from any job she gets because of her sexual orientation [3]. Legally excluding minority students while forcing them to pay lip service to the virtues of the nation that excludes them is nothing short of cruel. Rebuttal to Contention 3Here my opponent argues that a compulsory Pledge would force students to consider the system behind the Pledge. I believe the opposite to be the case - that a compulsory Pledge will, in fact, discourage critical thought. We know that the more times one does something, the less they have to think about it. It becomes mindless instinct, a simple chore to perform. People will become automatons, reciting words they've never considered the meanings of. While this article applies to college cirriculums, the same concept applies to a rote memorization of the Pledge. The process will become automatic, the meaning ineffective, and critical conceptions of the United States will be dulled. Recitation and rote memorization are ineffectual tools for substantiating critical thought [4]. Rebuttal to Contention 4 Saying the Pledge is professional and respectful. Yes. Granted. But so is standing or sitting in silence. If a Muslim boy goes to his Christian friend's house for dinner, and they say grace, he could join in, but it would equally, if not more, respectful for him to simply wait in silence. The same concept applies to reciting the Pledge in schools. I wish my opponent the best of luck in the next round! [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2 http://www.uscourts.gov... [3] http://www.vocativ.com... [4] http://www.criticalthinking.org...