American public schools should not lead recitations of the current Pledge of Allegiance.

OverviewThank you. I am glad that Con was able to get a response in, and a good one at that. I will begin with two observations about the round. Firstly, Con has presented no constructive material. Therefore, if any part of my argument flows through, I automatically win the round, as Con has only given defensive, mitigatory arguments. Secondly, while I appreciate Con's passionate rebuttals, they are almost exclusively assertion without substantive argumentation. In order to be able to weigh these claims, Con must provide more sourcing or logical argument rather than relying on anecdotes and assertions. I will point out specific instances of these during each rebuttal section. I. Nebulous OriginsWhile I am glad that Con is concerned about my diction, I assure you that 'nebulous' was the precise word that I intended to use; the usage of the word deals with the confusing juxtaposition of the origin of the Pledge and the ideal of the Pledge. That, rather than the literal origin story, is nebulous. Con is getting to this when she claims I mean 'undemocratic,' though that leaves some context to be desired. Con next claims, "US culture is not past oriented." This is true in many regards, primarily in the realm of business development. However, the United States is clearly quite enamored with her nationalistic past, as evidenced by the July 4 celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "The Star Spangled Banner" and its beginnings in the War of 1812, etc. Moreover, the core values that the United States, and the Pledge in particular, claim to espouse are liberty, equality, justice, etc. Those are all rooted in the past, through both cultural and Constitutional links, as witnessed in the Mayflower Pact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and the Constitution. We see no other argument from Con regarding this, other than irrelevant assertion and anecdotes. Con then challenges me to apply my logic to "Yankee Doodle Dandy." This is fairly straightforward. Yankee Doodle Dandy 1) Has a legitimate historical origin at an important junction in United States history (the Revolutionary War), 2) Was changed to reflect American values, and 3) Is not required to be recited in schools every morning. Thus, "Yankee Doodle Dandy" has both historical relevance and no legal repercussions. Finally, I will address the Con's claim that the changes to the Pledge are not significant and do not perpetuate hate. If you reference my previous source material, you will find that the significant changes to the Pledge ("under God," "the flag of the United States of America," etc.) were all created in response to a perceived threat from those of other ideals, especially immigrants and Communists. These, and, indeed, the Pledge itself, were direct manifestations of these horrific relics of a bigoted past. These are not merely residual societal values, these are the direct reasons the Pledge was created and changed (see earlier source material). The Pledge, then, reflects these values. That is the key argument here, and Con has not substantially addressed it. II. Dangers of NationalismThe first argument Con puts forward is that school is authoritarian in nature, and the recitation of the Pledge is a manifestation of this. Note that this argument does not clash with my resolution, which is that the Pledge should not be led by school officials. Any such leading action is authoritarian in nature, both in small groups or in a larger group. This leads to a decrease in critical thinking skills, as dissent is crushed. Con seems to agree. Con next claims that the advanced vocabulary of the Pledge provides a teachable moment for young students. I apologize; the claim that a kindergardener or a first-grader could fully grasp such concepts as liberty, a Republic, indivisibility, and justice is absurd. The importance of this is that students are forced and subjected to this language before they can understand it, causing an innate, unfounded nationalism merely through recitation of the Pledge. This nationalism is already firmly rooted before students can be reasonably expected to understand the Pledge. Moving down, Con discounts the idea that the Pledge is a form of brainwashing. She claims that she has not encountered anyone using the Pledge to justify actions and that if the allegiance were legitimate, less crime would occur. These claims are both assertions and anecdotes, along with being irrelevant. The entire crux of my argument is that the blind nationalsim fomented by the Pledge manifests insidiously, since it has been planted at such a young age. The idea that being forced, either de facto or de jure, to recite a pledge does not constitute brainwashing is comical with this in mind. Con then attacks the argument that the values resulting from the origin of the Pledge manifest in bigotry, hatred, and violence. She claims a logical fallacy has been employed, that conditions of an origin do not necessitate these conditions being perpetuated. However, she misses the key distinction, that the Pledge was created and amended directly as a result of these values. This is not residual or environmental; these terrible ideals birthed and changed the Pledge. Thus, the Pledge foments violence, hatred, and bigotry through perpetuating blind nationalism and American exceptionalism [1]. This causes both direct xenophobia against immigrant groups [2] and a backlash among the international community, both of which are negative consequences of nationalism. Note that this xenophobia causes the Pledge, and continues to grow today. Finally, Con responds to my argument that such a Pledge is unethical and coercive. The difference between the pledges Con discusses and the Pledge of Allegiance is that 1) the Pledge is universally required of all schoolchildren and not voluntarily opted-in to, and 2) these other pledges discuss conduct and morality, not simply blind allegiance. The impact of this is that, de facto or de jure, children are coerced by teachers, other students, and others to recite the Pledge, as my previous source material attests to. Any such coercion ought to be minimised, which can only be done by doing away with staff-led recitations of the Pledge. III. Freedom of ReligionFirstly, Con completely drops the entire freedom of religion argument that I present. I argue that the faculty-led component amounts to a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment, just like faculty-led prayer is [3]. Con does not respond to this whatsoever. Con's only defense here is that students can opt out. Note that my earlier source material dismisses opting out as a legitimate option due to the coercive forces I have previously discussed. Either way, students should not have to opt out of being subject to religion in a public school, as this leads to coercion and a stigma attached to those who opt out. If Con cannot refute this argument, the resolution stands by default. ConclusionCon has not presented any constructive material, and the defense employed has been filled with assertion, anecdote, and non-responsiveness. This, combined with the force of my argumentation, has shown that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has numerous harms, historically, philosophically, and constitutionally. I am proud to propose, and I look forward to reading future argumentation. Sources1. http://www.pewresearch.org...2. http://patimes.org...3. http://www.uwlaw.com...