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

I forgot about this debate, so I will attempt to get in whatever response I can. Remember that while I have the BOP, if some significant portion of my argument flows through, I win the round. I will begin with a rebuttal of Con's new constructive material, then I will crystallize upon my original three contentions. RebuttalsI. Public Education/State ControlledTwo responses: 1. If the subject in discussion is itself a constitutional violation, then a state does not have a right to choose whatever it wants. 2. If you don't buy that, this debate is still a "should," not necessarily a question of whether they have the ability. If I can still show that the Pledge SHOULD not be recited, then I still win. II. Easy and EducationalThis seems to me like bona fide propaganda. Just keep repeating something, and people will believe it and find it to be true. Either way, this does not seem to be a legitimate way to foster critical thinking skills. Worst case, this is a wash that should not affect the round. III. Necessary Preventative ManipulationTwo responses: 1. My opponent ridicules me for conspiracy theories (more on that later), yet claims that children in the United States are at risk of manipulation from foreign governments if we remove the Plege. Ok. 2. This seems to substantiate my claim that the Plege is a brainwashing, fostering blind nationalism. If we are feeding people who cannot think for themselves information, that is the definition of brainwashing [1]. IV. Unnecessary InsultThis is preposterous. If we follow Con's line of argument, any policy action that could offend a majority of people could not be done. I suppose that means that we should have allowed slavery to continue in the South, that we should ban gay marriage and abortion in conservative states, and that we should censor all ideas that could be construed as offensive. I am sorry, the United States is not a theocracy; rather, we treat all religions equally, per the 1st Amendment. I think the sponsorship of monotheism by the government is far more offensive and stigmatizing than removal would be. This point literally does not matter. Points of CrystallizationI. Nebulous OriginsI have shown all round that the Pledge, and its later permutations, were the direct result of jingoism and racism. Again, the only reason the Pledge was created in the first place was xenophobia, and it was changed in the throes of various Red Scares (see earlier source material). This casts a permanent stain on the Pledge, a stain that, with continued ignorance and continual of the status quo, will only sink further into the innate psyches of those who recite it. Con, all round, has not provided significant argumentation against this, other than "it doesn't matter." I have debunked how this is the case, and demonstrated the risks of nationalism and xenophobia (which I will further expound upon later). Con cannot just laugh this off the flow, and, combined with my refutation of the faulty analogy with "Yankee Doodle Dandy," I have rebutted all of Con's claims. If I have shown that the origins of the Pledge are shameful, then we should not recite it, just as we should not recite the Confederate national anthem in schools. II. Dangers of NationalismIf you read my earlier arguments, I make several arguments and cite several sources that demonstrate the dangers of nationalism and xenophobia on the global and domestic scales. Con has resorted to attempting to criticize my source material and claim that my ideas are conspiracy theories. The two examples Con claims as analogous are the Red Cross refusing to disclose spending and Hillary Clinton covering up the Weiner scandal. The interesting part of this is that both of those ACTUALLY HAPPENED [2] [3]. These are not conspiracies; they are mainstream news. By extension, using Con's only counter, we should see that my argument is true as well. Either way, I have demonstrably shown the dangers of nationalism. Con agrees that the Pledge instills nationalism (see Con's new constructive material), and, since I have shown it is bad since my first speech, I win on this. III. Freedom of ReligionI don't think Con understands the argument here. If the government (the school is an extension of the government) espouses a religion, it is unconstitutional. I have argued this all round, and we have heard no refutation from Con. You, then, must find this as true, being a violation of the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment. Con's only counter is that students can opt out. I have argued all round that 1) Students should opt-in, not have to opt-out, of religious activities in schools, and 2) De facto coercion is strong enough to negate the utility of opting out (see earlier source material). Just as a student having to opt-out of a prayer would (and has been found) [4] to be unconstitutional, having to opt out of an explicitly religious pledge is likewise unconstitutional in word and spirit. Con has not given any other counter, and cannot do so. Thus, I have demonstrated how I win on all three of my constructive points, and have deconstructed Con's only contentions. Thus, I have won this debate. I would like to remind Con that no new arguments are permitted (the only new arguments I presented were refutations to the new constructives, which is allowed in standard debate formats). Thanks. Sources1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. https://news.vice.com...3. http://pagesix.com...4. http://members.tripod.com...