Prayer should not have been removed from public schools.

My opponent has attempted gotcha debating and failed. His entire argument has consisted of the claim that he could construed the topic to include voluntary prayer, and concedes the argument on mandatory prayer. He has conceded this argument as the resolution can only be seen to apply to mandatory prayer. There are only two types of prayer which could be removed, voluntary or mandatory. If voluntary doesn't make any sense then I must, by default, be talking about mandatory prayer. Let us test these variations of topic. Voluntary prayer should not have been removed from public schools. 1) Voluntary prayer was not removed from schools. 2) You cannot argue the pros and cons of a subject that never happened. -- I cannot be referring to voluntary prayer. Mandatory prayer should not have been removed from public schools. 1) Mandatory prayer was removed from public schools in Abington v. Schempp. 2) I mentioned Abington v. Schempp in my resolution. -- I can and likely am referring to voluntary prayer. I cannot be referring to voluntary prayer in the topic, and I likely am referring to the mandatory prayer which was at the center of Abington v. Schempp. I must be referring to mandatory prayer. I was referring to mandatory prayer. There is no room for interpretation otherwise. The topic is: Prayer should not have been removed from public schools. My opponent is trying to argue: Voluntary prayer should not be removed from public schools. I'm sorry, but you can't get there from here. My opponent has conceded the argument on mandatory prayer. This argument is on mandatory prayer. My opponent has conceded this argument. ----- Mandatory prayer is a violation of the separation of church and state. It is not okay for a government body, such as a public school, to force children to pray and read parts of the Bible against their own religious views. Just as it would be unconstitutional to make them pray towards Mecca or celebrate passover. The district court's decision in favor of Schempp put it quite well when it said, "The reading of the verses, even without comment, possesses a devotional and religious character and constitutes in effect a religious observance. The devotional and religious nature of the morning exercises is made all the more apparent by the fact that the Bible reading is followed immediately by a recital in unison by the pupils of the Lord's Prayer." "The exercises are held in the school buildings and perforce are conducted by and under the authority of the local school authorities and during school sessions. Since the statute requires the reading of the 'Holy Bible,' a Christian document, the practice . . . prefers the Christian religion. The record demonstrates that it was the intention of . . . the Commonwealth . . . to introduce a religious ceremony into the public schools of the Commonwealth." ---- My opponent has offered no arguments that prayer should not have been removed from public schools. He has, in fact, conceded the argument. My opponent wishes to argue that voluntary prayer in addition to mandatory prayer should not be removed (as opposed to "should not have been removed"). My opponent has conceded the argument, and produced no arguments of his own in favor of the resolution. I'm perfectly okay with gotcha debating. I've done plenty of it myself. My opponent however fails in this regard and cannot interpret the topic as he hoped to.