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

Thank you for this response. My opponent misunderstands Wikipedia's definition of a school voucher. A school voucher allows parents to use money provided by government to pay for private education. From Wikipedia: "Vouchers are designed to provide citizens freedom to spend their tax money as they choose for the type of school they want." http://en.wikipedia.org... Wikipedia does not say that school vouchers are required, because they are not. If the parents have the money to pay for the private school by themselves, then they can pay without government help. However, if you're going to use government money, the government has to approve of what you're going to do with the money. School vouchers only increase people's options. They do not limit the options of anybody. "What I meant was that with school vouchers parents have to have a certificate from the government that allows them to transfer their children from a public school to a private school. If they want to go to a religious school they still need the voucher at which point it does violate separation of church and state." For one thing, school vouchers are NOT required, which makes this entire argument crumble. For another, that's like saying, "I have to go through a toll road to get to my church! This is unconstitutional!" This is flawed. "With my definition the voucher system does violate freedom by forcing students to get vouchers in order to transfer." False. Students aren't forced to get vouchers. "His third objection is that the state paying for education is fine. However this is based on his definition which he never clarified, so the attack is nullified." The state has always paid for most all education. It always should. A definition of school vouchers cannot change this. "To my second contention. He says the state never gets the power to choose. However this ignores the fact that students do not receive a voucher then they cannot leave the public school. The state does have the choice, so the attack is nullified." Students can leave public school without a voucher. They'd just have to pay for it by themselves. Furthermore, the state does not choose which private school a student goes to with a voucher. They just decide whether or not the student should get a voucher. Religion is not part of this criterion. "He says that states do not discriminate between religions. However that misses the point: if we say school vouchers are constitutional then that discrimination could very likely happen. In a context of a voucher the state has to choose whether or not a student will be allowed to transfer to a private school." I have a gun. I could very well shoot you. Should I be unable to have a gun because of this? No. I should get a chance to prove that I can use a gun responsibly. So, don't make accusations about what someone could do until they actually do it. "Finally he says that under a voucher program they do have the freedom to choose. But this is again working under his definition of voucher, which as I have said we should not accept." Your definition, from Wikipedia, says, "[P]arents can pay for the education of their children at a school of their choice." What were you saying about being unable to choose, again? "He then says that I argue that vouchers increase constitutionality, however this is misunderstood. I was attacking the system of vouchers that would required a student to get a voucher from the state before they can leave a public school." You are attacking a system, therefore, that isn't there. Therefore, your point is irrelevant. "I was not arguing that the separation of church and state was unconstitutional, but that the voucher program interferes with ability of parents to pull their children out of the secularized environment." The voucher program only increases a parent's options, allowing them a way to get to a religious school even if they are unable to pay. Without the voucher program, they'd have to go to public school. "He says there's still church but that is beside the point." Oh? Why? "The point is that the secularized environment in the school still suppresses religion, the church has no impact on the school." Public school does not suppress religion. It just doesn't advocate any religions. It's not Christian. It's not atheist. It's whatever you want it to be. Students are allowed to practice their religion in public schools, as long as they don't break the school rules or the law. "But the point still stands: that requiring students to get vouchers to transfer to a private or religious school violates the separation because it interferes with the students ability to choose a religious school." So, if the government ever decides to change their voucher system into the way that you interpret it, then you have the right to argue. Until this happens, all of your contentions are irrelevant. "But he never gives you any reason why we should interpret strictly on the text of the Constitution, so this is no reason to negate." Maybe it's because of the word in the resolution, "unconstitutional." Unconstitutional - not according or consistent with the constitution of a body politic (as a nation) (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) So, a lack of separation of church and state can only be unconstitutional if separation of church and state is advocated by the Constitution, which it's not. "This establishes that there is separation of church and state under the Constitution and the voucher system is unconstitutional." The government is not trying to set up a church. The government is not passing laws that aid religion, or discriminate based on religion. Therefore, your Supreme Court case is entirely irrelevant. "However, as I've shown, I did not refer to the lack of vouchers but to the system of vouchers as a whole." Again, this system is not what my opponent thinks it is. "He says that the system would be applied equally and that students could get money for secular or religious institution. However this violates the separation as established by the Supreme court because it aids religions." It does not aid religions. It simply allows kids to go to a private school. A student can go to a secular private school, or a student can go to a religious private school. Discriminating for atheist schools would be unconstitutional. Discriminating for religious schools would be unconstitutional. Discriminating against nobody is NOT unconstitutional. The word "religion" does not make something unconstitutional. If the government decides to hand out cars to people to stimulate the economy, and I drive my car to church, did I just violate the separation of church and state? No. That would be ridiculous. "My opponent perceives vouchers as the state paying for a transfer from public to private school. He says that the system would be applied equally and that students could get money for secular or religious institution." True. "However this violates the separation as established by the Supreme court because it aids religions." However, religion is being aided indirectly, and is being aided as much as any other school. So, the religion is irrelevant, and this "separation" is upheld. See above point about cars. "So even if you accept my opponents definition of voucher then you are going to affirm because even that is unconstitutional." And yet, it's not. See above debate. "I've effectively refuted my opponents important attacks and proven that the voucher system is unconstitutional under the separation of church and state (which is in the constitution)." My opponent has misperceived the definition of school vouchers, and thus, his entire argument is flawed. For this reason, in addition to all of my arguments, it is obvious that school vouchers are entirely within the boundaries of the United States Constriction. Thank you.