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

Reconstructions: Ethics As a nation of liberty and democracy, people have the freedoms to both accept and reject the rhetoric and even framework of the United States. Patriotism, after all, is not blind love for your country. Patriotism is recognizing your country's s and working to make it better. It is fully possible to love your country while recognizing valid criticisms and working on improvements. Those who have struggled for change in America have done so because they love it and wish to see it live up to its ideals. Acts of civil protest and disobedience are perfect examples of this. Loyalty is more than unquestioning obedience. A mandated Pledge undercuts this idea. By removing the choice for people to choose to be loyal, the very meaning of loyalty and patriotism are lost. Furthermore, a compulsory fledge forces America to become the symbol of hypocrisy, claiming to cherish loyalty while leaving citizens no choice but to be loyal. This makes America no better than its enemies in this respect. Making the Pledge mandatory censors dissent and stifles debate. If we force citizens to be loyal, how are we any different the Soviet Union censoring anti-government propoganda or North Korea forcing its people to praise their great leader? By removing Americans' ability to choose, we remove their liberty. Reconstructions: Legality My opponent's only rebuttal to my constitutional argument is the right to bear arms. It is a false analogy to compare freedom of speech and religion, which are negative rights (meaning the right to freedom from interference) and the right to bear arms, which is effectually a positive right (a right that allows people to possess something). Furthermore, there are fairly obvious reasons why children should not own guns, and I hardly think that this is a point that needs clarifying in a debate. If my opponent wishes to argue that children should be allowed to own and use firearms, then she is welcome to instigate a different debate. Further, she drops the point that students keep the right to free speech in schools, which is exactly what the Supreme Court said. Again, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution, the highest law in the land, to decide against making the Pledge mandatory, as doing so would violate Americans' rights. Please extend this contention. As the next round is the last round, my opponent will not be allowed to introduce new arguments against this contention. Therefore, I win this one. Rebuttals The "Under God" aspect of the Pledge does not reflect the beliefs of the Founding Fathers for two reasons. First, most of the Founding Fathers were deists. Second, the phrase "Under God" was not added to the Pledge until 1954 [1]. My opponent then shifts her goalposts and says: "Debates have concluded that when students say the Pledge, "under God" may or may not be quoted whether the recitation is required or not." Do not let my opponent get away with shifting the goalposts. It is her burden to fulfill that reciting the Pledge is mandatory. She cannot then backtrack and pick and choose which aspects of the Pledge must be recited. It is true that saying the Pledge or simply waiting in silence are both respectful. However, since both are respectful - and waiting in silence is argubaly more so, which my opponent does not challnege - then the point goes to me because my opponent has the BoP. While this point was not dropped, because she has the burden and I successfully negated it by pointing out an equally viable alternative, I win this point. My opponent reasserts that rote memorization is good despite my argument and source in the last round that pointed out how memorization is an ineffectual tool -at best - for stimulating critical thought. This is a dropped argument. Since the next round is the last, do not let my opponent make any arguments on this point. It goes to CON. My opponent says that there are many instances in schools where opinions are taught as fact. This is true. This does not make them okay nor desirable. If students do not understand the principles of patriotism, a better solution would be to teach them about it rather than force them to conform to it. That way, they can develop their own critical thinking skills and make their own decisions, rather than having someone else make decisions for them. I wish to once again thank my opponent, and I look forward to the final round! [1] http://www.ushistory.org...