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

First I'll run over what a school voucher is, then I'll go down my case refuting everything he said against it and clarifying what I've said. I'll end by looking at what my opponent said and affirming based on his perception of the term voucher. My opponent said in the first round that: "Some people have claimed that because school vouchers can end up with government funding a child to go to a religious school, it is unconstitutional. " Okay, I accepted this. Then found out what a school voucher was: "A school voucher, also called an education voucher, is a certificate issued by the government by which parents can pay for the education of their children at a school of their choice, rather than the public school to which they are assigned. " -Wikipedia My basic assumption going into the first round was that a voucher was something parents had to get to transfer their kids out of an assigned public school. I based my case off of this My opponent never clarified what he considered to be a school voucher. Your going to accept my definition because: A: Because my opponent never clarified anything from his first to posts (even though he could have). B: My definition is not only the first but the only warranted definition that has come into this round. C: Because my definition was the only one that was accepted in the first round without any contest by my opponent. Going to my case: First Contention: I never said that parents were forced to send their kids to religious schools, the Con misunderstands. 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. The Con says that people do have the freedom to use religious facilities under the voucher system. But this is using his definition which he never explained at the beginning of the debate. With my definition the voucher system does violate freedom by forcing students to get vouchers in order to transfer. 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. 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. 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. 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. To my third contention. Again he uses his definition which he never clarified in the first round. 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. 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. He says there's still church but that is beside the point. The point is that the secularized environment in the school still suppresses religion, the church has no impact on the school. I am going to drop the argument that: "rather than trying to ensure a neutral environment schools should simply let differing faiths co-exist without intervention. " I was going off topic and I'm not going to bother with it. 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. Going to the bottom of his post. He says that the phrase "separation of church and state" never appears in the Constitution. 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. It is the authority of the Supreme court to decide on the authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. This is the only effective way to settle disputes over interpretation. The court ruled in Everson v. Board of Education: "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. " This establishes that there is separation of church and state under the Constitution and the voucher system is unconstitutional. My opponent stated that: "my opponent claims that a lack of vouchers, and students going to public school, is a restriction of church by the state, and thus unconstitutional. By my opponent's logic, anything the government does is unconstitutional. " However, as I've shown, I did not refer to the lack of vouchers but to the system of vouchers as a whole. It is not that going to public school is a restriction but that the voucher system allows the state to interfere if they try to leave. My logic is not contradictory the state can not offer vouchers and be constitutional. My opponents 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. However this violates the separation as established by the Supreme court because it aids religions. So even if you accept my opponents definition of voucher then you are going to affirm because even that is unconstitutional. 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). For all these reasons you should vote affirmative.