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

First off, I don't have burden of proof, you do. You are the one suggesting a broad scale policy change. I am suggesting we not. You need to prove that banning the Pledge should be done, not just that it shouldn't not be done. Next, I remind you of my rebuttals and how I did NOT drop an argument. I. Origins Don't Matter It is irrelevant where the Pledge came from. What matters is how we use it today. US culture is present and future oriented. The Pledge of Allegience is an American tradition, not because of who wrote it, but because we have made it a tradition through its continued use; this is just like how we re-purposed Yankee Doodle. II. Brainwashing Conspiracy This idea that a pledge can instill blind nationalism through brainwashing is ridiculous. Sites that spread this idea that the Pledge is brainwashing also spread ideas such as “Red Cross: How We Spent Sandy Money is a 'Trade Secret'” and “Hillary made a secret deal with Huma to keep Weiner quiet” [1]. It is fun to read about conspiracy theories, but we must not give them any weight in rational arguments. PRO would also have you link xenophobia and violence to the Pledge. There is no secret message within the Pledge causing the flaws in US culture. I concede US culture is flawed, but the source of these flaws is not a school pledge. Perhaps instead of attacking the wording of the Pledge, our time and energy ought to be put toward determining the source of flaws in US culture. III. Freedom of Religion Doesn't Apply The Pledge is led, not forced. The worst a public school can do is insist you stand with your classmates. They cannot make a student recite the pledge. At most schools, students can opt out entirely [2]. Freedom of Religion doesn't apply. I did spend a few sentences on this in my previous speech, hence, not dropping the point. As this is not the last round, I am free to add new argument. A. Public Education, State Controlled The government funds and implements the public education system. The government has the right to teach or not teach the concepts it chooses. The government chose not to include Creationism and Stem Cell research in its curriculum. The government may choose to have teachers lead students in praise of the government. B. Easy and Educational As I talked about in my previous speech, a pledge is a simple way to get through to children. Signed contracts and history texts are often too difficult for young children to comprehend. The repetition, listening, and speaking aspects of a pledge make the message digestible for children. C. Necessary Preventative Manipulation Children are very impressionable. Until they can think for themselves, it is better they are fed blanket positive statements about their home country, than be susceptible to manipulation by ideologies of foreign countries. Brains are not fully developed until age 25 [3]. D. Unnecessary Insult 77% of adults in the US in 2012 identified as Christian [4]. It is not worth insulting the large majority of the adult population. Insisting on eliminating the words 'under God' is a heavy handed insult to Christian's by implying the mere mention of their God in manipulative. As I said in my rebuttal of PRO's point III, freedom of religion is not breached by an optional pledge. Religion is already restricted in so many ways. Don't add another by eradicating every mention of it. As you can see, PRO's points do not hold up against even light rebuttal, and there are even strong reasons to leave the practice of leading the Pledge exactly as it is. 1. http://www.abovetopsecret.com... 2. http://www.pewresearch.org... 3. http://www.academic.marist.edu... 4. http://www.gallup.com...;