Resolved: Democracy is best upheld through strict seperation of church and state

First I will address his attacks on my case and then I will reattack his case. He begins his attack on my case by saying that I assume that all you voters are Christian. I did no such thing. I merely provided scriptural evidence to OPPOSE his own scriptural evidence. As you can see I provide many other forms of non-bias evidence to prove my point. His next attack is also against my case in general. He says that the examples I provided are not relevant to the resolution. Well my opponent is misinformed. These are all examples taken from United States current events. They are cases being tried in civil and criminal courts under the name of strict separation of church and state. If this is how our government has been interpreting 'strict' recently then it is obvious that these examples are relevant, because I am putting this debate in context of today's world. Something my opponent fails to do altogether. He doesn't look at the results of strict separation. My opponent states that Democracy is more important than Natural Rights because it is used in the resolution. The connection that my opponent fails to make is that Democracy was founded upon the protection of Natural Rights and thus Natural Rights are superior. In spite of this, we can still see how I uphold even his value of Democracy along with my value of Natural Rights. The strict separation of church and state will, as I have proven, destroy both democracy and natural rights thus his value supports my case. I ask not for laws that favor a church in the name of lenient separation of church and state, but instead ask for the destruction of laws that provide for the disfavor of a church in the name of strict separation of church and state. My opponent completely misinterprets my criterion of social contract. I shall fix this by listing fallacies in this attack as a list. 1. Hobbes was not British but instead Irish. 2. His social contract stated that man is naturally evil and will take advantage of one another if left to themselves (anarchy). Thus he proposes that the government (HE DOESN'T SPECIFY WHICH GOVERNMENT) is set in place to keep this natural tendency from occurring. Our own democracy was founded on a mix of both John Locke's and Thomas Hobbes' social contract theories. Thus my criterion applies to all governments including democracies. 3. Thus my criterion stands. He states that my first contention is against the resolution and that it therefore does not back up my case. This is true. It does not back up my case but instead stands as further attack on the aspects of his case that claim that the bible stands for his case. He attacks my second contention by saying that a SUPREME COURT RULING has proven me wrong. And that the info I provide is purely bias. First of all my interpretation was not bias. It was from a book called the Constitutional Commentary co-authored by over two hundred men and women from various religions, parties, races, social backgrounds, and geological areas. Thus it is not bias but is instead a very well balanced interpretation of the Constitution. I would also like to bring up the so called Supreme Court trial that he provides. For yours and his information that very court case was overturned FIVE YEARS LATER. Thus his point is irrelevant. But there's my point. The Supreme Court is not a reliable source for long term morality ideology because it is so fickle. The court has changed its stances on many issues including Church and State for its entire life time. How do we know which one is right? The answer: we can't. Thus the supreme court is not a valid source of info in this debate. Pertaining to his attack on my third contention, I'd like to repeat. I am not for total integration of church and state, but am instead for the partial separation of the two. Why? because as I've proven with the examples from current events, the STRICT separation is going to far and infringing on certain people's rights. Only partial separation has proven to be effective and right. I'm not saying that the church should have a say in the government's every decision, but instead not be totally alienated from society by such separation laws. Now on to his case. My opponent rebuilds his entire case in general by saying that I attack the word 'strict'. He then goes on to say that the church is too powerful of an organization to have a say in government. I agree. Any one church or religion is too powerful to affect government alone. That's why I ask for equal protection of all religions from said strict separation laws. Over 40% of those current event cases I showed to you all were actually against the Muslim, Hindu, and Bhuddists faiths. All of the historical problems due to integration of church and state were due to complete integration and only one religion. There is no negative historical proof that says a lenient separation and protection of all religions will not be successful. He doesn't rebuild my attacks on his value or criterion and first contention. Thus my attacks stand and his case fails. He rebuilds his second contention by pointing out his attacks on my second contention, which I have effectively refuted. Thus his rebuild fails. He rebuilds his third contention by saying that allowing one child to pray in school around those of other religions is offensive to other children. This is preposterous. If a child wants to pray on his/her own before lunch or before the start of school, then let him/her do so because it is their natural right. In conclusion I have shown my opponent's undemocratic arguments, shown where his purposes will take any democracy, and shown how the opposite is best for this nation as well as any other democracy. His case is weak because it degrades natural rights, religious freedoms, and democracy. To put it simply, in a democracy, the people are the government. As I have proven, all people have a religion of some sort. Thus in a democracy there is no way to strictly separate church and state and still have a democracy. Thus the Negative is the only logical choice in this debate. I now urge you to vote for the negative ballot. Thank You all.