The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy Is Beneficial To The United States

First of all, I'd like to point out that my opponent is misconstruing the numbers; it is not 10,000 per year; that is 10,000 in the period from 1994 to 2003; again, a far smaller impact than my opponent claims. And, while we've agreed that the right to be in the military should be had by all, society does not see it that way; just look at what I've already said about the fact that moving straight to equality is going to produce more culture shock between homo and heterosexuals than what we're already seeing; and this is a consequence that neither myself nor my opponent endorses. The point I was trying to make on the economic argument was that, she is trying to pick on DADT for wasting money, but I'm trying to point out that this spending is not even close to the waste posed by government bailouts on companies like AIG and GM; we have to understand, once again, that all programs are going to have a cost; and we certainly have to prioritize the social benefit of DADT over the tiny financial loss; and I'll elaborate a bit more on this social benefit later on; for now, just keep in mind the 'stepping stone' idea I've already presented. She says that the wars need to end quickly, but that we also need to have troops to send in; she is essentially contradicting herself; the point that I'm trying to make is that a shortage of troops will actually PRESSURE our government into finding a way to end these wars more quickly; having more troops at the politicians' disposal would only serve to extend these wars. This is evidenced by things like conscription and/or the draft; it's empirically proven by cases like Vietnam that having more soldiers increases the likelihood of maintaining a longer foreign war. As far as the historically set precedents, my opponent argues that segregation is just now starting with gays; first of all, historically, this is untrue; look back to the fact that gays used to be stoned or beaten to death; DADT is nothing like that; however, even if you accept this argument, keep in mind that this doesn't remove the benefit of DADT as a stepping stone; all journeys have to start somewhere, and she doesn't answer the fact that the unpopularity of DADT simply proves that we as a society are close to progressing to the next step towards acceptance and equality; so her argument about the public being the voice of our democracy, while rhetorically pleasing, works better for the PRO than the CON. Add to that the fact that many states still ban gay marriage, so that argument is really irrelevant, considering that the public chose to keep it from becoming acceptable. She even tries to say that people aren't as proactive about gays as they were about blacks; but when slavery began in the United States, you probably wouldn't find a person around in favor of emancipation; yet, I remind everyone again that we now have a black President. She then makes this analogy that DADT is essentially putting a band-aid on a bullet hole; all she really does is try to replace my analogy, and while I have thoroughly explained the relevance of mine, she simply presents the analogy with no application to the topic at hand; even if you want to use the analogy, I would still say that it is better to cover the wound temporarily until a permanent solution is found, rather than let the wound bleed all over the place; so even by her own analogy, you will vote PRO. So, at this point, I offer you two options; one, you vote on the fact that the CON simply reiterates most of her arguments, and doesn't even address the fact that her arguments are of the most minimal impact; not to mention a few blatant contradictions in her logic here and there. Or, hopefully, you will vote PRO, based on the fact that long-term social and political progress is far preferable to saving an extra buck in the short term, and is certainly better than exposing the military, one of our most crucial organizations, to the kind of culture shock that occurs between two diverse sects of the population. I truly have to thank my opponent for what I can honestly say has been my most challenging, stimulating debate on this site so far. In the end, I do have to admit that I agree with my opponent on ONE thing that she says: "I urge a pro vote and thank my opponent for a great debate. " You heard it from my opponent herself. :)