Resolved: Disney World should continue to host its "gay days."

I would not like to leave this debate as just a tie, but I would like to ask that this debate not discount my opponent on the conduct vote because he won't be able to show up. Rather, it would be best if this debate is judged based on the rounds we were able to complete and the arguments we were able to make. My opponent had the opportunity to at least make some closing arguments, but he really didn't in the fourth round. Nonetheless, I'm just going to give a quick summary of the debate and a general conclusion as to why I should be the winner. I will be going over through his case and then through the general arguments he had through mine.Children and Adult Topics: The entire basis and foundation for this argument was nothing more than circular reasoning: homosexuality is an adult topic, so children should not know about it. Children should not know about it because it is an adult topic. There are absolutely no warrants in any of the arguments that he makes. He doesn't explain what is the threshold at which something is an adult topic. He doesn't explain why children shouldn't learn about said adult topics. He doesn't provide evidence that children indeed do not learn about adult topics at such an age. Like I said, while the PRO world tries to make use of the child's critical learning period in order to make them more knowledgeable teens and young adults more tolerant to homosexuals, the CON just wants to keep them ignorant for no reason other than the idea that homosexuality is an adult topic, and because it is an adult topic, children should be kept ignorant of it. Discrimination: Under the world of the CON, any gay pride event would be discriminatory because it focuses on a sexuality or a set of sexualities, meaning that even if there are said alternatives, my opponent's logic would condemn them anyway. I explained what discrimination is and when it is immoral, and based on the conditions on which discrimination is immoral, I explained that gay days do neither promote that any sexuality is better than another nor hold such an event with a paucity of morally or practically relevant reason. Purpose: Just like my opponent didn't have any warrants on the children and adult topics argument, he didn't have any warrants for trying to outline the purpose of Disney World. First, neither is my opponent a representative of Disney World nor does he provide any information from a representative of Disney World that proves that Disney World's solitary purpose for existence is to provide entertainment. It is the people that run the company not the clientele that provide the purpose. I also talked a hint of the moral aspect of this company doing this as well, running under the old "it takes a village to raise a child" mindset, explaining that this company is not only morally encouraged but morally obligated to propose a mindset of tolerance for the children of the community.Gay Pride: My opponent goes on and on about alternatives even though I already explained that under his logic, the alternatives would be immoral and discriminatory anyway, and I talked about how it was good for gay pride groups to branch out anyway using as many methods as possible rather than only focusing on the same method the same exact time. This is generally inefficient to achieve the result that is desired by these groups. Economy: In the beginning, it was only focusing on the profits of Disney, and when my opponent came to bat about this topic, his idea pretty much emphasized my idea by insinuating that commerce would pick up from this decision. Not to mention that I have much more ample evidence about this topic than he does.Summary and Conclusion: I already explained to ignore the conduct vote in this debate out of courtesy for my opponent, but when you look at all the argumentations and the sources I've posted, it makes me the most eligible candidate for the argument and sources vote in this debate. First off, my opponent failed to even provide a final argument before leaving for his vacation, so pretty much everything I said in the previous rebuttal is extended across the flow anyway. Instead of actually rebutting anything I said, my opponent pretty much just reiterates his position rather than providing counterarguments, meaning that he wouldn't have been arguing against anything I said throughout the course of this debate. My opponent's only sources have been to provide definitions, but that is about it, whereas my own evidence cited in the constructive everything that supported my points. For these reasons, I urge a vote for me in this debate.