Resolved: Parents ought be banned from forcing minors into ex-gay therapy or conversion practices.

I'm just going to do a quick run through the arguments and explain why I should be the winner of this debate. Validation/Inherent Morality: My opponent claims that validation is inherently subjective. This is not true. Harmony can be measured at an objective level by the means of observation of social interaction and conditions of the environment. Suffering can be measured at an objective level by analyzing the conditions at which the general public is subjected to. Considering that, as I have explained, these are truly the arbiters as to what determines what morality is suitable and valid for the evaluation of action, validation, even at some level, is objective. Since my opponent argues in no way against this premise, we will now use this in order to evaluate his standard of morality. My opponent has it all twisted when he states that I need to disprove God in order to knock down the idea of his morality even though that (1) His own premise and logic for his standard of morality is based on this ambiguous either-or situation depending on the existence of God, which he himself provides no evidence for, meaning that at the end of the day, even if I do not disprove God (which my opponent does not explain how I can disprove God either), his logic holds no water. (2) I've already proven that his standard for morality is invalid at an objective level with consideration the risks this research brings to the table and the rights harmed as a result of this coercion. My opponent's burden is to contradict what I'm saying in this debate, meaning some warrants of his own would've been great in doing so, but since he has no proof of his own showing that my morality is invalid according to this standard or anything of the sort, my opponent has not reached up to his position in this debate.Tolerance: Hopefully this will be the last time I have to repeat this. In no way did I say that tolerance would accrue, and I explained why my argument doesn't even imply that it would accrue under my model. This was only an explanation as to why the therapy is inherently immoral: because it supports this sort of ideal. Morality/Science: The very ideal of science is to find knowledge in an ethical and safe manner, and at the point where this practice is harming people in the long run, the practice is considered to be unethical not by the standards of the APA, but by the standards of science itself. I have responded to the things that my opponent has said, and when you look back at what my opponent HAS said in his own rebuttals and his own logic, you'll see that many of the things he said are assertions. APA Research: Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. While this may be true, the fact that there is no evidence doesn't aid to my opponent's case at all nor does it prove any of the assertions he himself made when talking about how this research would be beneficial for families. My opponent doesn't prove that there is any biased sampling either. He doesn't go into my research and explain the subjects themselves, meaning that this bias may or may not exist. This ambiguity in the argument cannot make it stand. Discrimination: What I'm saying is this: I have more evidence than my opponent. About tolerant families, he also misunderstood this. What I'm saying is that my opponent creates an either-or scenario instead of seeking all of the alternatives. To be honest, if families are not able to accept their children's sexuality and the calculus only comes to this scenario rather than just adapting and becoming tolerant, this is more of evidence that there's problems with families rather than there is a need for this research. Human Rights: My opponent just assumes that the text means that they should be able to reach spiritual optimization through healthy ways spiritually. In no place does the document state that the health is measured in means of spirituality, and considering my evidence, this is not a healthy way in order for children to develop spiritually.