The United States Federal Government should repeal the current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

While my opponent did state that he did not agree with all of my points, at no point in time did he REFUTE any of them. As of now, we do not even know which of my points he disagrees with! In response to his claim that my arguments "have no validity because you would have us respect your analysis as if you were from an Army Four-Star General," I would like to reemphasize my point that my personal status does not affect the "validity" of my arguments. Anyone who knows about formal logic knows that validity is determined by structure of argument alone and has nothing to do with the authority of the speaker. Also, if you look at the sources I cited, you will see that two of my sources are/were OFFICERS IN THE US AIR FORCE. Again, I will point out that my military readiness arguments are cited, and if my opponent has any specific questions, I will answer them. Of course, my opponent hasn't made any specific points and this is my last speech. Judges YOU CANNOT VOTE FOR HIS AMENDMENT ARGUMENT. He has provided us with absolutely no explanation of what this amendment would be! We have no idea if it would solve any of the problems with DADT. He hasn't given any reason why an amendment is better than a repeal. The only thing he has said is "sometimes you need to fix things." He says I changed my stance because I "used the term "fixed" which is a synonym for "AMEND;" not repeal." Some points: 1)In what dictionary is "fixed" listed as a synonym for repeal? 2)"Fixed" is ambiguous and could mean any number of things. I clearly specified that I meant "repeal," so my position has never changed. 3)At no point in the debate did I offer any analysis support an amendment. It's beyond ridiculous to pick out one word from the 1,000 plus words I have written and say that it is a change in stance. My opponent mentioned that he could respond to my arguments at any time, including in R3. Judges, please note that my opponent has the last speech and I will have no opportunity to respond. It would be unfair for my opponent to suddenly unload a slew of new arguments in this last round. He had plenty of time to make new arguments in R1 and R2 but he chose not to. Making new arguments in R3 after such a blatant lack of arguments would be extremely unfair and abuse to me. As a judge, you should ignore any new arguments my opponent makes in R3 out of competitive fairness. My opponent says I am "more focused on voting." My frequent arguments about how judges should vote are simply a competitive technique. I am trying to make the judge's job easier when they decide to vote by pointing out important voting issues in the round. I am trying to make voting easier for the judges by making voting issues clearer. FINALLY, The reasons why I win this debate: 1)DADT must be repealed for several reasons, all of which were never refuted by my opponent. 2)DADT weakens the military by draining trained soldiers from the army, including doctors and translators crucial to the war on terror 3)DADT allows psychological and physical harassment of homosexuals in the military 4)DADT is a tool for the sexual harassment of women. 5)DADT works to maintain patriarchal power structures and discriminate against women. 6)DADT is discriminatory towards homosexuals 7)Even if you think homosexuality is immoral, DADT must be repealed because of the damage it does to military readiness. 8)My opponent offers no alternative to the repeal of DADT. He claims it should be "amended," but does not explain the content of the amendment or how it would be better than a repeal. 9)An amendment of DADT would not solve any of the problems as well as a repeal. So long as some form of DADT lingers, the military will still be drained of needed personnel, women will still be sexually assaulted and oppressed, and gays will still be harassed. I would LOVE to put more analysis on why an amendment fails to solve, but my opponent never provided me with any description of what the amendment would do. This is one more reason why his amendment argument fails. Overall: DADT is a problem. Repeal is a better solution than an Amendment.