Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized in the United States.

This is the final round of the debate at hand, and as such, I am going to provide to the judges so main reasons why they should inevitably vote for me on this day:1. Regardless of what my opponent thinks, at the end of the day, I have been more punctual than he has for this debate, meaning that I am already winning the conduct point as a result of my opponent's forfeit.2. My opponent's general argument doesn't seem to have any warrants in order to substantiate it, especially when it comes to the arguments about the Founding Fathers. 3. The same applies to my opponent's rebuttals against my case, where he doesn't necessarily address what I am saying. Economics Argument: My opponent is basically saying that not only do I need to prove that gay marriage is beneficial for commerce, but that the actual legalization of gay marriage will not result in other negative effects to the society. This is exactly what I did in the sub-point 1a. I talked about how gay marriage is able to better the relationship between homosexuals and heterosexuals by having the law legitimize the idea that equality is good, as my evidence explains, promoting tolerance in the community that creates for the copacetic environment that moves homosexuals away from the negative statistics they are stereotyped for. This would be a success for public health, which has had for the longest time initiatives in order to bring down these problems within the gay community. The only time my opponent ever addressed anything in my Sub-point 1a was when he talked about how part of their research was based on the information from another book that wasn't totally credible apparently, and I explained to you that not only does my opponent fail to provide exactly where in my research this book is quoted nor how much of my research is based off this book, but I have other pieces of evidence stating the exact thing, meaning that my sub-point still stands, thus upholding my burden in this point. Founding Fathers Argument: This seems to be what the majority of the debate seems to boil down to. First, when I talked about my opponent making an assumption that what the Fouding Fathers said is right, to clarify, I'm saying that he's making an ad authoritatum argument here. He's saying that because a Founding Father said that the US government's laws should reflect on the ideals of religion, then the US government should do just that. He doesn't explain why John Adams is right; the only argument that he does post is that he's a Founding Father, and that's it. Second, even if it's not a logical fallacy to go in the direction that my opponent wants to go, he only provides the ideals of one Founding Father on religion. He doesn't provide an overarching view of all of the Founding Fathers on such an idea as to placing religion into government. Thomas Jefferson felt differently when he said "Thomas Jefferson had the following to say: " I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state."Benjamin Frankling had the following to say: "I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." Thomas Jefferson"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not findin our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. Theyare all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have beenburnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of thiscoercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; tosupport roguery and error all over the earth."In fact, if you want to look toward the freedom and justice argument, I suggest that the judges look at the entirety of my second contention, which goes completely unresponded, giving to you exactly why it would be giving justice to gay people. We know what John Adams says, but is he right? My opponent gives no warrant that he is. Reasons for voting PRO:Not only do I win the conduct vote for being the most punctual, I win the conduct vote for the following reasons: 1. My opponent barely scratches the surface of my Contention 1 and completely ignores my Contention 2, meaning that pretty much the entirety of my case has been extended across the flow.2. My opponent lacks serious warrants for many of the things he's saying, most specifically in the Founding Fathers argument, as I pointed out. 3. I have proven to you that gay marriage is indeed beneficial for the American society based on my first and second sub-points in my first contention and that it is also justice, according to my second contention.