The Republicans are generally bad people.

1. Let us assume that Romney bullied gay students in high school. Refutations:a) The assumption that a homophobic outlook is characteristic of a bad person has not been provenb) If someone did something bad once in their life, it does not necessarily mean that the person is bad, holistically. c) Most importantly, Romney is an example of a Republican, and it was not proven that his actions represent a general rule for all Republicans. Jeffrey Dahmer was homosexual, and he was a serial killer; that does not mean that homosexuals are generally serial killers. 2. I agree with the point that many of the states whose majorities voted for Romney tended to not favor anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation. But it certainly isn't bad; in fact, I would argue that anti-discrimination laws themselves are bad.Refutations:a) It is against a business' interest to not hire people solely based on characteristics not related to job efficiency. The business that refuses to hire a high-work efficiency homosexual individual and replaces him/her with a low-work efficiency individual will lose in the competition when it is facing businesses that would take the homosexual individual (and most would, out of self-interest.) Therefore, businesses should have the right to not hire people for whatever reason they would like--and if the reasons are not pragmatic, then the ultimate loser is the business, who will lose to its competition. 3. Why is Mitt Romney homophobic? Because he made fun of homosexuals as a high school student? And why is homophobia bad? (And he apologized for it, anyway, so how can we say that he still holds the same views? [1]) I know my opponent doesn't have another round to answer these questions, but unless they are answered, the argument is hollow and pointless. And most importantly, even if Romney is homophobic, why does that prove that all Republicans are bad? People who vote for Romney did not have to vote for him, because he is homophobic... 4. This is a controversial issue. Numerous studies suggest that heterosexual parenting is far healthier than homosexual parenting. And numerous studies say the opposite. Making it black-and-white and labeling a stance "good" or "bad" is shallow and does not reflect the true controversy of the matter.---1. Pro-life advocates not sexist. Their aim is to protect the child's right to life, not to take away rights from women. If I am angry with my friend, the law states that I cannot murder him... The purpose of that is not to infringe on my right to act against people whom I am angry again; rather, the purpose is to protect the life of my friend. This is not completely germane to the debate, but this "rape-born, in-animate, embryonic extension of the mother" nonsense needs to be responded to. Rape-born: The child is not guilty of rape; the man who raped the child's mother is. Why should the child be punished? If your father steals money, you will not be charged for it, in a just society. Inanimate: This is not true. The embryo is constantly developing and works toward the goal of producing fully functioning parts that will be used throughout the rest of the person's lifespan after birth. Embryonic extension: This is a separate human being, not an "extention." It has its own genetic programming (DNA) and is developing independent parts that would not be functioning for the mother, but rather the being that rests inside her. Pro-choice advocates always use silly semantic arguments to make their points, trying to dehumanize an embryo. Obviously, when logic comes into the picture, these arguments never prevail.2. On the matter of equal pay for women:Refutations:a) Women work fewer hours and go on maternity leave. This accounts for the salary "gap" that feminists keep harking about. [2]b) Why, in theory, is unequal pay bad? In a free market, it certainly isn't.---1. The opponent believes that Romney would run the country like a business, whatever that means. Business skills can come in handy, but treating a country like a business is impossible, since they are two completely distinct entities... And how can you prove that running a country like a business is bad? And why does this necessarily have to imply that voters for Romney "generally" agree that the company should be run like a business?---The opponent's argument do not really affirm the resolution at all. When voting for conduct, note the forfeit in the prior round.Vote Con.[1] http://articles.latimes.com...[2] http://www.forbes.com...