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

I apologize for the forfeited round in this debate (and for the tardy response in this round), and I concede the conduct vote for my opponent. Framework: My opponent's idea of morality in this framework and how to evaluate this round is inefficient and impossible. He talks about how morality is inherent in the individual person, meaning that this is how the judges should vote in this debate without being biased, but at the point where the judges are going to be looking into their own personal set of ideas in order to evaluate the debate, this is inherently biased on its own, meaning it would be impossible to give an unbiased point of view. In my opponent's worldview, morality would pretty much be irrelevant since pretty much any morality would be fine because the individual would be the arbiter of supreme morality. This means that at some level, any action could be deemed moral, including murder, rape, and other things that are detrimental to society. This is all counterintuitive to the supreme purpose of morality which is to maintain societal order and ameliorate suffering, and when it comes down to the level where a certain morality is needed that best achieves this, my morality is much better to look at than my opponent's despite its more dogmatic nature. Justice is only the quality of giving each his/her due, and this is a concept not construed only to the bounds of law. Limited Rights, Impact, Parental Responsibility: The basis of these two arguments are centered around the idea of a greater good and how these rights need to be limited as such. The limitation of these rights, as I see it, should be to the extent until it harms another person, and when it comes to the idea of children going to bed at night or eating their broccoli, their rights can also be limited to a point to reach a greater good, meaning that it would be morally permissible. What's the problem? As I have shown you through my case, there is neither a practical reason to place a child in an institution such as this and the harms that can come out of the research itself further warrants that parents ought not abuse power by placing them in such an institution. My opponent talks in his sub-point 2c how the government should not interfere unless it's in cases like child abuse, but I disagree on my opponent's statement about how this is not child abuse when such incredible harms come from this institution. I ask my opponent at what threshold government should come in and dictate parental decisions and at what level does something constitute child abuse? Development: I'll return to this in the next round. Religion: First of all, what we are debating here is the resolution that is given to us, and nowhere does it state in that resolution that we are looking from a United States perspective. Our residency should be kept independent of this debate. This means that any arguments that my opponent brought up about the American Constitution are irrelevant in the context of this debate. My opponent's logic doesn't make any sense because he's saying that the religious rights of parents would be violated by not allowing them to place their children in such institutions, yet he makes no sort of consideration about the religious rights of the child himself/herself and makes no explanation as to why their rights when it comes to this matter should be limited or to what point should they be limited. There is no practical reason for a point at which a child's religious rights ought be construed based on the little I see in this point. Distasteful Banning: My opponent claims there is no practical reason for which this practice should be banned even though I provided an entire point underneath one of my contentions explaining the harms at which this practice brings to people. My opponent claims that it's distasteful to ban something because someone else finds it immoral, but that also would mean that things like murder, rape, robbery, etc. would also be distasteful banning because it was banned because someone else thought it was immoral. I ask for a distinction in this scenario. Sources and Warrants: I see that pretty much most of my opponent's rebuttal on my Contention One is centered around the citations. I will provide my citations at the end of this round, and for now, I'm going to address the other arguments that my opponent made in this matter. Sub-point 1a: I already responded to the distasteful banning argument for now, meaning I'd have to continue with this argumentation in the next rebuttal. It's also evident that my opponent misunderstands my general point here because this is based on the idea that a science is being used to promote a mindset detrimental to the community, especially to the context of members of the LGBT community who aren't just confused about their sexuality. My opponent extends his evidence in this sub-point, but this is only one organization in contrast to several who try to provide this sort of treatment. This doesn't speak to all organizations. Sub-point 1b: My opponent keeps talking a lot about the citation of resources, but in no way cites in own as to where he got his definition, so according to his own logic, his definition is illegitimate anyway. Regardless, however, my opponent doesn't really respond exactly to what the evidence is saying about conversion practices in general, meaning at some level, I'm proving that conversion practices are still harmful. "GAY NEWS." It's About Time: Psychologists Repudiate 'Ex-Gay Therapy' Web. 02 June 2012. <http://www.realjock.com...;. "Stigma and Discrimination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 03 Mar. 2011. Web. 02 June 2012. <http://www.cdc.gov...;. Pan American Health Organization Condemns Ex-Gay Therapy." ThinkProgress. Web. 02 June 2012. <http://thinkprogress.org...;. (Excuse the poor presentation of the rebuttal. My Rich Text isn't working for some reason)