Resolved: Public schools ought be required to teach LGBT history and issues

Rebuttel and DefenseWhat one really needs to understand is that the United States is one of the few countries of the world to have a public school system as a mode of educationMy opponent's statement is utterly ridiculous. In fact, pretty much every industrialized nation has some form of coercively-mandated, tax-funded government school system. While it is true that the nation ranked highest in the world in Reading, Math, and Science scores is, not coincidentally, the nation which also has the highest percentage of its secondary students enrolled in some form of private school – that only serves to reinforce my point about the superiority of privatized schooling, it doesn't change the fact that what my opponent has just asserted is an outright fantasy.meaning that we are literally teaching every student in the United States of AmericaIt literally doesn't mean that at all.Due to the fact that there are literally millions of private-schooled, private-tutored, and home-schooled students in the United States of America – an enormously broad and diverse demographic sample.Which is why I, literally, am able to compare the coercively-mandated public school system, with the free-choice Privatized School sector. And see that the privatized education model I am advocating is, literally – as all the evidence presented thus far has already proven far superior.we're looking at every single student in the samples motivated and unmotivated taking in every lurking variable into account unlike other school systems in other countries where education is more privatized and less moved toward getting undermotivated students to get motivated about education and only look toward the more motivated students. Which is why I am happy to present study after study confirming that, even when controlling for all such social and demographic factors, the difference between the coercively-mandates Government Schools, and the free-choice Private Schools, remains stark and undeniable: Private Schools consistently deliver testably superior educational results – period [1,2].Am I saying that our education system in the public sector is great? NoScarlotte is not saying this, because he can't say this. He has no defense to offer. Since the PROponent of a debate MUST defend both the proposed policy, and the proposed agency of action (i.e., its ability to execute the policy capably enough to deliver the claimed benefits) -- his inability to prove the competency of the Public Schools to effectively deliver his claimed educational benefits, essentially amounts to his concession of the debate.What I'm saying is that based on the disparity in taking the statistics, we shouldn't base our interpretation of the public school system solely on the statisticsExcept that, even when you control for such social and demographic variables, Private schools are still simply better. (As demonstrated above).Second, the implementation of teaching LGBT issues will be incorporated into the core classes as part of the curriculum.No offense to my opponnet but this is a pipe dream. There is no such thing as homosexual algebra, or homosexual geology, or homosexual physics; the solution to a formula, the composition of a rock, or the speed of light in a vaccuum do not change one whit based upon the sexual preference of the observer. To attempt to shoe-horn time-consuming “LGBT studies” into subjects in which it is, in fact, completely irrelevant, can only detract from our Public Schools' already-deficient instruction in core knowledges.(even though I provided an explanation by the American Historical Foundation iterating on the importance of history and the full understanding of it)My opponent's own evidence proves the wrongness of his contentions, since it cites a telling example of alcoholism as a phenomenon which is now believed to include a genetic component – yet nobody would seriously propose the include of “alcoholics studies” be mandated in the core Public School curriculum: because it's uniformly understood that such a niche area of study hardly qualifies as the sort of core knowledges that Public Schools should be attempting to deliver. As for niche-area studies, in school curricula? Even “Great Alcoholics in History” should be a one-day extra-credit elective class, at most. But then again, maybe not: because like everything else it does, the Government fails miserably even at “helpfully educating” people about alcoholism – with programs which have achieved results exactly opposite of what the social planners hoped for [3,4]. Then he states that I didn't give evidence of the core courses. However, other than the fact that I presented evidence proving that these three areas of core knowledge (Reading, Mathematics, and the Physical Sciences) are the three areas of study that every industrialized country in the world agrees, are the basic, essential foundations of core knowledge which every student requires in order to ever gain a fuller understanding of more complex and/or niche areas of study.And that free-choice Privatized Schooling delivers far superior results, in these core areas, than the coercively-mandated Government Schools your opponent is defending.“People need to understand society in order to make it work better”? Good grief, what drivel. Can we get a sense of priorities here? We're talking about whether or not Public School students are ABLE TO READ, get it? If they're functionally illiterate then our Public School system has failed them utterly no matter how politically-correct and culturally-sensitive they may be.And as already proven, mandating that LGBT studies be shoe-horned into the basic curriculum can only detract time and concentration from the Public Schools' already utterly-deficient instruction in core knowledges – with Government-mandated teaching of LGBT-studies itself as likely to be a complete failure, or actually counterproductive, as any other incompetently-executed Government public-information program. Refutaion of sub-point b: a study that reported that a majority of homosexual students in the Washington DC Public Schools feel unsafe.But what that study certainly did not demonstrate, is whether or not the Public Schools are in any way adequately-competent for the task, nor in any way desirable for society to continue to fund as a means of education.Which are points your opponent has consistently failed to refute, and which are both fatal to his case. I wouldn't really need to argue against this point considering that the entire idea of it is counterintuitive to the purpose of the resolution and the debate at hand.My opponent's entire educational philosophy depends upon Government coercion of students against their wills, and against their parents' wills. It's integral to his case, being inherent given his use of the word, “require”, not to mention his chosen agency of action (coercively-mandated in the Government-mandated Public Schools).Against such as totalitarian worldview, a consistent defense of individual liberty, and of student and parental rights to free choices, is a perfectly appropriate avenue of contrary argumentation.What he's doing here is providing some sort of counter-plan even though that the main idea is to make an argument on behalf of whether or not public schools should teach this issue as part of courses under the implication that public schools are here to stay. Even if we were to analyze this on the perspective that my opponent brings up, the question I ask is why privatized schools shouldn't also provide this education?even if LGBT studies were widely available in free-market Private School, the very fact that such studies would no longer be required in the Public Schools means he loses his argument: parents and students having their educational dollars returned to them, and the free choice to attend either schools which teach LGBT studies or schools that don't, defeats his whole insistence upon requiring such studies.I will await my opponnets response.