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

= Introduction = I would like to begin by wholeheartedly thanking my opponent for instigating this debate. For clarifications my arguments in the round will go as follows - Definitions - Framework - Con arguments - Pro Rebuttals - Conclusions - Sources = Definitions = My opponent's provided definitions are almost acceptable,. the given definitions for ought and force are unbiased provide adequate ground for both my opponent. ex-gay therapy, hereafter EGT, however, does not. My opponent's definition here is blatantly one-sided and fails to take into account EGT which aims not to change one's sexual orientation, but to help consolidate said orientation with their desires and/or beliefs. That said, I would like to further this definition to include practices and clinics which help individuals to deal with their sexual desire such as the International Healing Foundation[1] If my opponent objects to this I ask the he voice his concerns in the following round, however a thorough review of the IHF's website will show this alteration as legitimate, and one which levels the ground of the debate. = Framework = The Pro's burden is to ban parent's from putting their children through EGT. The only way that the Pro can warrant a vote for themselves is if they fulfill this burden beyond reasonable doubt - if they fail to do so then the vote must default Con as the Pro has the burden to change the status quo. I aim to show that affirming is immoral and a violation of a parentel rights. The burden of the Con in this debate will be to defend parental rights to raise their children in a manner they deem acceptable and appropriate. Even if the child would protest. Furthermore it should be noted that it is not the Con's responsibility to defend EGT, but instead to show that it is immoral to ban parents from forcing their kids through it. I repeat; This debate is not one of EGT's moral legitimacy, but of parental rights. I accept the two observations offered by my opponent, however I argue against that my opponent's lense to evaluate morality is insufficient. These standards while acceptable in theory are inadequate in practice as human morality is not as dogmatic in application as Consequentialism and the Harm Principle are. Morality is an inborn value unique to each person. Therefore I argue that instead the voters should interpret the arguments presented in this debate through their own moral compass, barring they do not use such an interpretation to make biased votes. Justice is completely irrelevant because it is based in law, not ethics. = Con Arguments = 1. Minors have limited rights. My opponent and I both live in the United States; he in Georgia, and I in Texas. Accordingly this and all following arguments shall be measured through U.S. law. a. Limited Rights- In our society there are many things which have age restrictions on them, (drinking, driving, sex, etc.) and with good reason. We wouldn't want a five year old driving down the interstate when before he's old enough to read the traffic signs, or a thirteen year old getting wasted at a birthday party. For that reason we don't let minors engage themselves in any and everything they want to. b. Development- There isn't a concrete consensus among doctors as to when the brain has fully developed, but the accepted age is between 23 and 30[2]. The impact here is that minors aren't yet capable of making completely logical decisions, as they lack the mental facilities to do so. This is where a parent's responsibility comes in, legislation which would prohibit parental action could serious harm a child. c. Impact- A minor's objection to something that their parents have "forced" them to do isn't a legitimate warrant to a violation of their human rights. Where this the case then it would be impossible for parents to raise their children in a responsible way, as there would be to no proper response to a cranky child refusing to go to bed or eat their broccoli. 2. Parental Rights- a. Religion- Pretty self-explanatory; the first amendment contends that congress cannot respect or prohibit any establishment of religion[3]. When we realize that many, if not all, EGTs have their roots in religious beliefs we also realize that banning a parent from putting their children through EGT is a violation of those rights. If when the child grows up, he or she decides they does not want to continue such therapy, then that is their prerogative. It is now however the responsibility or the place of the state to interfere here. b. Distasteful banning is immoral- This gets to the heart of the issue and will likely be extended throughout the remainder of this debate. It is immoral and unjust to ban others from being involved in any practice because another person finds said act immoral. Therefore if no acceptable reason can be found to ban something, then it needs to be left alone; so far my opponent has offer none for the resolution's proposition. c. Impact- The general public, and especially governmental legislation must stay out of the lives of private citizens, especially when it comes to parenting. There are some exceptions such as child-abuse, however EGT does not constitute abuse any more than forcing a child to go to school or church does. = Pro Refutations = Contention 1- EGT is inadequate and immoral There are a lot of claims here, but none are backed up with any kind of warrant. Furthermore, my opponent does not source this argument, so it's impossible to review their data and verify it's legitimacy. a. EGT is inherently immoral First; this argument has teh same problems as my opponent's previous one; there is no warrant and no source to back up the data offered. Second; the distasteful argument I offer in my own contention two is applicable here. My opponent's objection lies in an assumption that the child is legitimately a homosexual, and not just confused about their sexuality because they are at "that age". Children cannot be lumped into the LGBTQ community, as they ought not have to deal with anything sexual at such an age. Finally; I'd like to extend Coming out loved[1] through this argument. b. EGT causes harm in the long run- I hate to have to make this argument, but until my opponent provides sources there's not much I can do to attack this argument head-on. First; There's no source here. When one is presented an empirically based argument without the evidence it's rooted in, it becomes unfalsifiable, and illegitimate. Second; bringing down the extended definition we see that this argument is completely biased, and rules out the possibility of sexual counseling in order to deal with one's desires over living a homosexual lifestyle. They're only minors, their expressed desire isn't the end-all. c. Extend everything from b., It applies. As soon as my opponent sources his arguments I'll come back and attack these arguments more thoroughly 2. Coercion to enter EGT is a violation of rights- Extend my own contention 1 down here. This is no more a violation of rights than forcing kids to go to school is. = Conclusions = I wish I could offer more clash in the Pro rebuttals, but like I've iterated many times thus far, I can't until I have my opponent's evidence in this round to thumb through and get at the heart of that data. I'd also like to point out that I'd waited well over 48 hours for my opponent to source his arguments. You can see I've left two messages about it in the comments. Beyond that I'd also like to note that the majority of the content of my opponent's arguments have to do with EGT, and a parent forcing their child into such therapy. Accordingly most of what my opponent has argued in the last round isn't even topical to the resolution. I thank my opponent. = Sources = [1] http://www.comingoutloved.com... [2] http://psychcentral.com... [3] http://www.law.cornell.edu...