The United States Should Adopt No Gay Zones

Thanks Mikal, for the quick response. As no response was made to my Round 1 arguments, I will focus on my opponents case. Logic and Privacy Laws At face values, I do not reject most of the point my opponent is making here. In fact I said the very same thing in my first round (rather shortened) when I said "It could be argued that anti-(insert specific here) zone’s already exist through recognizing individual state sovereignty’s". The problem I have with Mikal's point here is the lack of a burden or convincing impact, and I think this point works better for my case then it suits his. It is not illegal to kick Gay people off of private property, nor for you to practice your own beliefs in the sanctity of your own home. Nor should it be. By Pro stating the resolution is already affirmed, he is basically putting himself in a position where there is no reason to support a pro world. Why vote to affirm a resolution, if their isn't a problem to begin with? The United States already acknowledges property rights. My only real issue is the last line in my opponents argument here that states: I am simply affirming that the United States should extend private property laws, to the extent that it is relative to specifically gays. Why? A trespasser is a trespasser. If they are not welcome on your property, they are not welcome. Why does it matter if they are Gay so much that it has to be written in law specifically? It works against the United States interest to Publicly discriminate a group of people if there is no apparent reason to do so. That would almost be like clarifying Islamic Radicalists should not be allowed to enter people's homes. The logic isn't there, and it's a completely unnecessary way to write the law when it already emcompasses any intruders. Further this entire point lends no credence to why specific zones need to be created to begin with. The Pro actually never clarifies what a zone entails despite my questions in the beginning of the debate, and thus far has only mentioned one's own home or private property, which as we've already discussed, is an already recognized "Anti-Gay zone". Scaling the Argument This point seems to follow mostly the same logic that the first point does, and to me the burden is still unclear. We've established that private property owners should have their rights. Religious entities like various religions and churches fall under this category as well. The resolution is phrased in a way that one would assume a Pro world is supporting government created zones however, and here my opponent is just exampling private organizations and properties. Many businesses have the right to refuse service, though anti-discrimination laws prevent businesses from discriminating against, race, gender, and orientation in a money-making setting. The Privately owned homes, and churches my opponent mentions do not fall under this category. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law. (1) Congregating This was the argument I was expecting to hear. The basic premise is that people tend to group themselves into areas where beliefs are similar. While this is a “truism” in many cases as my opponent points out, it is not a truism in every case. Having a large number of differing beliefs surrounding an individual, makes them less likely to stay a single mindset. So rounding the racist up and putting them in their own society (or zone) as Pro suggests, is likely not going to solve any problems with discrimination (which is largely unclear whether this is important to Pro based on a contradicting statement in the previous argument he made). Congregation can occur without a government implemented Zone, thus I feel this point is ineffective to affirming the resolution. In conclusion, I feel what justifies a No-Gay zone over any other “anti-blank zone” is very minor, and the reasoning behind logic in implementing is even more lacking. Pro’s Third argument seems to hint that “Anti-Blank zone” creation extends beyond just the Gay debate. I maintain that it is not in America’s best interests to adopts specific zones, or change wording in law to cater to all the specific groups of people who don’t like a certain ruling, or group of people. Back to you Mikal. Sources: 1. https://www.legalzoom.com...