Resolved: Gays should be put down

Before I begin, I would like to point out that my opponent has yet to offer a single shred of proof to back up his claims, he seems to be going with the juvenile tactic of hurling as many contentions as possible into the opposition's face in an attempt to catch them unprepared. I therefore, will not be. Let me begin by negating my opponents contentions. "1. Gays are so inferior to all organisms their mere prescence is harmful to both national and global security. If you think about it, whenever you are near a gay you just think OMFG ITS A GAY and you get distracted which can lead to harm. Now, if a gay were to be viewed on international television so many people would become distracted that the world would fall into chaos." My opponent is correct is bellieving that Gays are inferior to the heterosexual people. The very idea of homosexuality involves two of the same gender, thus no reproduction can occur, thus making them inferior in evolution, as they would only be wiped out in a few generations. Therefore, rather than supporting my opponent, this contention merely strengthens my own case, "2. Gays are so inferior they do not deserve life. These 1/14th humans are not alive therefore they shoudl die." Once again, my opponent offers no proof, only opinion. What my opponent does not understand that, while the homosexuals should be kept separate from the heterosexuals, putting them to death goes too far. Why kill them when we can put them to work, to benefit the economy. Free labor from the gays would boost production, and would create more jobs to handle the influx of produce, which would lead to more product being bought, which would lead to more jobs. After all, my opponent says they are no more than animals, but don't animals have protection laws as well? The homosexuals should be treated the same, separate, but not to the extreme of death. That's animal cruelty! "3. Gays are so inferior that if they were to labor as you suggested, their work would cause more harm than good. When forced to work, they would merely refuse to work efficiently and safely which will lead to putting themselves in harmful situations and die anywaysm, so why not just put them down in the first place." My opponent does not see the benefit that a strong, labor force would have. For one, the opposition says that people working hurts the economy? Now certainly, that is one argument I have never heard before. Rather, it could only help it, as I will address in my own contentions. 1. Killing the slaves instead of enslaving them will deprive the economy a chance to flourish. Back before the civil war, when slavery was still occurring, slavery effected the economy by making money for Americans and plantation owners, through cotton, tobacco, and other goods. When Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, the need for slaves increased, and more had to be imported from Africa. This made money for the slave sellers, and also the American slave owners, because slave owners were able to produce more cotton. Think of that change back then, and put it into every aspect of our economy today, and see the impact that it would have! 2. Killing homosexuals is animal cruelty. My opponent himself states that they are like animals, yet even animals have protection! So should the gays! The idea that homosexuals should be submitted to a punishment that not even animals have to endure is barbaric! 2. My final contention is that killing the gays would result in public backlash. Many homosexuals in the world today are, as you say, in the eyes of the public. To kill those the public holds dear would be tantamount to political suicide to the government of the United States. So saying, I urge the readers to negate the resolution. Thank you.