This House Believes That the No Difference Theory is correct

Evidence - the ivory tower of bad research My opponent claims I am committing a genetic fallacy by saying "she says X, therefore her statements are false" (which even if I did wouldn't be a genetic fallacy). He misunderstands: I claim "she suffers from cognitive dissonance, a proven bad researcher; thus her statements are not worth much". If I quoted a mechanic on this issue, we wouldn't say that mechanic's witness is as valuable as a psychologist's. In fact, we wouldn't say their witness is valuable at all. Similarly, we wouldn’t say that an individual who is clearly a deluded, bias, propagandist for a field has, in themselves, credibility. While he may claim “slandering research is not how science is done”, the fact is that is exactly how it is done. To quote Schumm myself, “It appears clear that value biases have dramatically influenced how social scientists evaluate scientific literature, how they develop their theoretical models, and how they conduct their research in the area of lesbigay parenting”[i]. Morse clearly suffers from cognitive dissonance. As my opponent concedes, she believes the gay lobbies are Nazis, and she is a revolutionary. She believes the gay lobby are trying to overthrow America. That isn’t libertarian: it’s just mad. My opponent surely will agree Morse, an economist, has no value in psychology, especially when I provided actual scholarly sources contradicting her. The African village study by my opponent is so comically useless that it is irrelevant: it is comparing the families with only one parent to two, and has nothing to do with homosexuality, never mentioning the term. If suddenly when homosexuals get married they merge together into one mass, then it’s barefaced lying, and insulting that it is trying to be passed off as evidence. In the study, only twice is “biological parents” even mentioned, and that is when talking about American statistics, nothing even about Africa. In the article he cites, however, it does mention: “In the modern era, the concept of the family in an African setting has shrunk to become a nuclear family…as a result, many parents find it difficult to carry out their work as well as family responsibilities”[ii] His study criticises his position that a nuclear family is best. Byrd, or more accurately the NARTH institute as they published the article[iii], is clearly bias. Again, NARTH suffer from cognitive dissonance as shown, but more importantly studies have directly pointed out the fallaciousness of the evidence, as I’ve already said. The source itself isn’t a study, so I cannot refute it, it is just a series of claims backed by cherry-picked studies. “For every finding of significant differences [between lesbian families and heterosexual families] there [are] four or more findings of no significant difference”[iv]. I provided a direct criticism of the article, by an actual scholarly source, and by contrast my opponent cites evidence for vague claims without actually quoting his work, whilst trying to pass off shoddy work by non-professionals as “specific research”. The Psychology Today article is anecdotal evidence, pointing to a case where a man wanted to meet his parents. So what? As I’ve already said, this is easily explainable by a cultural desire to know one’s parents. My opponent has not refuted this likelihood, and has to show a biological link to prove his conclusions, not simply assert that our desire to know our parents is unique in being uncontrollable. And finally criticising Trayce Hansen’s claim that “the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development.” is simple: after these claims she made, she has firstly been thoroughly rebuked by better qualified doctors who studied the psychiatric area in question. My favourite line: “Dr. Hansen's article was fortunately labeled “opinion,” since none of her remarks are based upon psychological science.”[v] Though I prefer using quotations to see the point of the article instead of you, readers, to dredge through the entire article to get the evidence, I recommend reading it, as it gives a great what can only be described as spanking to Hansen’s case. Her story got worse, however, when she then reproduced the argument in court, and got an even more public spanking. “The court noted that, contrary to Dr. Hansen’s testimony, the APA concludes that no evidence suggests that same-sex couples are unfit to be parents, or that psychosocial development among children of same-sex couples would be compromised in any respect.”[vi] The case without the bad science Cultural problem, Cultural solution Without Morse’s non-scholarly source and the completely irrelevant African village artic le, all we have is anecdote, which is explained better through culture than biology simply due to simplicity: our culture clearly has emphasis that “blood is thicker than water”, and as such this explains the source of the problems. Specialisation Beetles genetically may favour biological parents, lions may have matriarchy[vii] where women do all the work with children, both “primary hunters[viii]and “[cubs] dependant on their mother”[ix], bats may raise communally[x], and chimps (our closest genetic matches) raise without father at all[xi]. So what? We’re not beetles. It still doesn’t refute that, as my major case has always been, child-rearing is a skill. The only really major part of my refuting case has still not actually been refuted in its soundness. Relevance of fatherly attributes I agree with my opponent some traits that culturally men have are good, possibly key, in raising healthy children. However, this doesn’t hurt, but complements, my case. Male attributes are what matter, not having a penis. And without the non-scholarly bias NARTH source, and the astonishingly thorough disproving of Hansen, we are left only with an unfindable Australian source by journalists, not psychologists and thus not evidence, and a welfare office source which again I cannot find reference to, despite contrarily being told it exists. Now, I don’t have much more time, so I am going to focus on my libertarian case, but I first want to address the definition problem. My opponent has now kicked up a fuss in the third round of a debate where before the first round he accepted to the definitions. This is just astonishingly ridiculous and should be given no weight. No-one denies that there may be given a sample of people some natural deviation – that’s not just possible, but necessary. Natural deviation, or random error, is always going to occur. A necessary difference, that is a difference based on being homosexual, is what needs to be proven. That was the original resolution, that is the current resolution. Libertarian Case My opponent misunderstands the case. If we have complete free will, then our actions are not determined by our biology or upbringing. So if we have free will, then we cannot have personalities wholly dependent on whether we are raised by a heterosexual or homosexual couple. Yet my opponent claims our personality is dependent on whether we are raised by heterosexual or homosexuals. Libertarianism is proven deductively, however, making it prima facie more valid than the inductive, non-certain scientific method. Thus, there is no difference on whether we are raised by heterosexuals or homosexuals. Or, long story short, our actions are not determined by upbringing, so it does not matter who raises us. If true, then Difference Theory, which says our future actions are determined by the orientation of who raise us, is false. No Difference Theory must be true. Thank you for reading, and I urge a vote PRO. [i] http://tinyurl.com... [ii] http://tinyurl.com... [iii] http://tinyurl.com... [iv] http://tinyurl.com... [v] http://tinyurl.com... [vi] http://tinyurl.com... [vii] http://tinyurl.com... [viii] Ibid [ix] http://tinyurl.com... [x] http://tinyurl.com... [xi] http://tinyurl.com...