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

Morality: It's one thing to have a small proclivity toward a moral view (and this usually applies only if the warrant for such a moral view completely is nonsensical), but what my opponent is trying to do have the judges evaluate the round completely based off their own moral proclivities. If that's the case, it would be impossible for any vote on this debate to be unbiased. Regardless of whether or not my perspective of moralities applies in the real life rather than only in theory, my perspective provides a more objective and feasible way of evaluating the debate rather than what my opponent puts up. Furthermore, my opponent seems to imply that an action cannot ameliorate suffering or lead to social harmony based on the consequences that it has, which is completely ridiculous because if the end result is that it makes society more harmonious and reduces the amount of suffering, the action proves the existence of consequentialism in a real context. Also, if the judges are going to be looking at their own moral perspectives, their perspectives would also be inherently theories as well as how the world would and should function, meaning that we would end up looking at theory anyway. Parental Rights: If my opponent is stating that I have not defined at what point parents can exercise their ability, then my opponent has obviously not been paying attention to what I had been saying. I clearly stated that parental power is limited up to the point where the exercise causes harm to the child and if the action violates a right of the child but benefits the child, then the action is at the very least morally permissible. If it fits within these bounds, the action is right. I have explained why placing children into ex-gay therapy would suit neither. Development: Looking from the context of what my opponent himself said about the nature of homosexuality, he even agrees that it's something that cannot be changed, inherently meaning that this is a part of development that parents absolutely have no control over. This means that regardless of the extent at which a parent has over a child to exercise their rights because of their immature development, the nature of homosexuality warrants that a parent's jurisdiction is out of bounds with sexual orientation. Religion: (1)No it doesn't. The only thing that matters in the context of what we're debating is the explicit words of the resolution, and nowhere therein does it say anything about the United States. Ex-gay therapy is ubiquitous and worldwide. The United States Constitution is not. It doesn't make sense to construe the debate to the United States. Our places of residency should be kept out of this debate. The United States Constitution may be written for all men as my opponent states, but it only has jurisdiction here in the USA and nowhere else. (2)My opponent says that children don't typically have religions that contrast their parents', implying that at some level, there is even ONE circumstance where religions conflict. This begs the question about "what if they do," and if they do, my opponent's case essentially dictates that parental religion can supersede that of the child. Even if the child and parent fall into the same religion, they could still have contrasting ideals, and my opponent's case would allow parents to overshadow the rights of the child in their religion. At the end of the day, a religious right is being violated. This can include the Coming Out Loved organization because a parent would be placing a child there based on THEIR views, not that of the child. Contrary to what my opponent says, this is no justice. Distasteful Banning: My opponent states that EGT isn't harmful nor does it cause irreversible problem even though I've provided evidence that it does, defended the evidence at hand, and in this rebuttal explained that at the end of the day, a child's religious rights are being violated at some level, even if it is an inkling of amount of times. Sources: What matters from these sources are the statistics that they report, not exactly who "they" are. The sites report information from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and the American Psychological Association, credited organizations that are actually reliable sources. This is what really matters, and my opponent has done absolutely nothing to repudiate these claims and information. This is all extended across the flow. I figured that there may be broken links, which is why I offered a full citation to find them online. Sub-point 1a: I had nothing to refute because my opponent hadn't said anything about the point itself, requiring me to reiterate and summarize the point of this section of the debate. I have also gone over as of now how coercing children into such organizations would still be immoral. Sub-point 1b: My opponent continues to extend the point of Coming Out Loved although he consistently fails to respond to the other portion of the debate—the part about the conversion practices. All of this is extended across the flow.