Resolved: Public schools ought be required to teach LGBT history and issues

Defense of Sub-point 1a: Based on what my opponent has said against my sub-point, it is evident that my opponent misunderstands two things: (1) Statistics (2) The implementation of LGBT studies into a curriculum. What one really needs to understand is that the United States is one of the few countries of the world to have a public school system as a mode of education, meaning that we are literally teaching every student in the United States of America, and in the analysis of education, we're looking at every single student in the samples motivated and unmotivated taking in every lurking variable into account unlike other school systems in other countries where education is more privatized and less moved toward getting undermotivated students to get motivated about education and only look toward the more motivated students. This is not even to account, also, the education systems in certain regions of America in contrast to others and how well governments fuction in order to fund and maintain education in those regions as well as how administration of schools in those regions are able to handle the situations therein. What this means is that the samples of the two statistics were radically different in this scenario. Am I saying that our education system in the public sector is great? No. What I'm saying is that based on the disparity in taking the statistics, we shouldn't base our interpretation of the public school system solely on the statistics. Second, the implementation of teaching LGBT issues will be incorporated into the core classes as part of the curriculum. If anything, incorporation of these issues into a curriculum would provide a great focal point to spark the interest of students and enhance their understanding. Learning on the current research of homosexuality would delve into great detail understanding the human brain, which would enhance learning for biology, just to provide an example. My opponent says that I have no sources in order to evaluate what I'm saying (even though I provided an explanation by the American Historical Foundation iterating on the importance of history and the full understanding of it), but then he goes on to say that Western education focuses on these "core courses" with no sort of evidence of his own. This implies that Western education doesn't value history and knowledge of society, and based on what I have provided to you through my evidence, I have clearly proven that history is important, warranting the need for the full understanding of it. For my opponent to say that I need evidence to prove that people need to understand society in order to make it work better (which I did) is like saying that I need evidence that people need to understand what numbers are before they can start learning mathematics. Rather than this being a valid point, it just ends up being a flawed one. Sub-point 1b: Again, I explained to you that the competence of the public school system should not be entirely focused on the statistics of the situation. We need to know the entire methodology of it and a stronger analysis on the functioning of the system, which my opponent doesn't provide. If you are to give any reason as to why homosexuals are persecuted, every reason, I argue, is as a result of misunderstanding. Some claim it's a disease even though the APA ruled it not so in 1976. Some claim it's unnatural even though animals in nature exhibit the same behavior. This knowledge that I have attained required research into the topic for debates that I've had, but this doesn't mean that every person in America has a warrant to discover this information, and as I've explained, I feel that it is the duty of education in order to be able to at least provide this information. Also, I provided sources for what I said as well, since I cited GLSEN in the study that I was referencing. Liquidation of the public school system: I wouldn't really need to argue against this point considering that the entire idea of it is counterintuitive to the purpose of the resolution and the debate at hand. What he's doing here is providing some sort of counter-plan even though that the main idea is to make an argument on behalf of whether or not public schools should teach this issue as part of courses under the implication that public schools are here to stay. Even if we were to analyze this on the perspective that my opponent brings up, the question I ask is why privatized schools shouldn't also provide this education? In the wording of the resolution, I wanted to provide a scope of schools that is more mainstream especially for the United States or the few other countries that work under this system (considering the idea that public school systems are not only construed to the US and my opponent only analyzes this through the scope of the US, showing us that even his counter-evidence is not fully reaching expectations). Essentially what I'm saying is that my opponent is not adhering to the resolution at hand considering that this scenario takes place in the status quo, so it should be evaluated as such. Analyzing what my opponent IS saying in his single contention, however, we do realize there are some problems with the scope of his sources. First, he says that private education costs less, but the study says nothing about how many students are in the private school system considering that this is a study from the US. Again, please note that the US teaches practically every student, meaning that since many students attend public school systems, costs for sustaining them are naturally going to be higher. If we were to switch to a public school system, all the costs of maintaining kids in the public school system will just transition to the private, and since there is an increased demand for private school education and private school education is a capitalistic system, this will make prices for tuition increase. Not to mention that if my opponent is saying that government will provide vouchers for the customers in question, it means that government spending may not be reduced by much anyway since, as my opponent stated himself, they're about the same as spending for regular public schools.