Is DATD a good rule

Keep in mind that my opponent hasn't actually made any kind of case as to why DADT is a bad policy, and has chosen to merely refute my arguments; because of this, just know that, for the remainder of the debate, we will be debating on my terms (since that's all that my opponent has chosen to focus on). On my first contention, he makes the argument that we've changed the military in the past, and that there is a lot of diversity; I completely agree. However, my opponent still doesn't address the fact that change takes TIME; we can't just toss homosexuals into a military that may not be ready for that change yet. He also goes on to discuss how all we need is a majority, not a unanimous decision; again, look to the fact that the military is NOT a democracy; the United States itself is only a loose representative democracy; we only vote for people who hold office; Congress, for example; we don't declare war; Congress does. We don't vote on legislation; Congress does. He even says in discussion of my second contention that "most people were against [the bill] but the congress passed it anyway". A majority doesn't determine everything; we elect our leaders, and so we have to accept the decisions that are made, even if we don't like them. DADT is no different; even if a majority out of the survey's 2000+ people don't like it, that's simply the military policy of the time. My point here is that, a small civilian majority, as what my opponent offers, shouldn't be allowed to influence the inherently socialistic structure of the military; it may sound like I'm preaching against democracy, but I'm sorry to say, the military doesn't vote on policy. However, even if you take it from a 'most votes wins' standpoint, look at the survey he provides: 49% of voters say that society pays too much attention to the needs of gays and lesbians, 21% say too little attention, and 22% say it's "just right". We can see here that, taking some statistics from my opponent's own source, the number of people of people that believe we're catering too much to homosexuals is higher than the other two groups combined. Look at another statistic: Voters rejected (50% to 44%) that "ending discrimination against homosexuals is as necessary today as ending discrimination against blacks was in the 1960s. " We can see that, if society prioritizes equality for gays underneath where it prioritized equality for blacks, it will naturally take a longer period of time before society and the military are able to accept gays, and finally take down DADT; look back at the historical precedent argument that I've given you: Equality is something that we strive for, but DADT needs to act as a stepping stone towards equality; I'll grant my opponent that we're probably relatively close to being ready for total equality, but we're still not QUITE there yet; so, for the moment (since we are debating the present time), DADT is a good policy because it fits the present trend of social and military acceptability. On my second contention, he discusses this idea that, because Dr. Tiller was seen as a murderer, that his profession was taken "more seriously than DADT. " If this was true, then gay rights wouldn't be such a controversial issue, there wouldn't be so many gay rights protests, and gays wouldn't be discharged due to sexual orientation; I'm sure the military takes this policy extremely seriously, for one. Plus, his civil union example isn't exactly valid in the round; Texas is just one state, but removing DADT would affect the entire Union; the impact would be far more widespread, and therefore, the effects would also be more widespread. To prevent this kind of violence, we have to be patient until we have a more accepting military, and a more tolerant society; until that day, we have DADT in place to ensure that order and peace remain. He has this third point, which I assume is addressing my summary and conclusion; thus, while it's not necessary to cover that pseudo-refutation, I will do so anyway. He's trying to minimize the impact of my arguments here, by saying that protests wouldn't be 'that strong', and that there would not be 'much' culture shock; the problem here is, in trying to maintain a stable society, even a bit of violent protest and tension is a bad thing; even if you accept his unwarranted argument that the impacts are relatively small, also accept that this doesn't make the negatives go away; my opponent is merely trying to sweep them under the rug. So, in brief conclusion to round 3, the argument that's going to rock the flow for you today is going to be that, due to the rigid, socialistic structure of the military, and the fact that the majority doesn't determine military policy, we have to look to DADT as a stepping stone to equality; know that while it may not be the perfect policy, or the most efficient policy, or even a popular policy, it's still a good policy, because it is both proper and fitting in today's military and social culture.