This House Believes That the No Difference Theory is correct

However, he seems to have misunderstood my case. My argument is not men are irrelevent when it comes to raising children: it’s male virtues such as aggressiveness and brute power are not as relevant when raising children. The Biological Link My opponent makes a case for children to want to be with their biological parents. Of course, this is a massive issue, yet his evidence comes from a no-quote citation from Morse, who has been repeatedly shown to be slanderous, claiming from SSM-advocates destroy everything “to get their way”[i], to claiming homosexuals are “Nazis”[ii], failing to understand (if not read) the studies she cites[iii], and comically claiming she is part of a “ragtag ranks of refugees…from the great social civil war of our time”[iv]. She is a slave of cognitive dissonance; her testimony thus has no weight. However, we have good reason to believe “children fare as well in nuclear families as they do in [other] families”[v]. There is no evidence saying biology is important to children’s development intrinsically. A culture saying “blood is thicker than water” is the cause, not biology. Specialisation The specialisation is due to virtues, not biology, and as such gender is irrelevant. Are fathers relevant? My opponent distorts my case here. I claim is that male virtues are not as important, while female virtues are. Firstly with the evidence we must realise half of what said like “Lesbian mothers interact with children in different ways than heterosexual mothers” isn’t mentioned in the source[vi]. For another, the source itself, NARTH’s ex-president Byrd, has with the organisation promoted views from the sadistic: “On the contrary, don’t interfere [with children dressing homosexually], and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. ”[vii], as well as simply worryingly false: “[slaves] brought to Europe… [were] better off than they had been in Africa”[viii] and some just funny: “encourag[ing] male clients to become more masculine by drinking Gatorade and referring to friends as “dude”. ” And finally, the article in question has been specifically addressed (among other similar claims) and rebutted by actual peer-reviewed published works. [ix] To make this clear, the journal … is not accredited, nor is the article. By contrast, credited works soundly rebuff these ideas: “there is sufficient evidence to support the null hypothesis: there are no differences--on a variety of social, emotional, and cognitive measures--between children raised by homosexual and heterosexual parents”[x] Though accredited sources point out “Children raised by same-sex and heterosexual parents were found to not differ significantly in terms of their cognitive development, gender role behavior, gender identity, psychological adjustment, or sexual preference”[xi], again, the thing to keep in mind is that this is simply due to culture values. My opponent has committed the same fallacy of the cited NARTH-article: it “assumed that children needed mothers and fathers for healthy well-rounded development”[xii] which accredited peer-reviewed publications agree is false. However, my opponent’s major arguments all claim this as their source. As such, they are simply claims that other like-minded ideologues espouse, not backed up with argument or reason. The truth of the matter is gender roles dictated by culture cause these issues, which complements findings. Male virtues are relevant, yes, but there is no reason why this is at all relevant to the case. The ought side of the question Is it relevant? If we were debating “Utopianism is correct”, would we be debating whether we live in a utopia, or whether utopianism is the aim? Obviously, the latter. The same is true for this resolution: if we are to believe that essentialism, or the claim that there are factors creating a necessarily substantial difference of child-rearing by one-man-one-woman. To fit this into a syllogism: P1 – If heterosexual couples substantially raise children better or worse than homosexual couples, then there is a necessary difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples in the action of child-rearing. P2 – Heterosexual couples, by nature of being heterosexuals, raise children substantially better/worse than homosexual couples. C1 – Therefore, there is a necessary difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples in the action of child-rearing. The debate is of course usually centred around the first premise. However, neglecting the second premise is a horrific assumption. I mean, if heterosexual couples raise children who are 5% more likely to win a fencing match at the age of eight, we wouldn’t conclude androgyny is now wrong. We have to make clear what is substantial. But what is a substantial difference? Substantial is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “of considerable importance”[xiii]. And what is important has been outside the realm of the “scientific sense” for centuries. We have to understand what we count as important and make it clear. And if there is a prima facie argument saying that there is no significant difference between individuals, evident by liberalism, or the fact that human virtues are malleable and anyone can fill any role, evident by the fact humans are truly free, then we have good reason to believe there is no substantial difference between men and women. And if actually addressing all sides of the issue means temporarily departing from science into the humanities, then au revoir. The Libertarian Case for androgyny Libertarianism has two meanings: the political meaning is not the part of this case. The second meaning more prevalent in academia is of true free will, the: “ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition”[xiv]. Examples of libertarianism are in the Bible, where: “by refusing to be baptized by [John], the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves”[xv]. If we have free will, then essentialist claims (such as “us[ing] drugs or becom[ing] criminals” is a result of any upbringing) is simply coincidence. There are many reasons to believe in free will. For example, I experience something within myself that I understand as making choices, and that those choices are not determined by anything other than myself. This is the brute fact argument, which simply points to the indubitable nature of my actions being my own, not something else’s. One other favourite case of mine is Sartre’s from imagination: Jean-Paul Sartre came up with an interesting free will argument. He said that we can ignore something real and we can pretend something unreal. For example, I could imagine that there is no danish before me -- something I often need to do in the service of dieting. We contain inherently the ability to act against the real world, and thus ignore external factors, refuting determinism. Unless my opponent refutes libertarianism, he cannot affirm the resolution. Dropped cases & Conclusions My key argument about raising children being a skill has been woefully neglected, even though it’s key to my case. Moreover, there has not been anything addressing how the factors presented are not due to virtues: indeed, some such as “how to be assertive” seem blatant to be to do with virtues, not biology. I pass over to my opponent for his rebuttal. [i] . http://tinyurl.com... [ii] . http://tinyurl.com... [iii] . http://tinyurl.com... [iv] . http://thinkprogress.org... [v] . http://tinyurl.com... [vi] . http://tinyurl.com... [vii] . http://www.transchristians.org... [viii] . http://tinyurl.com... [ix] . http://www.ijhssnet.com... , p35 [x] Ibid, p39 [xi] Ibid, 36, citing A. L. Crowl, S. Ahn, & J. Baker 2008 [xii] Ibid, 35 [xiii] . http://tinyurl.com... [xiv] R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God [xv] Luke 7:30