Resolved: Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation.

The first thing, judges, you will notice is the fact that my opponent has absolutely not cited any of his sources for his counterarguments and case arguments. This makes it impossible for me or you to be able to access his information and evaluate the strength of the evidence and validate its existence and strength. For that reason alone, every single argument he's made so far is considerably weaker, and I'm already winning the sources point with consideration that my evidence is cited at the bottom of the page.[PRO Case]Anti-bullying legislation: It's come to my attention that one of the things that I needed to define in the resolution is "anti-bullying legislation." What this legislation does, mostly, is make harsher punishments and provide more disciplinary intervention against bullying done for the reasons of sexual orientation. When you look at my opponent's case, his solutions are essentially what anti-bullying legislation is about doing except for the elimination of anti-fighting rules. I explain this mainly for the statement that my opponent made about sensitivity training. In my knowledge of what this legislation does, it doesn't explain anything about sensitivity training, meaning that this statement is irrelevant to the understanding and outcome of this debate, and even if it isn't, my opponent hasn't cited a source for this anyway, so the statement cannot be evaluated.C1 Thesis: My opponent makes contradictory statements. He states at the inception of his argument that all bullying is reprehensible (which only immediately provides more fruit for my argument), but then tries to argue the thesis of my C1 by implying that legislation for this bullying is not practical because it's affecting a small group of people. (1) If my opponent sincerely holds the standard that all bullying is reprehensible, the numbers wouldn't matter. What would matter is an attempt toward mitigating if not eradicating the problem so that bullying of all forms can be decreased. He's trying to imply that because the group is small, the problem of bullying against this community isn't something we need to focus money on--money according to him we don't have, even though he has no source for this either. (2) And in the following sub-point 1a, I explain the effects of bullying (the effects that he agrees exist), only further explaining the severity of the outcomes of bullying and further explaining why this is a problem that needs to be solved. All in all, these two reasons will lead you to conclude that this legislation is practical and my opponent has inconsistent reasoning.Sub-point 1a: In this rebuttal, we find only more inconsistency from my opponent. One of the things that my opponent is trying to lead you to conclude is that there is no causation between bullying and rates of depression even though only a paragraph or so ago he states in his own words that he understands that bullying causes many problems, not that my opponent can hold much water in this argument because he cites no sources. Furthermore, he in no way addressed the other effects of bullying in the sub-point, meaning that everything else can be extended across the flow. Causations can be proven through experiementation, and in the following experiment in Finland, it proves what I've been talking about this whole time: [1] My opponent attempts to further prove that bullying may have only been perceived rather than actual, and in order to try to counter what I stated about the study in this sub-point, he speaks about another study that he also doesn't cite. The problem with the methodology lies not in my source, but my opponent's if they were looking too at the perpetrators. If any source is most likely biased, it's my opponent's with consideration that they look at the perpetrators themselves for questioning, which could result in repsonse bias on the part of the survey taker when they're being subjected to a survey about bullying to a bully himself/herself. My opponent then talks about the possibility about how the anti-gay sentiment or motive in the bullying could just be something perceived, and instead of speaking about a source phantom to us in the scope of citation, he blantantly makes this assertion with no sources whatsoever. He states that these victims are really just guessing and believing they're bullied because of their sexual orientation, and even if the evidence about the cases of bullying leads toward the direction of proving that it is because of the sexual orientation, my opponent disregards it. My opponent has gone from being unfounded to unrealistic. I'll need to prove that bullying against people because of sexual orientation exists (even though I did in my sub-point), and as ridiculous as this assertion is, I'll do so anyway: [2][3]Sub-point 1b: I in no way stated that just because a lot of states have accepted this legislation, it means it's effective. The only thing the evidence is stating is that states are employing anti-bullying legislation because they believe it's effective. I couldn't write everything that was inside my evidence, but had my opponent looked for my evidence (which apparently, he didn't), he would've found more information therein: "Students in schools with policies expressly including sexual orientation and gender identity or expression are less likely to report a serious harassment problem at school (33% compared to 44%), have teachers that are more likely to intervene “always or most of the time” (25.3% compared to 15.9% at schools with a non-enumerated policy and 12.3% at schools without any policy), and are almost twice as likely to feel “very safe” at school (54% compared to 36%). Students at a school without an enumerated policy are three times more likely to skip class because they feel uncomfortable or unsafe (16% compared to 5%)." There are more sources within the source cited that attest the same exact information with similar data. My opponent states that just because students feel safer doesn't mean they are, even though the exact quote itself said that bullying also decreased and teachers were more prone toward aiding such students. The quote my opponent then talks about actually seems to be more substantiative for my sub-point 1a than 1b, but his perceptions about the data are faulty. 33% of LGBT youth suffering verbal abuse from family after coming out is a huge chunk, let alone half of LGBT not having support from their family. Adding to this is the fact that 40% of homeless youth are gay because they're kicked out of their homes [4]. My opponent is also asking me for more evidence that doesn't have any impact at all in this debate.[CON Case]Contention 1: Again,my opponent mentions studies, but doesn't cite any. He talks about how this gay bullying is becoming a "boy who cried wolf" hate crime wave. He's once again trying to prove as if gay bullying doesn't exist, when I certainly have provided evidence for the latter, and he has no sources of his own to substantiate any points in this conention. He talks about how sensitivity training does nothing. I've already addressed this earlier in the round, and pretty much all of the parts of his plans are addressed in my case except for the "no-fighting" rules. The last one certainly is unsafe. He says that a bully will most likely be stopped if the victim resorts to violence, but has no evidence for such a claim, and his last idea is mostly unsafe. If there's nothing to stop the fighting, it can escalate into something more severe, it means that all fights regardless what the cause can happen. This last idea is not good at all. [1] http://www.bmj.com... [2] http://www.aclu.org... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [4] http://www.americanprogress.org...;