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

Thanks, Pro. C1: This one might have got cut short on Pro's part as it ends mid-sentence. Pro really only states that it would be "practical" which in and of itself means little. I won't spend much time here since this really isn't a significant portion of Pro's case. The bulk of Pro's case rests in his sub-points, but it should go without saying that the practicality of X has no correlation with the desirability of X, i.e. bearing false witness might be a practical way of avoiding a lawsuit or criminal charge but has nothing to do with its desirability or morality. 1a: I'll actually give Pro the benefit of the doubt here and concede that GLBT students are disproportionately bullied by their peers. However, are GLBT youth the only group that face disproportionate discrimination due to a variation from the norm? Of course not, one study concludes that obese children are 63% more likely to be bullied [1] and childhood stutterers report a whopping 83% [2]. Common sense should tell us that disadvantaged groups face much greater obstacles that individuals not in those groups and this is representing in bullying statistics. The resolution states "Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation" - in other words, Pro would like to promote the struggle of one group while unfortunately ignoring the various other groups that face similar if not greater difficulties. My case is not against anti-bullying legislation per se, but rather the singling out of one group to receive preferential treatment and a microscope on their own struggles. Response B: I'm willing to concede even further and pretend that GLBT youth are the only group that is bullied disproportionately. In that case, what makes their difficulties of a fundamentally different nature requiring preferential treatment and "special sensitivity" than other children who are getting picked on for one reason or another? 1b: I don't feel this is entirely relevant to my case since I'm not against anti-bullying legislation as already mentioned, but I do feel that the link Pro draws is dubious. Pro cites a study which apparently cites a decrease in bullying over a 2 year period (2010-2012?) and attributes it not to, for instance, social trends or natural fluctuations in data collection but anti-gay bullying statutes which have supposedly petrified bullies in middle and high school from targeting gay youth. Regardless, this isn't a main point in my case. Moreover, it's likely that students in districts with enumeration policies were already more gay friendly places that those without but this is admittedly beside the point. Conclusion: My case is simple and it rests on the premise of equal treatment. Singling out the plights of one group as Pro's legislation would is a clear violation of that principle and relegates the struggles of other disadvantaged groups. I would support any general anti-bullying legislation that would not hyper-focus on the exact reason of the torment but rather halting the torment all together. Until Pro has proven that GLBT bullying is of a fundamentally different nature that bullying towards the obese, disabled, short, stupid, etc. his case remains inadequate. [1] http://health.usnews.com... [2] http://urbandojo.com...