Resolved: Disney World ought to continue hosting gay days.

This is the final round of the debate, meaning that I'm going to summarize the debate and go over exactly why I should be the winner of this debate. Since my opponent has failed to respond to my previous points, it means that my arguments are extended across the flow, and with consideration that my opponent has also forfeitedin this debate, we've become balanced out in our merit for the conduct vote. Contentions 1 and 2: My opponent and I cannot stress this enough. These points are irrelevant to the debate and should be ignored period because my opponent dropped them himself. Contention 3: With everything in my previous rebuttal said, we can conclude that my opponent has no reason why children should not be taught homosexuality or other things that he arbitrarily considers to be adult topics. Children talk about war, poverty, drugs, and other such topics from a young age, and all of this is done in order to supplement the child's mind. If my opponent wants to disagree with teaching children about such adult-themed topics, he would also have to disagree with teaching children about drugs and violence as well as other adult themes that would be important to be taught at such an early age, and based on my case, I have proven that homosexuality is another one of those adult topics that absolutely need to be taught. If children are confused, it is only because the world of his case has failed to try to teach these children a basis as to what homosexuality is, meaning that this is a highlight on the flaws of my opponent's case and not my own. He also doesn't explain why conditioning is immoral in any way or what context of morality he's using in order to evalute the morality thereof, meaning that we should look through my lens of morality where I'm trying to emphasize community benefit and consequentialism, and through this lens, the end result is betterment for a section of the community, an increased respect for the minority, and increased tolerance. Henceforth, this "conditioning" of children would be moral.Contention 4: As I explained, it is clear that my opponent not only misunderstands the intention of Gay Days since it isn't favoring a sexuality, but emphasizing on LGBT and working toward emphasizing on the idea of pride of being a homosexual and deserving equal respect like a Gay Pride parade does, but he slams me for trying to interpret Gay Days without being someone who organized or invented it, yet he does the exact same thing when he tries to outline the differences between gay days and gay pride parades. My opponent fails to answer any of my question related to the gay pride aspect of the debate. In order to be proud of being a sexuality, the sexuality itself needs to be considered as something being worth proud of and needs to be highlighted, so at the end of the day, gay pride parades would also be inherently celebrating a sexuality just like how my opponent claims that a gay day is celebrating a sexuality. Under my opponent's case, gay pride parades would be just as discriminatory as gay days. Plus, even if this is really discrimination, it's warranted by the necessity of promoting gay pride, meaning that the discrimination would at least be morally permissible.Contention 5: The opinion of those who would rather support intolerance than tolerance should not hinder an organization from promoting tolerance. This is all I will say on this subject. Economics: The only thing that my opponent has shown us is that a trade-off has taken place. As I said before, every decision economic or otherwise would require a tradeoff. Economists don't say that there's no such thing as a free lunch for no reason. I have also explained that the increased commerce would be good for the economy as well. In order for my opponent to win over my point in this matter, he would have to prove that the cost of the losing of conservative customers would be higher than the benefit of acquiring liberal customers, which he has not. Summary: The reasons why the judges will be voting for me in this debate are because my opponent's points are filled with contradictions and misunderstandings. He has no explanation as to why adult topics should not be taught to children. He doesn't have the morality explanation behind the conditioning of children. Everything that he stated in Contention 4 is based off misunderstanding of what encompasses Gay Days and contradictions on his own previous statements. For these reasons, the argumentation point should be mine.