Resolved: The US Federal government should legalize same - sex adoption

Rebuttal 1: Acculturation My opponent brings this up yet again, however, whether or not acculturation exists has nothing to do with whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Since there is no impact, this entire argument falls. This doesn’t even fit in under the framework that me and my opponent agreed to about what would be best for the children being adopted. Regardless, I will say that my opponent does not explain the quote and its importance. Rebuttal 2: Conduct vs. Orientation Again, this argument is not topical as it only poses a question, and does not answer the question at hand. This has nothing about what is best for the child and simply rehashes my opponent’s opinion about gay people being depraved. However, my opponent has already stated the following: “Homosexuals are not necessarily the sort that deal drugs and engage in domestic violence. In fact, many of them have good jobs, stable incomes, demonstrate genuine compassion, and would do almost anything to give the best possible care to a child in their custody. In short, they're good-hearted people.” This is a complete contradiction from his depravity claim. Rebuttal 3: Seek the truth My opponent seems to be implying that children adopted by homosexual families are more likely to be homosexual. Not only has my opponent only relied on one quote from someone only labelled as a past homosexual, but the link is weak at most since he offers no evidence to back this up simply saying: imagine if this were to happen to a child. Well, that assumption is meaningless. My opponent has yet to refute my statistic showing that children of same-sex couples fare better on family cohesion and health by 6% (1). Regardless of whether my opponent claims that homosexual parents reap homosexual children is meaningless as it does not contribute to the debate and hand anyway. I would recommend debating the topic my opponent actually wants to debate which is, resolved: Homosexuals are evil and depraved. However, this is not that debate. Rebuttal 3: Foster care This argument in insensible as to why this needs to be focused on in the debate. I am not attacking the people adopting, no matter how few are. I am showing the fact that without the proper funding, children will suffer with mental health problems or a criminal record. Regardless of whether righter Day actually helps foster parents prepare for child care means nothing, as it does not show why this resolution should be negated. Rebuttal 4: Cross-ex My opponent claims that my arguments only hold water if I prove that children are ok living in homosexual households. I have, if you read my entire second contention of my case, the following is stated: “According to a psychologist in Clark University by the name of Abbi Goldberg, gay parents tend to be more motivated and more committed due to the fact that they simply do not have the same rate of accidental children as heterosexual parents (7). Not only this, but the Boston University cites a study following lesbian parents and found that the majority of children in the family had high social, and educational success (8). This is quantified by Simon Crouch, a lead investigator on the subject of same-sex adoption shows in his study in the BMC public health journal shows that children from same-sex couples were 6% higher on general health and family cohesion (9).” My opponent tries to destroy the credibility of Politifact by saying it is liberal. Allow us to see the “epitome” of “unbiased” by looking at his citations: (https://answers.yahoo.com...) Do I have to explain this one? It could be written by anyone! (http://www.frc.org...) The Family Research Council has been labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (2). (http://www.defendthefamily.com...) This site is a Christian site from Truth Ministries, these people inherently hate gay people. (http://carm.org...) This is another church ministry that is against homosexuality and inherently right-wing. Since my opponent has yet to prove any sort of substantial evidence Politifact being liberal, I do not see how this still stands. Regardless, the case that he makes is inherently biased with right-wing and church based evidence. My opponent vaguely attempts to go against my studies, yet has no specific reason for going against them. Next, my opponent backtracks by saying that me attacking his evidence is a fallacy. How? You just attacked mine! I have simply reminded my opponent that the resolution specifies the US Federal Government as an actor, I was not attacking your evidence now. Also, yes, my arguments thus far have shown that it would be best for the child to be in a home off any kind, regardless of orientation. It is my opponent who has yet to refute them. Rebuttal 4: Extensions Extend my 1st, 3rd, and 4th contention which have yet to be touched upon. Conclusion In the end, my opponent does not offer the points necessary to negate today’s bill, so affirm. Side-note A final focus is a final rebuttal; no new points may be brought up as far as points that have yet to be mentioned. Also, the assumption that my argument is only there to “promote an agenda” is ridiculous. Refrain from saying such ludicrous attacks in the future or a voter may dock you points. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...)