The United States Federal Government should repeal the current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Con did not address a single issue that I brought up. As of now I am winning the debate hands down. As for my arguments being "my opinion:" 1)Every stat in my readiness argument was cited. I did relatively uncontroversial analysis. Even if you believe that my other arguments should be ignored because of lack of sources, my readiness argument stands and I hold the readiness argument to be the most important issue in the round. If a military policy makes the army weaker it should be fixed. Once again, you didn't refute my arguments, so in this debate they stand as accepted. 2)The non-readiness arguments were taken from a wide variety of sources, I will list some of them shortly. However, much of it is simply analysis of the facts. It is 100% legit for me to give analytical arguments of facts. You say my arguments are "my opinion." While this is true, "my opinion" happens to be a thought out explanation of problems in the military. You didn't give any argument at all, so I am winning on these points. If you question the factuality of any point I have made, please point it out and I will provide citation. 3)Some of my sources: On the ineffectiveness of DADT to prevent harassment: Chad C Carter, US Air Force Captain and Antony Barone Kolene, USAF Major, both Assistant Professors in the Department of Law at the USAF Academy. 31 Dayton Law Review 1, 2005 On the harassment of women due to DADT: Christin Damiano, 7 American University Journal of Gender Social Policy and Law 499. On the same topic: Martha Chamallas, Professor of Law, U of Pittsburgh, 83 Minnesota Law Review 305, 1998 Those were just a few, I have many more, unfortunately I have to do a lot of searching to dig up the sources I used (my R1 speech was from a paper I wrote for a writing competition and did not need to be cited). Once I again I would like to emphasize that all my arguments have gone unchallenged in this debate. Now for my opponent's "amendment argument:" 1)My opponent provides no amendment text or description of what this amendment would do. Without these things, it is impossible to compare his "amendment" to my suggestion of a repeal. 2)My opponent provides no reason why an amendment would be better than repealing DADT. I honestly have no idea how it would be beneficial AT ALL because I have no idea what this amendment is supposed to do. There is no reason to prefer an amendment to a repeal. 3)An amendment would not solve as well as a repeal. Only a repeal can stop the loss of skilled soldiers. Anything short of a repeal will still force needed troops out of the Armed Forces. Only a repeal is will solve 100% for the discrimination and abuse intrinsic in the DADT policy. I cannot give much more analysis on this topic, because I don't have an amendment to analyze. Judges, as we wait for my opponent's second speech, here is how the cards lay: I have presented a plan to repeal DADT and presented numerous arguments for the plan. My opponent has not refuted even one of my arguments My opponent is in favor a mysterious amendment, but doesn't describe what the amendment does or how it would do anything at all. I have shown that a repeal is preferable to halfway solution like an amendment. Right now, there isn't a dingle reason to vote for my opponent.