Resolved: Public schools ought be required to teach LGBT history and issues

Point 1: The government school systems in different countries function differently from one another, for one thing. The public school system in Switzerland, for example, places the control of public education in local governments, which makes it stronger in the areas of funding and development. The public and private schools in the United Kingdom are in direct competition with one another. The simple fact that there is so much diversity in the functioning of public school systems, the entire concept of public school systems shouldn't be generalized in the same fashion, as my opponent does. He talks about how there is the highest rank in reading, math, and science scores, but he is once again mute about methodology. As I explained earlier, statistics depends all on the methodology, sample sizes, variables, and other factors, including the amount of students that even take these scores and aren't discouraged to engage in academics, so they drop out, the amount of students taken in the sample, etc. My opponent states that all of his evidence controls for all of these social and demographic factors even though I looked at his evidence myself and there was no mention of that anywhere. The judges can do so themselves, and if there's anything in the evidence that I missed, my opponent could do me the favor of pointing it out. As for the public education system in America teaching every kid, it means that every child has a right to education in the United States under the current system, even if they decide to move toward a private school. Point 2: My opponent also seems to be mistaking the burden of proof for my case. My only burden is to prove that under a status quo of public education, LGBT issues and history ought to be taught, and the entirety of my case is focused on just that, in contrast to my opponent, where he decides to switch the scope of the resolution to trying to change to privatization. Also, as I explained before, even if my opponent wanted to switch the focus from teaching LGBT issues to the existence of public education, the question could then shift to the idea of why private schools cannot be required to do this either. He states that I'm losing the argument by even implying this even though that I'm trying to cross-apply this scenario to the worldview of a case where public schools don't even exist, and he's saying that I'm saying that I'm no longer supporting the requirement for LGBT studies in public school education: how am I supposed to defend the requirement of LGBT studies or any study in general in public schools in a world where public schools don't exist? Point 3: It's not a pipe dream. It's that my opponent has no understanding of appropriations in the curriculum. Of course, the history of LGBT can be incorporated in history courses, including things like US History in the iteration of the gay rights movements in the 1960s and 1990s. The discussions of genetics and research can be discussed inside biology classrooms. My opponent is completely hyperbolizing the scenario. There's not going to be "LGBT algebra" or "LGBT physics" or anything like that. To be quite frank, this argument is borderline a strawman argument. He continues to be detracting from the point by stating that no one would offer "alcoholics courses" based on my evidence and whatnot. Again, he's hyperbolizing what my evidence is saying. What my evidence is merely doing is providing an example as to show how current issues can be predicted and analyzed through the use of history, showing us the importance of history and a full understanding of it in the modern time period. Why am I not arguing for alcoholic history? It's not my burden. My burden is to prove the necessity of LGBT teaching in public schools, and as my case shows you, an understanding of homosexuality and its history is warranted by the stigmatization of homosexuality. My opponent keeps jamming burdens onto me that are not warranted by the resolution in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore, nothing in that argument explains why what I'm saying in the context of LGBT studies or through the analogy of alcoholism why my contention is wrong. Point 4: And even then, I was able to explain how LGBT issues can be fitted into the core knowledge courses, and regardless, my opponent hasn't really disagreed that history is valueable. The image that my opponent seems to try to impose is that public education is completely dysfunctional and incapable of teaching students even the rudimentary basics, but all he really tries to do is prove that private education is better with statistics that are mute on statistical methods and studies of significance in order to prove the significance of the information with no mention on the control of lurking variables despite what my opponent has said about his studies saying that. Point 5: My educational philosophy of adding LGBT topics to courses only depends on the adherence to the resolution at hand which creates the status quo of having public schools, not having to defend the status quo itself. Nothing that my opponent has said in regard to this has made any sense at all. My burden is not to prove that public schools should continue to exist.