Resolved: Parents ought be banned from forcing minors into ex-gay therapy or conversion practices.

= Introduction = Welcome back, thanks again for the debate :-) For the sake of clarity on behalf of the voters, I'm just going to follow the flow of my opponent's previous round arguments straight down the flow. I'll offer Pro/Con specific voters in the final round when I offer voters. Furthermore, I intend to expand on my argument concerning coming out loved in this round, as it would appear my opponent dropped this argument completely. = Arguments = > Morality We really to focus in on this point as it plays a huge part in the debate in terms of how we interpret the ought clause. My opponent doesn't ever respond to the point that Consequentialism and the Harms Principle only exist in theory, not in practice. It's impractical to force the voter to view the round through such parameters when many of them may not even be aware of what those things are. Furthermore it's impossible for a person to separate themselves from their moral conviction completely condemning the moral codes of the voters is unnecessary. They have common sense are aren't going to vote based on skewed moral frameworks, (and even they did establish an objective moral code wouldn't stop them). > Justice The only real objection here is in restricting rights only to the point it harms another person. However this argument leaves out organizations such as coming out loved[1] which aim not to change a person's gender/sexual orientation, but instead to offer an outlet to help them consolidate their sexuality with their faith, and or their desires. This organization realizes that sexual orientation is not a choice (something I never deny, and even openly admit). At that point Justice overwhelmingly flows Con. > Parental Rights My opponent's refutation to parental exercise of power is exceedingly insufficient, as he never identifies that standard which dictates when the exercise of parental control is necessary for the greater good. This is huge as it just throws this ability out the window for parents and leaves them a grey area where they're left asking "what can I do?" Furthermore, my opponent still does not cover "Coming Out Loved" which can hardly be viewed as child abuse. > Development Dropped for now. Although I ask that the voters consider this drop, as my opponent had more than enough character space to cover it. > Religion Several things here 1. We do both live in the United States, so realistically this is the only way we can really interpret such situations. 2. Religion is a human right[4], not a right solely delegated to US citizens. So even if my opponent wants to claim that the the US constitution is irrelevant, this argument is still warranted under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 3. The framers of the constitution wrote the Bill of Rights to be applicable to all men, not just United States Citizens. Just look at the Declaration of Independence[5], the writers cried out justice and equality for all people. 4. Children don't typically have religions that combat their parents religion, and for the most part willingly adopt it for themselves[6]. 5. My opponent still doesn't address this argument. He basically says it's unimportant, and rejects it. > Distasteful Banning It seems that before I begin the refutation of EGT being banned for being distasteful, I have to show how Rape and Murder is different from EGT. The answer is very simple here, people die and experience irreversible emotional scars. This is undeniable a crime against all parties involved aside from the perpetrator. EGT isn't. Especially when we extend Coming Out Loved[1] which my opponent completely ignores. Beyond that, my opponent rejects my argument here, but never truly refutes it. Please extend this across, as it's a huge voting issue which I will expand upon further in the final round. > Sources I don't harp on my opponent's sources all that much really, I just wanted to see them and where he got his arguments. Also; The first source seems to be a gay dating site, with no education content concerning the link he gave. The second link is broken, and the end states that the aforementioned article has been deleted. The third is a biased news source as it's aimed at those withing the LGBT community, not a third party with an unbiased public opinion. It would have been better had my opponent just linked me directly to the Pan American Health Organization's announcement directly. > Sub-Point 1a. First, it is completely inappropriate to claim I don't understand an argument instead of refuting what I said in the first place. That is exactly what my opponent did here. Finally my opponent mentions coming out loved, but her never refutes that they are a therapy whose end is to help these kids consolidate their faith with their sexuality. Furthermore Coming Out Loved is the only organization I offered in that round because I meant it as a standard to expand my opponent's otherwise narrow definition, but there are certainly others as well; Desert Stream Ministries[7], Exodus International[8] and One by One[9] are just a few. Beyond that, I'd to note ow my opponent hasn't bothered to list any harmful organizations by name while I've willing listed four. > Sub-Point 1b The warrant is offered first and foremost when mentioning Coming Out Loved, and I've strengthened it three-fold as of the last argument. I don't really know how much more I could warrant it aside from listing even more organizations which aim to consolidate sexual orientation with a person's faith. I will if my opponent wishes, but It would be nice if he could offer a few examples of his own first. = Conclusion = There's a lot of content to consider and a lot of clash in this round. I'll spell out the voters more clearly in the next round, but as of now the biggest issue I ask you to consider is nothing more than the fact that not all conversion clinics aim to change orientation. My opponent demonizes these institutes, and while some are admittedly bad, they aren't all so awful. Besides that, my opponent doesn't even offer any specific examples of these harmful therapies. I ask that you vote pro, and I thank my opponent once again for this debate! Peace~ = Sources = [4] http://www.un.org... [5] http://www.ushistory.org... [6] http://www.hughlafollette.com... [7] http://www.desertstream.org... [8] http://exodusinternational.org... [9] http://www.oneby1.org...