Resolved: Disney World ought to continue hosting gay days.

I thank CON for his response. Just a road map: I'm going to go down the flow beginning with my opponent's contentions, then moving on to the rebuttals against my case.Contentions 1 and 2: This argument legitimately doesn't make sense. When I stated that clause, I was only clarifying what is my stance on the issue in this debate. By taking on the position of the PRO, I was inherently supporting the decision, whereas CON is inherently in dissupport of the decision. As for the resolution, my support still reaches the burden of proof of the resolution because regardless of whether how I have seemed to word it or my opponent has seemed to word it (which comes to a completely incongruous conclusion), it still analyzes the main idea of whether or not Disney World should continue gay days. If you ask me, these two points are complete waste of time for the debate at hand and should be ignored completely. They don't add in any way to the understanding of the debate.Contention 3: My opponent states several things in this contention without any sort of warrant. For starters, he talks about how children may not be ready for this subject matter but doesn't explain why. CON touches on the idea that children have minds at an early age where they are learning greatly about the world around them. If anything, this is the perfect opportunity for children to learn about the natural world and functionings of society in order to grow into more intelligent teens and young adults. Essentially what my opponent is doing is supporting the idea that children should be kept ignorant rather than being given learning at such a critical time for education and learning. Second, my opponent talks about the conditioning of children and brings up Aldous Huxley's Brave New World as well as touches on the idea that this is immoral, but he has no warrant for it either. He doesn't even have a solitary perspective of morality at which to analyze this from. I, in contrast, have provided a warrant in my contention 1 about why this is practical and beneficial for society. If you're looking at it from a consequentialist point of view, this action is benefitting an entire marginalized group of people in society. If it you're looking at it from a deontological point of view, you're teaching a child nothing evil or cruel: you're teaching about tolerance in the community and acceptance of others with differences. Contention 4: My opponent misunderstands the intention and general message of gay days. It's hard to say that Disney World fails to appreciate other sexualities when the entire point of the day itself is to show that gay people should be treated equal to a straight person, implicitly acknowledging the value of heterosexuality. The idiosyncracy of discrimination (prejudiced discrimination, that is) is to try to treat one group of people with greater priority or treatment for no morally or practically relevant reason other than the fact that they're within this group of people. Even if gay days are inherently placing gay people on a stronger focus, my contention 1 describes the practical and moral relevancy of the action itself, meaning that it doesn't fit the criteria of being unfairly discriminatory. Furthermore, the actual message that they're sending in the gay days in no way promoted the message that one sexuality is better than one another, which only does more to disprove the entirety of the logic in my opponent's case. Furthermore, on a side note, "gay days" is a broad terminology, meaning that transexuals are included in this. Contention 5: Cross-connecting this contention with the gay pride rebuttal, we realize that the general mindsets between these two are completely contradictory. He states that the purpose of Disney is to provide entertainment, yet he explicitly states that Disney World is at liberty to do the promotion of a mindset. Disney World is an individual corporation. Yes, although their main purpose is entertainment, they can do what they want when it comes to their political beliefs. Gay Pride: When it comes to the situation of homosexuals in this country, every little bit counts. If even just one person learns from the experience that Disney World teaches, this is one step closer toward reaching the benefit of the homosexual community. The idea that the aid that Disney World provides is so small, it can just be eliminated anyway is a ridiculous claim because it's not an opportunity cost to something that can be much bigger. Furthermore, there are many corporations that can support LGBT rights, but there's no warrant that they will. It would be unwise for a company that beyond a shadow of a doubt supports LGBT rights to cut off their activities in exchange for companies that may or may not support LGBT rights. When my opponent talks about the alternatives, if we cross-apply his sort of logic from his Contention 4, the alternatives would also be discriminatory because they focus on homosexuals in order to better their portion of the community as well. In the CON world, everything that in any way tries to support gay rights is discriminatory because it focuses on homosexuality, meaning that NO pride event in any way is justified. Economy: Regardless of what the intention of gay days are, at the end of the day, it promotes the very message that is needed for society while at the same time generating profit for Disney World. My opponent talks about the families that may be offended by this message, but he provides no evidence comparing the conservative families to the gay people or pro-gay people to show that the profits for Disney would be significantly lower. I've only been able to provide info about how many gay people come to this event, and I can provide information about the proportion of Americans that are pro-gay than anti-gay, which is generally higher according to many polls (evidence can and/or will be provided if needed).