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

My opponent has kept his final round quite short, so I'll just go through each of the points he raised and explain why he has failed to meet his burden of proof on them. Two DiscriminationsMy opponent has ignored my point throughout this whole debate. Since he did not answer any of my material and I answered all of his, I guess the point is conceeded. That alone should be enough to prevent my opponent meeting his burden of proof, since the point rebuts all his other arguments. This is despite me wasting characters every round telling my opponent to answer it. Validation/Inherent MoralityMy opponent presents no further warrent for why tolerance is moral, other than a long list of assertions that I've already explained gay-camp-runners do not grant. The fact is that some aspects of morality are not universal, and it's my opponent's burden to prove that wrong, not mine (since my opponent is the one brining the claim about validation). Since the only basis for their morality is God, he needs to disprove that. That was one of my two responses. I guess the other one's dropped - that every belief is biased towards the opposite. My opponent has failed to show any inherant immorality in anything, but rather has attempted to impose his own values on what he calls "objectivity. "ToleranceMy opponent admits this will not accrue as a benefit. In round two he claimed it would twice, as a flow-on from 1C and in 1A. Both of these claimed benefits he now admits will not accrue. Morality & ScienceMy opponent has failed to present any justification for why his view about what should and should not be moral when using science is true. I've gone from Martin Luther to modern-day psychology to prove my view, and my opponent has only asserted his. It's my opponent who should be having the burden of proof here, but I've been the one doing the proving. Long-Term HarmMy opponent has done nothing to refute my sampling claim. He claims I don't prove it, but does not engage with my analysis. He has not rebutted my analysis on the validity of moral studies either. My opponent has only pointed to an absence of evidence. For sure, that doesn't help my case either, but remember, my opponent has the burden of proof. If niether of us proves our cases, burden of proof means I win the debate. DiscriminationLess discrimination means more tolerance. Since my opponent now admits tolerance won't accrue, he also conceeds discrimination. He claims to have more evidence - if he did, then he would have presented it. My opponent also completely drops his point about punishing based on violation of rights as a universal standard. With families, my opponent says the family has issues. If so, then the family is already broken apart. My claim is that it's possible for even extreme fundamentalist religious families to stay together. Human RightsMy opponent has dropped normalcy. In round five he brings up the new argument of spiritual "healthiness", without any explanation of what he considers healthy in a spiritual sense. The context of the law is such that healthiness refers to whether the practice violates the principles of the same declaration, which in this case it clearly does not. Overwhealming legal evidence is on my side on this one. My opponent has failed to show any illegalty to the camps under international law.