On average, one is better off not being LGBT

The outcome is relatively straightforward largely because only one side is really framing their case based on the resolution, and that would be Pro. Pro is arguing that the life of a person who is LGBTQ is, on average, harder than the life of someone who is not. He explains what he means in expressing said difficulties, most clearly in his syllogism, but at several other points as well. He supports those points with numerous sources about how LGBTQ individuals generally have worse quality of life and are more often subject to pressures that lead to their suicides. While not all of this goes through perfectly, a majority of it stands largely uncontested.

Con's response is to engage in two different points of attack. He starts by arguing that we cannot know what "better off" means on an objective level, which functions largely as a Kritik of the phrasing of the resolution. It's fine if you want to argue that, but a) you have to be directly responsive to your opponent's points about what "better off" means in this context (I don't see much in the way of direct responses to that point), b) it has to be clear what I should do with that knowledge (though Con seems to be driving at a "voters should treat any improvement as equally beneficial since they can all exhibit different benefits in different contexts," a point that would have been nice to see directly instead of being vaguely hinted at), and c) absent a means for voters to do something with b), you need to give me an alternative interpretation (I'll get to this on the next point, though it's not framed as an alternative). The second point is potentially consequential, since Con largely dismisses Pro's case on the basis that his impacts are consequences of others discriminating against LGBTQ people rather than consequences of a person being LGBTQ. The trouble is that I don't get this framed as a distinct and preferable interpretation of the resolution. If you want me to think of "being LGBTQ" as those benefits/harms that exist in a vacuum absent other members of society, then you need to tell me why. It's fine if you think that the goal should be to focus on those aspects of LGBTQ people that are inherent to themselves, but you need to give me a reason to prefer them. Pro keeps telling me that the world imposing harms on LGBTQ persons indicates support for the resolution not opposition to it because that is how he framed the resolution. You have to either reframe the resolution or find some way to elevate your impacts over his. Unfortunately, I see neither. I see an independent case being made without addressing why I should prefer either your view of the resolution (which I never clearly see) or your alternative regarding what "better off" should mean in this context, and without either and with most of Pro's case (particularly suicides and mental problems - arguing that comparing them to depressed individuals makes them look good isn't exactly a point in your favor) standing, my vote goes to Pro.