Censorship Should be Abolished

Before I begin my final round of argumentation, allow me to say one thing: though my opponent is a libertarian, that doesn't mean that we have to look at this resolution through a libertarian standpoint: thus, disregard any argument that he makes about how things would be 'in a libertarian society', because that's not what we're discussing. 1. The 'Title' of the debate a. I'd like to point out that this is more than a 'title', as my opponent claims; that is the topic of the debate, and if my opponent wants to justify taking steps away from that topic, he's welcome to do so, but he has to accept that this won't win the round for him. I just thought I ought to make that clear. 2. Hate speech and Libertarian Law a. As I pointed out earlier, and as my opponent so kindly dropped, the only way to get rid of censorship is, in fact, to censor it; he never really responds to the fact that merely by taking the Pro side of this topic, he has lost; after all, my opponent even advocates censoring harmful speech. b. As far as I'm aware, the resolution doesn't specify "Resolved: We ought to create a Libertarian society"; to my knowledge, we are debating "Resolved: Censorship should be abolished". If my opponent wants to debate Libertarianism, he can feel free to challenge me; however, in this round, abolishing censorship "because Libertarianism says so", otherwise known as circular logic, won't cut it in today's debate. c. Just one statement I had to point out of my opponent's that made me laugh: "if something violates a Libertarian law, then it shouldn't be legal." - Reworded, "If something is against the law, then it shouldn't be legal." This really isn't an argument, past my opponent's concept of "Libertarianism says we should abolish censorship, therefore we should abolish censorship." 3. The basis of arguments a. My opponent claims I'm basing my arguments on the four words, "Censorship should be abolished". I fail to understand why my opponent has an issue with me arguing the topic; honestly, his arguments should be based on the resolution, also; but, I guess he's alright with taking a few steps away from the topic that he set up for us. b. "It is true that I defend some censorship..." <-- Look at this statement, and then look at the topic. Vote con. 4. The Constitution a. While I understand that Amendments can't themselves be amended, I was referring to the fashion in which the 18th Amendment was essentially 'changed' by the 21st; the argument that I'm making here is that our Founders intended for our Constitution, and American Law as a whole to be malleable and adaptable to future social conditions; in this case, as my opponent himself points out, speech inciting violence, rioting, bullying, etc. needs to be limited, and while my opponent claims that these laws hurt the 1st Amendment, he supports them anyway. 5. Censoring censorship a. Though I've already covered this argument, I just wanted to point something out: my opponent claims that we ought to fight fire with fire; if censorship is as bad as my opponent suggests, then I can't understand why he advocates the hypocrisy of censoring censorship; as I've shown, this is a clear contradiction in his position which was created merely by taking the Pro side of this debate. b. However, if my opponent wants to take back that statement, and say that we don't need to go through the hypocrisy of censoring censorship, he's admitting that censorship need not be abolished; either way, he has to compromise on his position; ergo, you vote Con no matter which side he chooses. 6. If you can't beat 'em, smack 'em with "reality". a. There we go. My opponent tries to hide the truth of the argument under 'not shielding them from reality', but what this argument really means is this: he's already tried to prove that parents ought to watch their children, and I disproved that, so now he's shifting his position and and basically condoning the exposure of young children and adolescents to excessively violent, sexually explicit material, and he's tagging this as acceptable social behavior. Now that you see the meat of the argument, clearly vote con. b. My opponent is committing what we call the is/ought fallacy: "This is how it is, therefore this is how it ought to be." My opponent claims that we ought to legalize these kinds of materials because kids will participate in these activities regardless; however, people also steal, and rape, and murder, but we don't legalize these activities just because they will "happen anyway"; just because a teenager's drinking and viewing of pornographic material may not be as steep an offense as committing murder does not make the teenager's activities permissible. This is true for the 'forbidden fruit' effect; just because people will willingly disobey the law doesn't mean that we should abolish the law altogether. 7. Private censorship a. My opponent claims to have not ignored the argument, but in truth, he has: he never addresses that, while his job as Pro is to defend that censorship ought to be abolished, parental censorship is STILL censorship; this topic is not only discussing censorship performed by the government. b. As far as organizations like the MPAA and ESRB, he himself has advocated infringing upon the rights of autonomous private entities to self-regulate and censor materials that are found to be harmful; he is advocating the infringement of rights. I had to say that one twice to make sure it sinks in. 7. Protection of children a. Of course, I myself am only 17, so I don't have experience, but you can probably ask any parent (who takes responsibility for their child/ren), and I can guarantee that these parents would be censoring the impressionable, easily influenced minds from viewing sex, drugs, alcohol and violence; just because many people have been corrupted by our violent, sex-driven culture doesn't meant that we have to expose children to this kind of thing; again, voters, my opponent is committing a large is/ought fallacy, as I explained above. 8. Indecency laws a. He claims that he was "referring to indecency laws that don't violate Libertarian laws."; realize, voters, that he certainly hasn't clarified until this final round; that is, he's shifting his position yet again from the abolition of indecency laws altogether to only abolishing indecency laws that harm Libertarian law; first of all, as I stated, he continues to warp and twist his position to make it more and more conditional; and, he's never proven why Libertarian laws ought to take priority over indecency laws, or any set of laws for that matter; simply because my opponent is a Libertarian does not mean that we're abiding by those standards in the debate. b. "making things illegal might just because some people find them distasteful might as well be fascism." <-- I think I'll call this one an appeal to ridicule; he's assuming that censoring anything lewd or indecent is the equivalent of fascism; however, I'll leave this to the voters; but, I for one don't much want to see pornographic billboards or indecent behavior in the streets; and, if I'm driving, for example, I don't exactly have the opportunity to 'look away'. c. One thing: He ignores my argument that he's making an appeal to nature, and again switches his argument. And honestly, I assume we're talking about censorship in America, forgive me if I'm wrong: But, generally speaking, that's how democracy works; if we don't like policies, we elect people to fix them. In the end, my opponent has shifted his position more times than I can count, has committed multiple fallacies, and has really fallen into every trap that I've set up; at this point, I hope that you value logical consistency over my opponent's contradicting views on 'freedom', and the numerous drops he's made throughout the round. With about 100 characters remaining, let me just finish my opponent's final statement.