Porn is not bad

Art- This is really a mute point, so I'll be brief here, nudity or lack thereof isn't the factor that makes or breaks something's qualification of being 'art'. I agree that there has been tons of art throughout history with nudity, but those things are tasteful. Two strangers pretending to be into each other while having sex is means to an end. Further there can be bad art. Just because something is art doesn't mean it's good. Relationships- My opponent openly admits that the study he's citing had both a small pool of participants, and that the participants reaction to the study where self-reported. This shows that the evidence my opponent cites here is fallible and unreliable. Aside from that my opponent doesn't actually cite the study itself, but an article referencing the study. This is a link to the actual abstract [ http://www.eurekalert.org... ] in which we see that the sample size was on 20 people. 20 people. That's the equivalent of asking a single college class if pron effects their relationships, not indicative of a real qualitative study. So right of the bat my opponent's refutation is discredited. But further of all the sources he could have cited to further build is case, he chose Cracked. For those of you who don't get why this is a joke of a source when it comes to academic quality just follow the link my opponent provided. Cracked is a media site which is known for writing entertaining articles on a variety of subjects. Usually when these articles are written the empirical claims warranted within the article with some kind of data, but this article in particular doesn't cite a thing. It's mostly just pictures with baseless claims. What my opponent doesn't respond to in his cherry-picked, quote-mined rebuttal is the portrayal of women in pornography or the skewed intention of romance cause by pornography. These arguments are utter drops on behalf of my opponent and need to be extended across explicitly. Finally, before moving on, I'd like to point out that my opponent has waited until the last round to make these arguments. It the job and the burden of the instigator frame the round and provide compelling argument for affirmation in the first speech -- his argument there was one of art and of no-one else getting hurt. Now he's arguing that porn can be funny. Sex Trafficking- Here my opponent is outright ignoring the two academic source I provided previously in favor of a Yahoo article as well as another Cracked article. Further the yahoo article was another example of quote mining another source to completely change the intention of the study. The original source for the study was found int he journal of Sexual Medicine [ http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk... ] and didn't conclude that pornography was good for you, it concluded that the mental effect of pornography on teenagers are exaggerated. This means teenagers aren't going to grow hair on their hands, or have their eyes melt out of their skull for looking at porn, but that doesn't mean there are no ill effects. For my opponent to claim benefits from pornography are misguided at best, academically dishonest at worst. Further, the study open stated that it was in the minority of research. Basically that means the findings of the research aren't an authority in pornography research. Unsafe sex as a result of the influence of pornography, deviant sexual desires and even acting maliciously on said desires are still a very real threat of pornography consumption. Next, my opponent makes irrelevant arguments concerning violence and violent video games. First, let's discuss the fact the my opponent fails to cite evidence warranting such a claim; the argument that violent video games decrease violent tendencies is an urban myth. While I'm not going to claim that violent video games increases violence, Bush and Anderson found that violent video games do indeed increase aggressiveness in players [5]. [5] http://pss.sagepub.com... The logical extension here my opponent is trying to make here with pornography is lost as it is, however the more subtle fallacy in the original construction is the real problem. My opponent commits a correlation causation fallacy in making the argument that pornography does not increase sex crimes. I don't even make an argument to show a link between sex-related crimes and pornography on the general scale, I'm talking specifically about sex-trafficking. This rebuttal is really is self-incriminating. Next let's talk about the issue of sex trafficking; my opponent's response is simply that porn is a multi-billion dollar industry; that doesn't even begin to refute my original argument. I'm going to outright copt/paste the same thing I wrote before "The leading demographic accounts of contemporary slavery project a global slave population of between 20 million and 30 million people. The highest ratios of slaves worldwide are from South and Southeast Asia, along with China, Russia, and the former satellite states of the Soviet Union. There is a significant slave presence across North Africa and the Middle East, including Lebanon. There is also a major slave trade in Africa. Descent-based slavery persists in Mauritania, where children of slaves are passed on to their slave-holders' children. And the North Korean gulag system, which holds 200,000 people, is essentially a constellation of slave-labor camps. Most of the world's slaves are in sedentary forms of servitude, such as hereditary collateral-debt bondage, but about 20 percent have been unwittingly trafficked by predators through deception and coercion.[4]" The fact that there are willing participants doesn"t refute the fact that hundreds of thousands are forced into this "occupation" every day. So why should you vote Con? The on-case arguments are pretty solid as it is, but let's really review the reasons that a vote for Con is in order a. All of the clash is on the Con flow; my opponent's arguments aren't in defensive of his most basic premise, but are in refutation of the Con's original premise. What this means is that my opponent has utterly failed to prove his arguments true, and has at best only succeeded at refuting the clash of the con. Even you buy his refutation that only brings this debate to a balanced level at which point you default Con based on the presumption of belief. That is, you assume the opposition's stance to be true unless the instigator can prove otherwise. b. Fallacies galore! To name a few, my opponent practices: cherry-picking, quote mining, appeals to anonymous authority and correlation-causation fallacies. His logic wholly academically dishonest and not worthy of a vote on a strictly academic level. To vote for my opponent even given the knowledge of these fallacies is to teach him that committing these fallacies is acceptable and good. Do not do that, vote Con and teach him that these deceitful tactics have no place in debate. c. Source citation: He's using Cracked guys. Cracked! Need I really say more? d. and the coup de grace, the on-case utterly falls. My opponent's most basic argument is that Porn is art, and it doesn't hurt anyone. I've already shown you that the first premise is false, and even if it isn't art can be bad. Further I've shown a clear and explicit link between pornography and sex trafficking which my opponent has utterly failed to refute. For all of these reasons, I respectfully ask for a Con Vote.