That Rap music should be banned

Going down the flow My opponents value is morality this in no way links to the resolution where as my value of constitutionality stands strong because the US has constitutional ideaology and it is already been Implied in the last 2 rounds the house we are speaking of is the US. so this is why my value stands and his falls. His value criterion of consequentialism now i ave a copy of blacks law dictionary given to me by my father right hear under consequentialism it says "see Utilitarianism" and there it says where the outcome is greater than its loss. well this is basically what my opponent portrays whats more its here in blacks law dictionary and consequentialism is a wrong way to see life and its basically saying hey lets kill 10 to save 100 kill 1000 to save 100000 the ends justify the means this is a wrong way to view life in any matter it is a fact that Hitler was a Utilitarian and he was certainly in no way moral. Contention 1. Rap music is a detriment to our education via vocabulary. my opponent simply implies that slang is bad but provides no warrant as to why slang is bad. Slang is considered a different way of speaking. secondly this argument has no solvency Banning rap will not stop people from using slang slang will always be around just like other languages of Chinese or Spanish so as you can see his contention falls Contention 2. Rap music promotes Drug, Sex, And violence. Advertisement around the world promotes drugs sex and violence its a way of companies to get people to you know buy guns and cigarettes and stuff. so my opponents argument on this contention also has no solvency because rap will in no way stop drugs sex and violence he even brings up violent cartoons which also promote violence.so as you can see so far both of his contentions have no solvency Contention 3. Rap music disrespects women. We disrespected women far before rap came into the picture we didn't even let them vote until recently in the last 50 years we didn't let them vote and spousal abuse already happened before rap came in and so did prostitution that goes back to the 1800's and i doubt rap existed in the 1800's maybe in the 1950's but not the 1800's and women had nicknames before rap as in the 1800's as "my wench or my harlot" so the only issue here is the idea of using women as objects which we already have done "hey babe get me some dinner" as my grandpa used to say before he died my dad said he would do this even when he was 40 which was in 1940 which is definetely before rap came in. By banning rap music we get rid of (or significantly reduce) these 3 major probelms and offer a much better chance of a better society. As i have proved none of these 3 problems have any solvency with rap and his value and value criterion crumble Now moving on to defend my case his contention one is simply his value critereon restated but he brings up that if we ban rap music, we should basicly ban rock and art. Ok, maybe we should ban those things, however thats irrelevant because the issue on hand is rap music. (No this is completely relevant because if we ban rap we are on a slippery slope and what would stopp us from banning other forms of expression like dancing art or music and my opponent says maybe we should ban those things then stress makes a worse society because it will be illegal to express your self all because we banned rap. The argument my opponent makes is that rap music is beneficial because it "kills time" yes and my opponent dropped my argument about gangsters getting bored from no rap and doing drive by's and graffiti so extend that silence is consent by the rules of LD it is now a fact that the banning of rap will result in an uprising of graffiti and death so rap in this case really does benefit societyand my opponent's only argument against this is that it could be time better used. well people have thier own way of dealing with stress be it rap or be it "hobbies or sports" as my opponent says or listening to rap the fact is we all have stress relievers and we need them to get on with our lives and without a stress relieve society becomes anarchy and this is certainly not benefitial. (Con 3) we have to be open minded towards others. The idea of having to be open minded towards others is flawed. We SHOULD be open minded towards others is the true statement. Now the idea of being open is to benificiary ideas rather than detrimental ones. We should be open minded about new activities and foods, not trying drugs or commiting crimes. This is where my opponent contradicts him seld yes we SHOULD so we need to be and htis is how our society functions we are very open minded here in the US we have a black president which is a real break through. but then he says " Now the idea of being open is to benificiary ideas rather than detrimental ones. We should be open minded about new activities and foods, not trying drugs or commiting crimes." now this is where the corrupt utilitarian comes into play he will only be open minded to things he wants to be open minded towards which is "Benefitial ideas" well what is benefitial and what isnt is all based on point of view so my opponent is not in anyway being open minded which he supports in his 3rd contention. well only listening to ideas you wanna listen to is not being open minded. so his argument falls and part of his case with it. So as you can se my value stands over his my Value criterion stands over His and my contentions stand while his crumble i have taken out entire case while mine stands and i urge a negative vote.