Revenge porn should be criminalized.

So we agree that these people shouldn't be prosecuted, that's good. Let's move on to other topics of her round 4. "but doing so *SHOULD* remain illegal, as it is a violation of the consent and bodily autonomy of the individual depicted, as well as a violation of their copyright to the picture as the individual who took it." Pro has not shown that it is a problem with bodily autonomy she has just stated it to be that way. I have used logic and legal interpretations to show that it shouldn't be a somatic rights issue but a property rights issue. Pro has not provided evidence that shows you have a copyright and legal ownership of the picture, I have shown that you do not. Therefore, this argument is null and void. 1. Legal definition Allow me to show you why pro's definition is flawed by assuming the position of the lawyer of an alleged victim. Here is her definition " It should remain illegal to make items of revenge pornography available on the internet where such items is not yet available. It should not be illegal to mention that such material is available." Now Judge, as you can see in the legal definition, the defendant has made such "revenge pornography" available on the internet where such items were not yet available. They posted links to articles that reported on my clients famous "leaks." No one on their facebook feed would have seen this if it weren't for them posting links. Therefore, they have violated the law and should be jailed immediately. This illogical argument would be passable in court under that definition. I understand your intent behind your definition but in legal cases you cannot assume intent. They are interpreting the definition to how it best suits them. This still doesn't address my main argument on how criminalization, which is incarceration of the perpetrators of that crime, is not reasonable and would prove to be detrimental in many ways. 2. Any reasonable interpretation I'm not advocating to remove them, never have and never will. I'm advocating for the removal of the criminalization of these laws. Her analogy fails because my main point with this argument is there is no definition that would only apply to the source of the revenge porn. I challenge pro to bring one to me. 3. Tradition Dictates Tradition dictates should then go to me, should it not. You are advocating for the ambiguous laws and I against. Therefore, I should be given this. Regardless, criminalization has a very clear and obvious definition that did not need clearing up. There is no ambiguity of my topic. 4. Clarification "Yes they do, my article and reasoning show this while pro has nothing but her claim to show against it. Obviously my evidence should trump her's in this situation." This is stating that in the argument you don't have anything but your opinion to back up your claims. I have articles and logic as well as my opinion so my interpretation should be preferred. 5. Ambiguity of the law You felt you made it clear and most people would understand that. But in a court of law it is different. This definition is so easily manipulated to include anyone to just tweet about it's existence. 6. Civil laws are effective. She argues that civil laws are still laws, but that isn't the point of the debate. We are arguing criminalization. This just goes to prove my point. 7. Deterrence So she agrees with my case and this should be a won argument for me. I have made it clear that it is in a criminal court. You can't criminalize someone in civil court. I'm sorry that Pro's lack of knowledge in the court system made this topic confusing, but that is not my fault. 8. Copyright of photos given. The definition is stating about photographs or videos that are kept by that individual, not shared with someone else. Once you give someone that photograph, you lose all rights to that copy of the photograph. I'm pretty sure Pro is the one not understanding. Especially when she cites something that doesn't even apply to her position. I understand that, but once you've distributed it it isn't your property. Even if it were, they can still show others, share it, etc. This is copyright law basics. You are interpreting them incorrectly. 9. Appeal to emotion Except it's not the same thing, and I have proven this. Legally, it isn't and shouldn't be the same thing. This doesn't equal to consenting to sex once so they can screw them whenever they please. That is illogical, absurd, and absolutely an appeal to emotion. Respond to my arguments against this, all you did was reword your starting argument. 10. Harmful and malicious This is a compilation of pro's subjective opinions and nothing else. The legal system disagrees on the basis of constitutionality and the Harms Principle, which I discussed earlier. She is completely wrong. Rape is illegal not because it is unreasonably harmful but because it violates that persons rights. The reason "unreasonably harmful" is a horrible definition to determine what should be illegal is because it is entirely subjective. The right's of a person is not subjective. This allows for a much more equal and justice oriented judicial system. 11. Conceding the debate? Criminalization is a CRIMINAL law issue. Who would have thought... Gross misunderstanding of my arguments and not answering the vast majority of them is a better grounds for concession. Both of which Pro has done. Summary: 1. Civil and criminal law are different. It is by definition illegal but we are discussing CRIMINALIZATION. Look at the topic. 2. The only evidence pro cited doesn't apply to her claim. I have multiple arguments and explanations of copyright law that show Pro is just simply incorrect. 3. I have not only provided my personal view. I have cited sources that explain the real detriments and possible detriments to everything I have discussed. Furthermore, why should a picture you have consentually given to someone count as your body's autonomy. That makes no sense whatsoever. Then pro appeals to popularity by stating that most people agree with her and implying that somehow wins her the argument. It doesn't and you have lost this argument. This debate can really only go towards Con because I have credible and applicable citations whereas pro is reliant on subjective opinions. She tries to muddy the water's on her confusion of the topic in, only what I can assume, an attempt to gain any ground in the debate whatsoever. There is no reason to vote pro as I have shown real detriments to criminalization and why the law should not do so. Pro has provided subjective arguments. She literally defined what should and should not be legal based on what is unreasonably harmful. That is the most vague definition in law I have actually ever heard.