Pornography should remain legal

Reviewing the caseStatus quo - the existing state of affairs[1]Where the BOP lies - This is obviously with my opponent. Resolution - Pornography should remain legalIn this Resolution, I am pro. My adversary is con. Meaning that he is taking the stance that Pornography should be illegal. Pornography is already legal, which is why I stated it should remain legal. Taking a negative stance against the status quo, gives him the BOP. I did not state this in R1 because it is obviously noticeable as I point out in my last round. Resolved - The drinking age should be lowered to 18 [In this case pro would have the BOP because he is challenging the status quo]Resolved - Drinking should be illegal [ Again pro here has the BOP due to the change in the status quo]Resolved - Porn should remain legal [ I am appealing to the status quo, my adversary is contesting it. Due to this reason he has the BOP. He is challenging the status quo]RebuttalsC) Purpose of LawIn this my adversary claims that law has no set purpose. Therefore pornography being legal, means nothing. This is pointless and mute. I will address this as we move down further. C1) Harm to those who watch pornThe first thing I want to note is that none of this is cited, but I will refute them individually. I am going to go over some of his points and show that they are wrong. Note : He is automatically assuming that all porn is just immoral and evil. Like there is this pizza dude who walks in to deliver food and ends up boning the wife of the guy she delivered it too while he was away. Not all porn is like this, some porn can be used as a great way to experiment with your sex life and increase your sexual performance in bed. It also adds more thrill to your sex life. I will address these all in order. A) Increased difficulty becoming aroused - falseActually porn can be used as a way to learn to control your orgasms and erections. It is also a way to promote sexual arousal. Couples often use this as a way to stimulate themselves and have more erotic sexual experiences. Porn such as the Kama Sutra can teach you to control your orgasms, how to last longer in bed, how to massage certain areas of the body leading to better/longer lasting orgasms and having more pleasure in bed. In general this assumption is false and I will go in to this more in later refutations on this list. See [2]B) Finding partners less attractive - falseThis is a prime example of correlation does not entail causation. If you watch porn , you are more likely to find your partner less attractive. Chances are there are issues that have occurred way before watching porn. In fact couples use porn to help their relationships out. Such as the Kama Sutra. see my following refutation to further clarify this[2]C) Less enjoyment during sex - falseWhile this can be the case with some people, porn also gives people ways to experiment with new sexual ideas and positions. If your sex life is boring already, people often turn to porn as a way to increase the thrill in their sex life and it works Take for example Kama Sutra[2]. This material is most certainly pornographic but often results in greater sexual experiences from couples that try it. Not all porn is bad and dirty like my adversary is portraying it. The Kama sutra has been shown to increase sexual activity among couples leading to better/longer orgasms and having a more fulfilled sex life[3][4].D) They asked their partners to engage in porn-like activities. My adversary is assuming there is something wrong with this without providing any evidence to support it. Porn like activities could mean rougher sex, or experimenting with different positions and styles of sex. He would have to show this is wrong, which is an impossible stance. E) They needed more extreme pornI am not even sure how to refute this. If he means porn can be addictive, sure that can happen. Also anything can be addictive. Food can be addictive, but that is not a reason to stop food from being legal. This point is null. All of these points fall flat. This is what we call WIFIM in mafia. He is operating under the assumption all porn is evil, therefore we should lynch it. If all porn is evil therefore (a)(b), and (c) are true. This is also what is referred to as a tautology [5]. Porn is bad, therefore (they need more porn)(wanting to try porn and more explicit sex) and (they asked their partners to be more kinky) is bad. Since Premise 2 follows from Premise one, we arrive at Premise 3 which is Porn is bad. This is a type of logical fallacy, where you use your starting premise to arrive at your concluding premise. We can reject this type logic because it is only true if porn is inherently evil and bad. C2 ) Social AspectsI am going to dodge most of this because it is irrelevant. Again he is saying because porn portrays women as sexual objects it diminishes self esteem so it should be banned. I mean not be blunt, but some women like to be sexual objects. Not all but some. That is an entirely different subject and one I am not going to spend all my characters refuting. He would have to show that a general concept of a woman as a sexual object is a bad thing and also prove that women wanting to be sexual objects for men is wrong. He also tries to correlate pedophilia in with this stance of what a model "porn star" looks like. Again I repeat , correlation does not entail causation. There is no viable evidence presented to support this fact, therefore we can dismiss it. I am not going to even bother refuting it with facts, because it is a baseless assertion. Bear in mind this is also non sourced on top of the fact it does not follow itself. C3) Harm to porn starsThis is saying because they screw a lot, they are likely to catch STDS. Completely ignoring the fact that this is often regulated, it is also a false statement. Breaking down his study. That study was done by Huntington post in a controlled group of 168 people that were pre picked for that specific survey. It found that out of 168 adult stars that were surveyed 47 of them or 28 percent tested positive for some type of STD. The only thing this study found was that porn stars had a higher STD rates that prostitutes. Abiding by the fact this test was already pre picked, this type of thing can be fixed with proper regulation. We can increase regulation on the industry without banning it, but also to note a fact that most people in the porn industry are tested for STDS at least once or twice a month for preventive measures. [6]C4) RegulationHe brings up child porn in this, but this is a fallacy off the start. Even if porn were banned, it would still be distributed. Regulation helps control the amount of harm that can possibly come from this alone while providing revenue and protection for people in the industry. This is similar to prostitution. It will happen anyway, but by regulating it we can prevent STDS and stop things like child pornography because of the amount of proper regulation. You will never get rid of it one way or the other, but things like child porn can be nipped in the bud with better regulation or any type of regulation. Without regulation and allowing it happen under the table, the influx of porn and negative effects would be increased significantly. There would be no way to regulate and control STDS , there would be no way to regulate what material can be published. At least we have some control over what is published by regulation.This entire point is mute. He is saying because it is difficult to regulate it, we should not regulate it at all. We can dismiss thisRebuilding caseC1) Economic Benefits. He starts out by saying sex trafficking can produce a high amount of revenue, but it is not legal and tries to use this as a way to show that porn should not be legal. The failure in this logic is that sex trafficking is not consensual, while porn is. He then goes on to concede this point and state that I would have to show that it should be legal before any argument for money should be considered. The fact is that it is already legal and economic benefits is a huge benefit of that. This point was entirely conceded. C2) Decreases in rape and sexual actsAgain conceded, which kind of blew my mind lol. I was at least expecting him to address this but he says" Porn has been shown to decrease sexual acts. But again, this point misses the fact that there are just as severe negative ramifications. Porn may decrease rape, but it is a factor in 56% of all divorces. Porn also has all of the issues I have said above."The second part of this was not part of this contention but I addressed the issue about couples above in my refutations. Note : My adversary concedes that porn decreases rape and violent sexual acts. This point is also mine. C3) Harm PrincipleHe does not refute this at all. I am also down to 600 characters so I have to keep this short but he brings up sex trafficking yet again in some type of attempt to show that porn is bad. The 3 points for the principle to apply are1. Free (not coerced). 2. Voluntary (competent to choose). 3. Informed (has sufficient information to choose).He does not address any of this and tires to use sex trafficking as a strawman to get away from the fact that porn is a consensual choice and does not harm any third party directly. As far as STDs porn stars are aware of this and openly choose to accept the possibility of getting them. This does not violate the harm principle at all. This entire point was straw manned with facts about sex trafficking. ConclusionMy adversary has not upheld his BOP, nor has he provided any valid reasons for banning porn. Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.kama3d.org...[3] http://www.novelguide.com...[4] http://www.wewomen.com...[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...[6] http://www.cnn.com...