Resolved: cyberbullying should be a criminal offence

I'm sorry to my opponent, sadly I am busy all weekend and cannot post my argument then. I hope that this isn't too much of a problem, and I'm really sorry. First my answers to my opponent's questions: 1) Who actually listens to preachers these days? Several people. However, in just the same way, I could say "how many of us actually get cyberbullying education these days? " The present scale does not void the argument. However, I further contend that the present scale wasn't the argument. If my opponent insists people do what they learn without legal threat, he must agree all Christians are following the golden rule. This is regardless of how many Christians there are. In the same way, my opponent claims all who receive cyberbullying education do not cyberbully, even when they have no reason not to cyberbully other than a teacher telling them not to, and perhaps many reasons to cyberbully, such as a provocation. I doubt that logic. 2) Why are there still teenage smokers? There is no legal threat against smoking. Sure, there is an age restriction, but teens have never cared for age restrictions. They have, however, cared for the law. This is why anti-Marijuana education is working much better than anti-Tobacco education, as evidenced by the smoker rates. That is why blanket legislation for everybody will solve the problem for teens, or at least make it smaller so that it is manageable for counselors to deal with. 3) This was really a lot of questions under one heading. .. a) How does having a hard time finding a job repay a minor crime? Theft is also usually a minor crime, but it gives people a hard time finding a job. I think present theft legislation works well. b) How many good people would be rejected by firms because of bureaucracy? Hopefully, none. It should be up to the firms to decide whether they want to hire a known cyberbully or not. All this has nothing to do with bureaucracy. c) Wouldn't the cyberbully seek revenge, causing the victim to be in more fear? If that is what the victim thinks, then counseling can help! The cyberbully would clearly not seek revenge as they have learnt their lesson the hard way. Repeat offending for cyberbullying is already very low at present. d) Have you ever been unemployed and starving in the streets? Besides the point. Cyberbullies would benefit as they learn a lesson. I think you'll find most ex-criminals are in fact in employment, especially ex-criminals who have only committed a single, small crime with no prison term attached. e) How would criminalizing cyberbullying benefit society? As I said in round one, anything that helps the victim inherently helps society. 4) When did the chair say not to reference adults? A consequence of the chair's decision to uphold the ruling without any regard for my arguments against is exactly this, for if we cannot speak of adult cyberbullying, we cannot speak of the criminalization of adults. My model is still criminalizing it for everyone (pre-teens, teens and adults), but in this debate my arguments can only pertain specifically to teens, because otherwise I'd be suggesting positive benefits to adults. In the context of the argument I was making, I still maintain the blanket criminalization is optimal, and criminalization for only teens (like my opponent suggested, but which isn't my model) is better than not criminalizing. 5) What about an effort that does not reduce the old problem, but creates new ones? My opponent has failed to show his supposed new problems. I have clearly shown the mechanism by which legal threats can solve old problems, and why they will in this scenario. Therefore I do not agree that criminalization is such an effort. 6) Agreed with your principles? When? When you answered my last set of questions, numbers 5 and 6. 7) Now that you ask, I'd like you to read a statute, case, or declaration that proclaims the illegality of cyberbullying and is in force today. Funny that you couldn't give me yours. This totally destroys your point that freedom to cyberbully is in the law, or that cyberbullying is freedom of speech. By way of contrast, I gave you no points that have anything to do with the legality of cyberbullying except as rebuttal to your points. As to what I'd refer you to, what was that legislation you pointed to in round one again? Anti-cyberbullying legislation, was it not? Now my questions: 1) I have offered the model of criminalization. You've agreed with my problem but doubted my method. Please tell me why: a) It is wrong for cyberbullies to be punished for cyberbullying. b) It is wrong for victims to be given the strongest and best avenue of closure after a cyberbullying incident. c) It is wrong for society to feel supported by their government, with reference to cyberbullying. 2) You have offered and elaborated a counter model in this debate, of education. Please tell me how education deals with: a) The bullies once they have offended b) The victims who have already been hurt c) Society once a victim has been hurt 3) I think the best cure for cyberbullying would be prevention. Could you tell us why my model of criminalization does not prevent cyberbullying, with reference to all of my (heretofore unresponded) analysis that the law is an effective deterrant. 4) Could you now tell us why your model of education prevents cyberbullying, with reference to my unresponded-to analysis that education without a legal aspect achieves nothing? 5) In this debate you've tried to tell us that education is superior to criminalization, as if one would cancel the other. Do you not believe, in the back of your mind, that if we had both that would be ideal? Why do you think the two sides to this debate are mutually exclusive? Have you not fallen in to the trap of giving voters a false dichotomy? If your answer to any of the above is "true," then please tell us how you have fulfilled your onus to knock down my argument, being the neg. 6) I gave analysis in my last speech as to why education is indeed less effective than criminalization. I told you it gives accountability and removes the joy of suffering. Respond.