Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified.

If pro read the resolution carefully, he would see that it states "Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified" not "Downloading music illegally is not justified". That would be a completely different debate. As it stands, my example is quite pertinent. Soulseek is a conventionally illegal source- most music obtained using this or other P2P programs is obtained illegally. However, some, such as radiohead's album "In Rainbows" can be obtained through these programs, and from the artists themselves, free. Therefore, if one obtains the album through one of those "conventionally illegal" P2P programs one has done nothing wrong and their action is perfectly justified. Additionally, this action is well within the scope of the resolution. "Just because we don't listen to music on record players anymore doesn't mean that businesses should run differently. Her argument fails to show how stealing music is justified. If recording companies run their business the same way they always have, then how does this establish in any way that stealing from the very music providers is justified? " I never said stealing music was justified. In fact, I specifically said that stealing music what not justified. My point about the record companies is that the best way to make music in the record industry is no longer to put out CDs, just like the best way to make money in the transportation industry is no longer to drive a horse and buggy (except maybe niche markets :P) The fact that record companies lose money from new technology is not an argument against new technology. Your argument fails in this regard. "Contrary to my opponents beliefs, the manner in which one makes money and how one uses it are completely related. They are in fact dependent on one another (you need to get money to spend it). " Again- so what? It makes absolutely no difference to the recipient of my money whether I originally got it from robbing a bank or from working diligently and saving over time. Money obtained legally can be put to illegal use, and money obtained illegally can be put to legal use. Let me give you another example- say I hire a babysitter, and she uses the money I pay her to buy drugs. Is that a problem for the institution of babysitting? Absolutely not! Maybe just a problem for me, cause, who hires a druggy babysitter? In any case, the act of receiving the money from one enterprise and the act of using it in another are separate. The horribleness of the one does not project on to the other. "Consider blood diamonds. These diamonds have been banned from international trade because of the horrifying ways they are obtained. If you think that blood money is still money, then I invite you to consult the international community. " If I spent the money I made from that on planting trees would that make planting trees bad? No. The "bad thing" is clearly the trade of blood diamonds, and that goes on regardless of what the profits are spent on. Likewise, if I run an international consulting firm, and then take some of the profits to spend on obtaining blood diamonds, that doesn't mean that my company has done anything wrong- it means I have done something wrong, namely, sought blood diamonds. That doesn't make my consulting firm any more or less legal/bad/whatever. Your argument here is a non-sequitor.