pornography ought to be illegal

Yes, you have the BOP, and I have fulfilled it already, you have not. --First refutation--My opponent mixed the order, but ok. The argument here is they are prostitutes, therefore it should be illegal. My opponent now opens up a huge new debate on the sex laws. Now, the resolution states ought to be illegal, this means this argument too considers the "ought" factor. So, my opponent first must prove pornography, and in this argument prostitution should be illegal. Also the majority of his case says this is bad for women. The funny thing is, prostitutes, when legalized, have lower AIDS rates then when it is legal. [1] Now, when we make things illegal it becomes less clean, as we see from the drug war, and it is STILL used. And it would be extremely hard to censor it. The current porn industry has many scans for STD's, one check every 30 days. [2] Now that is illegal, (assume your side prevails in the laws) then the industry WILL form a black market, and make it less safe. My opponents cause now stands defeated here, as the ought in the resolution acts in my favor.My opponent essentially conceded that children watching porn is illegal, which proves my point. It is impossible to ban this stuff, and a ban would to little to lower users, etc. In pakistan, they have a ban on this vile stuff, yet the amount of people watching it within the country is still high. [3] The basis of my opponents argument fails because even if we ban it it just enters a black market making it LESS SAFE, and the same problems with the porn industry live, and get worse (STD's). My opponent then bolds the statement I have not justified my arguments below, which is false. I have explained the benefits of legal porn: Economic and crime wise, then I proved it was impossible to ban via 1st amendment. My opponent must have really not read me saying CASE, which is arguments for porn staying legal. Her bolded statement is false. I think ANY reader can see where my justification is.My opponents next argument is if your interested in intercourse, why not have intercourse. There are many reasons, nagging wives, a refusing wife, you do not want to risk pregnancy again or ever. There are many reasons to have fantasies then procreate with your wive. My opponent also only refutes one of the arguments I presented with the marriage thing. As stated, porn means some things to people, different things to other. [4] So some marriages it will not effect. It also teaches new techniques, discovers your sexuality with your wife, and helps find ways it "turns you on", therefore helping you and your spouse. [4] My opponent ONLY refuted ONE of the benefits presented, the it will not effect you if you have a good self image. This is a fact, as if you have confidence you will prevail. His case here is no woman would like a man watching a porn star, the funny thing is some marriages watch it together!! [4] Like: "With the availability of porn at your fingertips couples using it together is a new phenomenon in many relationships. More and more couples are using pornography to help stimulate their sex life. " [4]These couples have no problem with this, and my opponents case forgets the upsides to porn in a relationship. --Second-- My opponents argumet here is porn is addictive, "look as the sources", and I urge the same. There is actually evidence in that wikipedia article disagreeing with her, and states pornography addiction may not exist. Addiction is a usage of a drug or substance that changes mood, and has adverse effects on the body and mind. [5] Now my opponent has not proven it changes mood at all, just cites an FRC article saying it causes rape. It may not be the porn they are addicted too, but social life and moods make them visit these sites, which implies it is social life, not porn that is causing the so called addiction. [6]My opponents next comparison, again, opens up the debate to prostitution. As I am devils advocating this whole debate, let me argue for that statement too. Prostitution = more things to tax hence more revenues. Also it opens up a new economic market, and as stated lowers AIDS rates from prostitutes, from when they operate illegally, which they DO. My opponent has not proven prostitution "ought" to be banned. As this is the case, I win this argument too.My opponent then talks about it shows bestiality, yet he has no facts to prove any of his assertions. Her argument is education and rehab will not prevent rape, although porn already reduces rape numbers, my opponent ha snot proved how rehabilitation and education would not do anything. We can compare this to Portugal, they legalized drugs and rehab the people, it has worked great, and these people are addicted. No reason rehab would fail. My opponents argument then goes people would not have access. I refer to above. Abolishment would not work. --Third--God prostitution is all over this debate. My opponent then claims people would be kidnapped, like they are now. This is funny. Making it illegal causes the kidnaps as they need to get people to do it and convince them the police wont get them. In Nevada, where is is legal in certain areas, this never happens. My opponents argument is a fallacy, when t is sometimes the laws, not the practice that makes the problems. And remember the benefits of prostitution legalization above.__________________________________________________________________________________________________--Crime--My opponent claims my source is faulty, but this is funny as well. It looked at trends, needing to foresee the future is not needed in this case, this means your biased christian source [FRC] is false too as it does not foresee the future. needing to know who rapes is irrelevant, but the overall statistic is needed. We see once porn becomes legal, RAPE RATES DECREASE. "the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults [7].""An academic has claimed to RAW STORY that a decline in reported rape of 85% in the past 25 years can be tied to an increase in pornography consumption. " [8]"When compared to Disaster Center's figures for forcible rape for the years 1980 and 2000, the four states with the lowest Internet access showed a 53% aggregate per capita increase in rape, while the four states with the highest Internet access showed a 27% decrease in incidence of rape."[8]Point proven.--economics--My opponents argument it will be spent elsewhere. That's not how an economy works, you take away an industry the economy collapses. Extend argument. --First amendment-- First, we can only deprive this right if it infringes life liberty or pursuit of happiness. It actually increases all 3. Also the only time they can regulate speech is commerce, if they feel a compelling interest in nuetral speech, or regulation based on the way the message is sent. [9] the argument only works if it hurts people, it does not.My opponent then asks why does the government tax us. This shows little understanding of law. If the state has an interest to do something, as long as its compelling, they are allowed to do anything. There is no interest to break the 1t amendment for porn. My opponent then says it protects speech, not porn. Porn is an expression, 1st amendment protects expression, [10] it is unconstitutional to ban it. My opponents last argument is it is obscene, does it infringe life liberty or pursuit of happiness? No. No effect on life. Increases liberty, freedom of choice. And no effect on happiness, if it is ugly dont watch it. It is protected by the first amendment. Conclusion: 1. pro has not met the BOP2. Porns benefits outweigh the false negatives presented by pro3. VOTE PROarguments - con, BOP not met by pro, and I refuted her argumentseverything else tied or you choose.I enjoyed this debate, literally our of room.http://tinyurl.com...