It should be legal to stream/download movies for free off the internet

Not so fast. It seems as though you're trying to pigeon-hole this debate about illegal activity in general, rather than the general act of freely downloading movies online. In other words, you're basically rephrasing the resolution as "It should be legal to ILLEGALLY stream movies for free off the Internet." Even more simply, you seem to be trying to reshape the resolution around parameters that you are against (as con) legally doing illegal things, which itself is a paradox. Also, what is illegal in one country or jurisdiction may still be legal somewhere else. Thus, your vague use of word "illegal" does little to clarify or truly reshape the resolution. Nevertheless, with my opening argument, I decided to take what I felt was the more rational intention of your resolution. I will continue along those lines as much as possible while directly refuting your second argument's claims. (1) Merely saying you saw no clear advantage (in my argument) of free, mass distribution of copyrighted (a term you never used in your opening argument) movies online for the movie "industry"—doesn't mean I did not outline specific, genuine examples to show how major studios can adjust to, and best use, said exposure of their product(s). Some specific examples included adding previously-unavailable features to DVDs; and working with online movie-distributors, such as Netflix, to show better quality versions of movies than amateur/pirated copies—for a profit! (Or, at least, a share of one.) You have not refuted these specific examples, other than to say you did not agree with or understand them. Therefore, my argument and evidence still stands uncontested. (2) Your second rebuttal here was basically already blocked by my first counterargument to your original constructive, as well as my second one. You're now bringing up yet another new parameter of your resolution: that you intended the interpretation of "movies for free" to specifically mean "movies illegally filmed by amateurs with camcorders in movie theaters, then pirated for free online." As you're basically trying to change the entire shape of the debate here (again), it should not serve as proper rebuttal of my original points. But even considering your alleged clarification of the actual resolution, several weaknesses exist. You said in your first rebuttal that "[p]eople will have less need to purchase the movie or see it in cinemas [if people can watch them for free online]"; yet if, as you state in your second rebuttal, you're narrowing the illegality aspect exclusively to "[p]eople recording movies in the cinema and placing them on the internet"—you are seriously overestimating both the quality and popularity of such pirated copies compared to their professionally produced and distributed formats. To say that most people would, en masse, prefer watching a film of significantly inferior quality, pirated online---even for free—--rather than experience a theater atmosphere, or professional quality of a movie (not to mention extra features of DVDs) is completely unsubstantiated in regard to any real financial threat to the film "industry." Lastly, as I've again specified, I did not merely refer to movies that were "free in the first place" (i.e., shared-profit initiatives like Netflix, Playstation Network, and even Blockbuster Online, etc.). These are viewings of films for which consumers must pay a fee, if nominal; and those fees produce profits. With all due respect, this debate is no stalemate. If you erroneously phrased the resolution, phrase it correctly in a new debate, after you complete this one. Thank you.