Resolved:Should Cyber bullying be a criminal Offence? (Serious/Prepared Debaters Only Please)

I shall begin by attacking my opponents case, then i shall go on to defend my case. Opponent point 1: To start, i would like to point out that my opponent is acctualy GOING AGAINST HIMSELF in saying that Cyberbullying has been decreasing. If Cyberbullying is decreasing, there is no need to acctualy make it a criminal offence. In just a few words, i have voided my opponents first point. Another question, what law is my opponent refering too in his first point? There are various laws, but wich one is he speaking about? Furthermore, my opponent continues on to say that "Cyber bullying has decreased more in one year than it has in the last 10 years" and he claims that the said law was the one that helped do that. But i say that because that law is already in place, there is no need to intrude upon the effects of the said law by making cyberbullying a crime. If the law is SO helpful, why not let IT deal with Cyberbullying?Opponent point 2: I shall begin by pointing out that my opponet actualy CONTRADICTS his first point, therfore making both points invalid. I shall continue nontheless. I would like my opponent to cite the source of the website or study where he stated that "The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noticed a rise in cyber bullying"( if possible please). " According to BBC news, Childlike staff in Nottingham said new technology had dramatically increased their workload. The charity receives about 4,500 calls a day nationally and about a quarter of these come from victims of bullying." These two sentences make almost no sense to me. First, my opponent is talking about Childlike staff. What is Childlike staff? Is that like child labor? Then he says something about Nottingham. Even later, he goes on to talk about a charity. What charity? I do hope that my opponent knows that he did not name the said charity. In the last sentence, he also talks about 4,500 calls concerning bullying. First of all, where are these calls heading too? Second of all, my opponent made a grave mistake in saying "Bullying" instead of Cyberbullying. For all we know, those 4,500 calls could have been about bullying at school, not Cyberbullying. Thus, this argument is invalid due to the fact that it has nothing to do with Cyberbullying. Not only that, but my opponent provides no source. Opponent Contention 3: My opponent revolves this contention around the fact that cyberbullying is negative."Most victims suffer shame, embarrassment, anger, depression and withdrawal." I belive that the victims that my opponent is speaking about, chose to suffer from all these things. As stated in my 3rd contention, it is very simple to just close the computer and walk away. Those that stay behind the computer screen chose to do so. No one is stoping them from getting help. "Is this something that deserves to be bypassed?"I belive that my opponent strongly goes against himself by saying this. According to him, there are laws that do not allow these things to happen. Because something is not called a crime, it does not mean it will be bypassed. So if my opponent agrees that there are laws in place that help stop Cyberbullying, then it is in fact not being bypassed. Furthermore, my opponent gives a very vauge peice of evidence. There is no website called Cyberbullying.com. If the voter does not belive me, all he or she simply has to do is type in "cyberbullying.com". No website under that specific name appears. Cyberbullying.org does appear, but my opponent clrearly stated cyberbullying.com as his source. Thus, his whole argument has just been proven void. Whats more, my opponent yet again gives a very vauge source in his second to last sentence. Where exactly did this Turku University study come from? My opponent gives no source for the said study, therfore one can belive that the study is fake.Now, I shall continue by defening my case. My opponent yet again brings in the arugent about the fact that cyberbullying is decreasing. I belive we have established that. What's more, he gives yet ANOTHER vauge peice of evidence. Where exactly did he get his reaserch from the Nation Crime Prevention Council? Only he knows. He then continues on to attack me for reasons not icluded in my first conteniton. The deacresment of cyberbullying is strictly tied to my SECOND contention and not my FIRST contention, therfore, one can agree that my opponent has attaked the wrong contention. My opponent YET AGAIN contraditcts himself by saying that Cyberbullying has NOT decreased, contrary to what he would have us belive in his first contention. Furthermore,he says that "Methods such as counseling, teaching, and prevention programs have FAILED to work and decrease Cyber Bullying." There is no way my opponent has proved what he said in the last sentence. He is not using solid evidence to back that arument up. "Using Girl Scouts is not a reliable comparison as you are using children of too young of an age; we must include the rest of the teenage population of America or else the comparison will become invalid."To counter what my opponent has stated, i say that he should realize that girl scouts range from ages of 5 years of age, to 18 years of age . Therfore, if a teen is considered anyone after 13, then it is safe to say that the girl scout study i provided is in fact very reliable."Also, my opponent uses a source Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine stating that PHYSICAL BULLYING (Note: PHYSICAL) has decreases" Take in consideration, my friends, that somtimes Cyberbullying may lead to phisical abuse. If a bully says on the web " i am going to beat you up because your ugly" to a victim, one can see that the cyberbullying and bullying have a correlation. The next day, the victim could be cornered by the bully and beaten." CyberBullying is NOT defended by the first amendment."And why is it not? A person has a freedom of press as well, and putting something on the internet about someone or a group of people is basicly tied to the press, because they are reporting facts about that said someone. Therfoere, if cyberbullying were to be made a criminal offence, ones freedom of speech and of the press would be striped.I am running out of characters so i shall close. In summation, my opponetns case seems very vauge due to the lack of tangible evidence. Thank you for reading my rebuttal.