One Direction should be banned from Asia

I accept. MY CASEMy main contention is that banning One Direction from Asia would be positively horrid because it denies freedom of speech--this right is positively sacrosanct, and predicated on the fact that people ought to be able to do as they wish so long as they do not harm others. In the absence of such harms, you're weighing freedom of speech above any subjective evaluation PRO provides--he needs to establish that there's merit in violating freedom of speech in this instance, and that there is justification in government force to deprive people of the right to express themselves, perhaps via song, in the way they see fit. Second, this action will pose a deterrent to future artists or even to thinkers who dare to challenge the status quo, because the implication is that the government has the power of censorship for speech that it dislikes--irrespective of whether said speech is actually harmful. It will invoke fear in anyone with a creative mind, and imposes upon them an undue, unwarranted. hostile threat. Galilelo, for instance, was branded a heretic for speaking out against the Church-enforced consensus of a geocentric universe, and that delayed scientific progress. Affirming merely reinforces this bias, not only in the music industry, but in numerous other industries. Third, this will establish the notion that, because any form of speech can be prohibited, any form of rights can be deteriorated without the slightest bit of recourse; should people speak out against such oppression, they will be silenced or even banned because the government has established that it has such a power. This is a highly dangerous, tyrannical and dangerous path to embark on, and places far too much faith in a central entity to establish--irrespective of democratic will--that one particular group ought to banned, simply because it, or PRO, don't happen to like its music or its message. Fourth, this will deny people of their freedom to act as they wish, not only when it comes to producing music, but also to consuming what they want to consume--it undermines the free market principle that the best will rise to the top, while the undesirable will fall, and thus completely erodes the quality of the music industry. Applied broadly, as this principle must be in order to be the least bit ideologically consistent, this will lead to a tyrannical takeover by the government, the inevitable end result is a Marxist takeover of private property--no competition, low quality, no personal freedom, and absolutely horrid standards of living. PRO'S CASE PRO says, "This boy band should be banned from Asia because it's leading our future leaders in spoiled little brats."First, PRO fails to establish a warrant for this claim. In the absence of evidence, you should not buy for one moment this baseless assertion--it cannot establish the resolution. Second, the logic is postiively asinine--is PRO suggesting that the government ought to ban, or should have the power to ban, "that which can cause children to act like spoiled brats?" There's a laundry list of items, including virtually any material possessions at all, which can induce this. Even insofar as a boy band causes this--and PRO still provides us with no reason to think that it does--this falls flat unless PRO is willing to ban quite literally anything. Third, this would create a nanny state even if the government sought to ban that which turns people into "spoiled little brats." That not only would expend an inordinate amount of resources that would be better spent elsewhere, but would undermine parental authority, deprive children of the freedom to act as they ultimately want (unless PRO would like to ban disorderly behavior all together, in which case blind confomority to the state, a la USSR, is the only acceptable behavior), and makes crimes out of innocents by reducing the threshold of that which ought to be worthy of conviction in lieu of merely condemend on a societal level. Society can condemn and inspire change from spoiled little brats, should this be an issue, but the government need not act to "ban" anything, because that won't solve anything--in much the same way people still use illicit drugs, or people still used alcohol while it was illegal, they will still be "spoiled little brats" even if the government were to seek to ban it. Fourth, this claim is not only without warrant, but without impact--PRO fails to tell us what we stand to gain from this proposal, or to prove that it would actually work in ameliorating the issue of "spoiled little brats," in which case he provides us with no reason to weigh this over personal freedom, which is why you're preferring my first contention over his. Fifth, what constitutes being a "spoiled little brat" is highly subjective, and thus entirely subject to the whims of a tyrannical government to define. Not only will this change as the government changes, unjustly denying people the right to even conform to it and thus leading to a large number of undeserved and unwarranted arrests; but it will lead to the government regulating all kinds of behavior, and without some objective standard, which is impossible to ascertain, this is nothing more than a subjective evaluation--i.e., nothing more than PRO's opinion of what proper behavior ought to be. PRO says, "This boy band is making girls ( and some boys ) go crazy."This argument suffers from the same weaknesses as PRO's first argument--there's no warrant, no impact, and no objective standard, meaning that what constitutes "crazy" is highly subjective, could sprout from a number of sources that PRO would need to ban in order to be ideologically consistent, and would lead to a tyrannical state that seeks to regulate behavior. Therefore, because he provides you with no benefit from this at all, you're weighing freedom of speech over this. PRO says, "They lead to money loss ( Come on, just admit it. )."This argument is the most ludicrous of PRO's opening case. He has no warrant other than "trust me"--do not allow him to do this, and prefer evidence over nonsensical, unsubstantitated assertions, which will never fly in any debate setting, no matter how casual or formal it happens to be. He is attempting to pull an impact out of the sky and imposing a charge upon One Direction that he cannot substantiate, so this should be considered nothing more than libel. The loss of freedom of speech is a clear impact from this proposal, so once more, weigh that over this contention. PRO says, "We should promote songs from our own countries." First, he doesn't tell us why this ought to be the case. He doesn't tell us why we ought to ban innovation and cultural diversity, and ignores that globalization--integration of cultures, goods, and ideas across national borders--is a fundamentally good thing that improves people's lives, whereas a closed-off country is subjected, on balance, to far worse standards of living. Second, he doesn't explain how this is mutually exclusive with allowing One Direction, or why you can only promote songs from one's home country if you ban One Direction. The resolution is negated.