SOPA and PIPA bills should be stopped

The observations made by my opponent was the fact that congress is a long process to make sure nonviolators get harmed and the google and wikipediea claims or only possible outcomes, but that my point exactly. These bills attempt to close down "sites" that have copyrighting not just the individual users. . http://judiciary.house.gov... Sorry but i clicked this and it the computer said the site was unavailable. I would like to point out that the opponent only mentioned things about SOPA and didn't mention PIPA. Now for the arguments on my observations: 1) The fact is that if there is already rules and regulations against copyrighting then these bills are useless because if sites already take down copyrighted material then another bill that enforces this is illogical and useless in its self. 2) His attack on my second point is illogical because of the fact that murder isn't an INTERNATIONAL experience as this observation points to, and therefore is not valid against it. 3) What i said for my third point "the fact that many sites that have copyrighted material have no control of what their users put up. ex: facebook, youtube, photobucket ect. ect. " What my opponite said i said: "The reach of the bill does not cover any U. S. sites, including Facebook,Twitter,eBay,Youtube, and many other popular domestic destination. It focus only on sites that are beyond the reach of U. S. law" now note on the fact that when my opponite twist my words it does help them but if read the way i had it it shows that i am simply stated that these sites have no control of there users and work to fix copyrights anyway. 4 & 5) My opponite stated that these don't have merit in this case but the do because the fact is that 4) if the maker of the bill has copyrighted stuff how can he fully stand against it. 5) If the bill will reduce the interactiveness between the people and its government then it has merit in this debate. 6) My opponite stated "Bringing down websites that steal copyrighted material for a profit are a necessity and a right guaranteed to all Americans, despite whatever camaraderie that may exist between the bootlegging community" but this has nothing to do with my sixth point on an international and global community that the Internet has created. 7) Yes this is the goal of the bill but because many people voting on the bill have little to no experience with the Internet the can't fully understand what their voting for. My opponite goes on to point out that America has always made inventions and peoples intellectual ideas shouldn't be stolen. Now the fact is that Americas innovation and great inventions came from stuff that if censored in the mass way the Internet might become then it wouldn't have been invented, letters lead to revolution. .. what if letters had been censored, telegram lead to telephone. .. what if telegrams had been censored, telephone lead to radio. .. what if telephones had been censored, radio lead to tv. .. what if radio had been overly censored. So yes lets censor and stop people from "stealing intellectual property", but what happens when people cant share ideas and things cant get invented. .. start all over again with letters and wait another 100 years to realize that we should have never passed these bills in the first place.