The Internet has had an overall positive effect on our society.

I would firstly like to say that I did not need to provide any new points at all in this debate. It's not simple my word against yours, I really only have to dismantle your argument. Considering my opponent seems to have ignored my rebuttals I think it is safe to assume that he agrees with them and therefore has no argument. I. It is irrelevant whether TV or telephones have led to crime we are discussing the internet. Your second point is in no way valid, just because you can justify your crime does not make it legal in the eyes of the law. People are committing theft, and it is a crime they would not have committed otherwise. Even if you steal chewing gum from BIll Gates it is still a crime regardless of the fact it doesn't harm him in the slightest. "Even if people are turning to piracy, by the way, it does not make them more likely to commit other crimes. It is estimated that more than 1/3 people in Australia pirate, but that has not made our overall crime rate lower." I'm not suggesting it does make people commit more crime besides theft, but I was showing that the internet increases the number of criminals by 17%. And obviously people committing theft wouldn't make the crime rate lower. II. "here again the Internet is just another medium for crime to be committed." This would be a valid point for some crime such as fraud, however you cannot deny that the internet provides an opportunity for people to find illegal material which they could not find otherwise. Many people wouldn't actually go out and harm children, but with the anonymity of the internet are more likely to look up CP. You could try and justify CP but it is still a crime. Terrorists ideals are another problem that is unique to the internet in the sense that someone may not actually want to associate with terrorists at first but after reading material online may not be afraid. Cannibal case was just one example where like minded people to meet and commit crime. May I remind this is a debate not just your opinions, just because you think mentally unstable people such as cannibals deserve what they get does not make it law. III. "Why don't you give me the percentage of that 90% that was actually mentally damaged by seeing pornography?" Okay, 90%. Pornography is age restricted for a reason, it is dehumanizing to all involved and does not give a realistic view of sex or more importantly developing a loving relationship. Most hardcore pornography shows abuse and no aspects of humanity. I must admit I find anyone who masturbates to images of women being abused to be a disgusting human being. "As for teenagers, the interest in sex is biological - if they choose to look at pornography I also think that should be their choice." Pornography is not realistic! A teenagers first experience of sex shouldn't be violent and abusive, it should be showing them how to be safe and to have a loving relationship. "Does it make any sense that the law (at least here) allows them to have sex at age 16, but they are (supposedly) not allowed to see pornography until age 18? That is illogical." It is not illogical. I'm going to assume you've never had a proper relationship or have learned about sex from pornography. There is nothing wrong with sex it is natural and it is beautiful thing. It should not be dangerous or abusive. That law is not to stop teenagers having sex with each other but to protect them from older people, for instance to stop 30 old men sleeping with 9 year olds. Once again your opinion is irrelevant. I am sorry to sound patronizing as I imagine I am not much older than you but there is a big difference between porn and real life and learning about sex from porn is damaging, it makes girls think they must look like little boys with large breasts and must abuse their bodies and that men can abuse them.