Pornography should remain legal

RebuttalC1) Economic BenefitsThis was something you made succinct. Tying this with the resolution, your contention is that porn should remain legal because it has large economic benefits. The issue with porn however, is that the contested problem is not the money. But rather, issues I have brought up and more. Although porn does bring revenue, simply because it creates jobs and brings in a lot of revenue isn't an argument on its own. In order to make this point valid, you have the BOP to prove why economic factors are more important that the safety of millions. Human trafficking for example, is reported to bring a revenue of $32 billion annually and worldwide[1][2][3]. This is more than the GDP of Tokelau; Niue and Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cuhna[4]. It is also more than the NFL, NBA and MLB combined. And if 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked each year[2], then we can only presume that the job capabilities are also very high. But it still has the connotation of evil and is not likely to be legalised. The BOP that has to be withheld in an argument of this nature is as I said above, to prove that the amount of money gained, no matter the cost, is worth the ramifications. This argument cannot hold any ground until you prove why this amount of money is worth the aforementioned ramifications, therefore for now it is negated. C2) Decreases rape and sexual actsPorn has been shown to decrease sexual acts. But again, this point misses the fact that there are just as severe negative ramifications. Porn may decrease rape, but it is a factor in 56% of all divorces[5]. Porn also has all of the issues I have said above.This is why it would have been easier for Pro to start. We are not debating whether porn has benefits. We are not debating that porn is good. The BOP is on the claimant. So above, in any case it would be on you. Here however we arguing that porn should be kept legal. Again, the purpose of law as I have mentioned in my premise is a sum of its laws. Thus in America it includes safety. Porn has harm. It has benefits, but it has harm. Simply because however it has benefits is not enough regarding law. Child trafficking, prostitution and illegal drugs have benefits. But that is not cause for why they should be legal. For something to be legal, the benefit it serves should be greater than any repercussions. This is why there is a heated debate with smoking and drugs, and guns in America. To prove that such things should be legal, the BOP for Pro is to argue is at least that the positives outweigh the negatives. At least, Con has to argue that the negatives are too prevalent. This means that in this argument, with any positive claim, Pro has to prove that said claim outweighs the negatives thus should be kept legal. My stance is that the negatives are too prevalent and making porn illegal will fix this. With my argument, my added premise means I met what I needed to do. I presented a list of harms which can lead to things that already would be illegal and things that were unsafe, thus would already be in the interest of the law. And that legalising it would stop them. You on the other hand have stated positive claims. Although true, this isn't enough for it being kept legal. Thus, this point and your previous point can only have any effect if you can prove why they are worse the harm which would attract the attention of the law anyway, if it was on its own. Again, I have to negate this fact until you do this.C3 ) No Harm to OthersNow, this is a point which is effectively saying that there is no harm to others, in which case the negatives are not a matter and this is the only real case that is important. However, I would have not made my above stance if this was true. First of all, I agree with your assertion of what the Harm Principle is. But I do not agree with your assertion that it has no harm to others. But before, I have an important point to make. Hypothetically, if porn fulfilled the Harm Principle, then according to you, it should be legalised. But that implies that somehow the Harm Principle is put in place. Now, I stick by my guns in that you can only determine the purposes of law by its parts. And the U.S has laws which adhere to the Harm Principle, but in my favour, other than Nevada, prostitution is illegal[6]. Prostitution also fits the Harm Principle, yet is illegal. This means that now the Harm Principle has no higher ground. The Harm Principle is not something U.S law completely abides by but just has laws which support it. But the same applies for my stance. As you have not stated why the Harm Principle should be considered. If I have shown that the Harm Principle does not necessarily have any legal higher ground and thus should not necessarily be used above other law ethics. For the Harm Principle to even be a factor for law you once again have the BOP to prove that the Harm Principle should actually be considered legally, or else there is no valid reason why it should be considered.But, even if I did, pornography fails it. Pornography you say must be:1. Free (not coerced). 2. Voluntary (competent to choose). 3. Informed (has sufficient information to choose). [10]Firstly, not coerced and voluntary. Do you see the correlation? The small interest during 1970 and the sudden growth, with sex trafficking and porn? In both cases the fastest growth is around the year 2000. Considering that the first porn website was invented in 1994, this makes sense[8]. And this is no random correlation. For obvious reasons, porn does this. The growing need for porn, and because it is such a good market as you have said so, there are more people willing to commit sex trafficking for porn and prostitution. More people as a result of the need for special sex are resulting to prostitution, and there is a clear factual increase in sex trafficking over the years. Sex trafficking and forced sex acts in return for profit will increase due to the increasing need for porn, because of the dopamine effect. This is harm.Also, I have already mentioned social harm. The harm that it causes socially and creates a need for women to change who they are and become sex objects for them to appease a man. The fact that the ideal woman has been created a porn and women feel coerced into fitting it. The social harm caused by the fact that the mirror effect and need for sex created by porn means that women are sex objects. There is harm caused by the increased risk of STD's from the porn stars and all their future mates, especially herpes which can be spread air-borne. There are psychological risks to being a porn star. If you are coerced, as some are, this is harm. If not, it is harm to you which is important as shown in law. Even if you excuse that fact, it is hard to those who care about you considering the strangely high suicide rate within the porn industry.SummaryIn short, I have made my point clear. Porn has irrefutable harm, and making it illegal will create a chain of events, which there are too many to list but I have made sure there is brevity about during this debate. These focus on health, psychology, socially and legally, with issues such as child trafficking. The fact is, porn has issues which chain to affect our society. Mikal's statistics about the success of porn has only strengthened my case. The money it generates is good. But a good incentive for illegal activities to take place. Porn does have harm. Porn has benefits, yes. But I have shown that the benefits do not outweigh the negatives. Because the negatives are things that law would target anyway and is in the interest of law. They can lead to worse activities which are illegal and have harm. No matter what Pro said about the BOP, he has the onus of proving that the positives outweigh the negatives. But no matter how many positives he presents, it does not change the fact that law has an interest in your safety. All of these issues above are serious. But realise that people now view porn firstly at the age of 11[9], this is grave and is only worsening. Mikal, you now must prove why it is okay for this to go on. And I urge the floor to side with me. Thank you.