There is nothing wrong with incestuous relationships

Thanks to Envisage for entertaining this premise and providing rebuttals that I can sink my teeth into. Firstly, just a note that the “nicest” comment was meant in jest. It was clearly a typo, I just could not in good conscience not bring a little humor to the debate. Now let me jump headlong into the counter arguments. Pornography's primary purpose is to arouse.(1) As such my argument as distasteful as it may sound is not a non-sequitur as there is a link between the pornography (with titles ranging from incestuous, family that lays together, keep it in the family, to forbidden love) and the desire for incestuous relationships. As a side-note and further evidence of this, maybe Verizon would not be defending their right to offer incest based porn if it was not a hot seller.(2) Maybe my opponent would like to point out in his final round argument how this argument is a non-sequiter. I don't want to mislead, but I really do not see that there is no link especially considering porn is made for arousal. Now, we can bring up the fact that people get aroused by pedophilia, rape and snuff (murder) which is not socially acceptable. However, this is not the topic of debate. Additionally, these acts are already prohibited by jail time. Whereas if father and daughter have a relationship what will happen to them. A misdemeanor at most in extreme cases, but usually nothing.(3) Regarding the link between incest and child abuse con has agreed that child abuse can happen in any relationship “I will quickly grant that child abuse can occur within any relationship”. My opponent then adds a big but. However, this but argument is void as even if it could occur it can occur in all relationships and so the argument fails. As for the reductio ad absurbum argument, viz. less children less child abuse, you are right that is exactly what I was trying to do. I was trying to show that this whole claim about child abuse is ridiculous and a red herring. So as for the counter counter argument, it is unnecessary as this was meant to be absurd in the first place to highlight the red herring fallacy. Now with regards to the family unit argument, I believe by following Cons line of reasoning I showed that this argument is void. While you may apply Hitchen's razor to this argument the fact remains that either outcome is the same outcome. As such this argument is void. Either it works for both our argument or its works for neither of our arguments. As it was not my argument initially, I will happily accept it as a dropped argument by Con or a complete rebuttal by me. I believe in this debate that I have shown with strong and validated arguments that incest is socially acceptable, even though people do not want to speak about it. Even Con has said that his arguments are weak “Incest is wrong because society generally perceives it as wrong (as subjective and weak this argument might be)”. As such all I can do is hope that the voters see the flaws in these arguments. Remember, the only possible argument against incest is children born in these relationships. However, we have removed that option from the debate in the proposition. Thanks again Con and I look forward to your final round. (1) http://www.duhaime.org... (2) http://www.foxnews.com... (3) http://www.nolo.com...