The United States Federal Government should legalize child porn Wylted vs Bluesteel and Mikal

== Negation Theory == I feel like first I need to (briefly) address Wylted's complaints about my "plan flaw" and "decriminalization" arguments. Wylted keeps saying that I only ran these arguments because I think I'm losing, but that's really not the case. Anyone who did Policy Debate knows that you negate your opponent's plan on as many levels as possible. That's all I was doing. Wytled *never responds* to my argument that these are *permissible* arguments under the resolution because decriminalization is *not* legalization (since decriminalization keeps *production* illegal and merely changes the penalties for *possession* to being civil -- rather than criminal). If these arguments are *permitted* under the resolution, then you as judges can vote on them. == Round Overview == There are four *independent* ways that I win this debate. 1) Vote Neg on Solvency as a Policymaker Judge. Wylted got to craft a plan, and he has to prove the plan *solves* the problem he outlined. If he were arguing this proposal before Congress and could not *prove* that the plan would solve, then Congress wouldn't pass it. You have to pretend that you are a member of Congress considering Wylted's proposal. Because child porn would still be illegal in 49 states, you should not risk taking the *political fallout* from legalizing child porn at the federal level, when it will still remain illegal for most people. Spend your time legislating on more important issues. 2) Vote Neg on the "Misleading" Disadvantage. Part of Wylted's "plan" is to put child porn on the FBI website. I ran a disadvantage to this in Round 3 explaining that many people (like Wylted himself) will not realize that just because something is legal at the federal level does not mean it is legal at the state level. Clicking the child porn links on the FBI website will get people thrown in jail (by state authorities). Wylted claims (in his last round) that a lot of people who get prosecuted for child porn simply clicked the wrong link. Although this is *completely untrue*, if it were true, Wylted's plan just exacerbates this problem because it's really misleading for child porn to be *illegal,* but for the federal government to place free child porn on the FBI website and announce to the nation, "hey guys, this is legal now (as far as we're concerned). " This plan flaw is a sufficient reason to vote Neg under *Wylted's own arguments* (because even more people will be misled). 3) Vote Con because Child Porn Should Remain Illegal, with the Exceptions I Outlined in Round 2. Under the "studies debate," as long as I prove that there is a *correlation* between viewing child porn and molestation, I win that it should remain illegal because if we lock people up for child porn, we also happen to catch a lot of molesters whose crimes have gone undetected. I'll address the studies debate in a second, but remember that Wylted needs to prove *causation* (that watching child porn causes people to become less likely to molest) whereas I only need to prove *correlation* (that people who watch child porn are likely to also be molesters). 4) Vote Con on the Decriminalization Counterplan. In the alternative -- if for *some* reason you don't buy that child porn should remain completely illegal -- decriminalize it, don't legalize it. Wylted *never contests* that *production* should be illegal, so he automatically loses on that point, and thus decriminalization (which keeps production illegal) will always be a superior solution (compared to Wylted's plan). In addition, civil penalties are better than both criminal penalties and *no* penalties because it funnels pedophiles towards treatment, which empirically makes them less likely to molest (as I proved with a study). === The Line-By-Line Debate == 1) The "study debate" I've offered *three* studies here: the Butner study [76 percent of child porn viewers were also molesters], the anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) study [among the group with the most anti-social personalities, 84 percent of child porn viewers were also molesters, but even in the least anti-social group, 27 percent of child porn viewers were also molesters], and a third study I brought up in Round 4 [33 percent of child porn viewers were also molesters]. First, Wylted *drops* the third study entirely, meaning he concedes there is a high degree of correlation between child porn viewing and molestation. The Butner study is *not* the only study to find that the correlation is high, but rather is the only one to find it is *that* high. Yet, even 33% is pretty bad. If one in three child porn viewers is an undetected molester, it's worth locking them up to keep children safe. Second, Wylted continues to question the Butner study, but his criticism is misplaced. His main criticism in Round 4 is that 23 percent of participants were forced out of the study, yet in Round 3, he said they *voluntarily* withdrew (which is what the source actually says). You have to question how "coercive" the study is if 23 percent of participants were allowed to leave. In addition, look at my source for this from Round 2: it actually cited the Butner Study Redux (the second of the Butner studies), which was meant to shore up the methodology so it would withstand criticism (such as Wylted's). Wylted is wrong to say that no conclusions can be drawn from it. Third, Wylted says the ASPD study is unreliable because it has a wide-ranging estimate [between 27 percent and 84 percent of child porn viewers were also molesters]. But the study has this wide range because of the *nature* of the study: it was ranking *different groups* of child porn viewers, based on their scores on an anti-social behavior test. The most anti-social group was the most likely to be molesters, but even the least anti-social group had a very high chance of a being a molester. Wylted keeps saying that his statistics win out here, but he *never responds* to my refutations. Wylted had two statistics. First, his "1989" study merely notices that child molestations have gone down since 1989, and *asserts* (without any support) that this is due to wider availability of child porn. However, I showed that *all* violent crimes have been falling dramatically since 1989, so the reduction in molestations has more to do with overall crime trends. Second, Wylted says that only 2.1 percent of child porn viewers re-offend, but this is a *three year* recidivism rate (which captures only the period when they are on *supervised* release). If you look over their lifetimes, you"d expect about 50 percent of them to commit another sex crime (based on comparable lifetime recidivism rates for child molesters). So, Wylted fails to meet the high burden of proving *causation,* whereas I succeed in proving *correlation. * Furthermore, I provided *multiple* sources (psychiatrists, behavioral psychologists, and molesters themselves) that showed that *causation works in reverse*: pedophiles who watch child porn merely strengthen their urges. Wylted criticizes my sources as merely anecdotal, but he has the BOP and he doesn"t provide a *single* anecdotal source from a child molester or psychiatrist who says that masturbating to child porn *helped* them or their patients avoid molesting. In addition, Wylted drops my evidence from an expert in psychiatry who says that 93 percent of pedophiles are *nonexclusive,* so they can strengthen their attraction to adults and lessen their attraction to children by watching *normal* porn instead of child porn. Remember, neurons that fire together, wire together. If you masturbate to child porn regularly, you strengthen the connections in your brain between "attraction" and "children. " This is *devastating* to Wylted"s argument because it means that child porn should remain illegal because discouraging nonexclusive pedophiles from watching child porn helps them to control their urges. 2) The myth of the lonely fat Cheeto eater I made a devastating critique last round of Wylted's viewpoint that having curiosity about midget porn is the same as having curiosity about child porn. Most people know that child porn is illegal, and most people are not attracted to pre-pubescent children. I doubt your average porn viewer would download a video entitled, "Nine year olds having sex. " Because of my critique, Wylted changed this argument (in the last round) to being that the lonely fat guy accidentally clicks a link that contains child porn and gets prosecuted. I was *waiting* for Wylted to make this argument the entire debate, but he never did. If you look back to Round 2, I included a provision in my proposed law that required that the person act *knowingly,* and I defined "knowingly" to mean that the person *knew* that the image or video contained a minor. So under my proposal, people who accidentally click on links would not be prosecuted. [You can't penalize me for only pointing this out now, since Wylted never made the "accidental click" argument until the last round. ] Furthermore, prosecutorial discretion answers all these arguments. I have had the chance to interact with a fair deal of prosecutors, and *most* prosecutors are good people who have excellent discretion. There are a few bad apples. But repealing an important law because of a few bad apples would be the same as abolishing the police force because of a few bad apples among the police. Furthermore, Wylted *never* provides examples of his nightmare scenarios. He never shows nudists being prosecuted for posting pictures of their kids on Facebook. He never shows someone getting arrested for accidentally clicking one link. Most people who are prosecuted have hundreds or even thousands of images and videos on their computers, and usually they contain *very young* children, not 16-year-olds. It"s ironic that Wylted accuses me of relying too much on anecdote, when his *whole case* is built on a few anecdotes of misguided prosecutions. For all these reasons, I believe that *production* of child porn (which is *very* abusive of children) should remain illegal, and that *possession* should also remain illegal, but at worst, should only be decriminalized.