Censorship is irrational

My opponent had made the statement that "To win this debate I must prove that some form of censorship is not irrational. ", "I needn"t even rebut my opponent"s case but merely provide an argument that some pornography should be prohibited." This is untrue. In round two I have clearly stated with my clarification of the rules that "In the case that each side is seen as having won one point, then the voter may have the options to simply not vote, put in a neutral vote or vote based on conduct and other factors as they see fit.". Which, since my opponent have already forfeited his rebuttal for my argument pertaining to profanities, means that Con cannot achieve any "win" status concerning his arguments for the debate, while I can achieve either a win or a tie for arguments depending on whether I successfully rebut my opponent"s points on the nudity portion of the debate, and even then Con only addressed the point partially. Any final win for Con will have to be the result of conduct, grammar or source votes. I also make note of the fact that my opponent accepted the debate knowing that he harbor no interest whatsoever over half of its explicitly stated contents. Even disregarding my clarification and looking only at my introduction in round one, I have stated that Burden of Proof is shared. In the "New members read me" posts in the Debate.org forums (which acts as a tutorial/rules section of sorts) it states under its "TUTORIAL - Introduction to writing a debate resolution and setting up a debate" section that "In some situations, both opponents have an equal burden of proof. What this means is that PRO must prove that the resolution is true, and CON must prove that the resolution is false. For example if PRO states "The minimum wage should be abolished" it might be CON's burden to also explain why the minimum wage should remain." [1] Notice that the given stand for Con is not "the minimum wage should remain on some counts" or that "some forms of the minimum wage should remain." With a shared BoP, Con has to argue for an opposing position, and not merely a conflicting one. For instance, in a debate with shared BoP where the Pro instigator makes the claim "God Exists", Con does not win the debate by claiming that some gods from certain religions does not exist. The debate is won by Con when they prove that no god can exist. Consider other examples of shared BoP debate topics such as "The American court is ineffective" (the American court is effective on some counts) or "Global Warming is damaging Earth" (Global Warming is not damaging some parts of Earth) - they demonstrate that partial disproof is unacceptable. This is the essence of debates, to achieve a resolution where there is a clear result over whether Pro or Con's position is correct - since if the burden of the Con side is as my opponent claims, then a large number of debates will end in Con partially proving Pro's statement wrong, resulting in no definitive end as Pro also have partial arguments that stand (and especially in this case, child pornography isn't just a partial, but a small portion of overall pornography). Thus Con will have to prove that ALL pornography should be censored, and even then only achieving a tie status. Last, note that throughout his arguments Con has opted to address less and less of the debate's content and my standing, from forfeiting rebuttal on the irrational censorship of profanities, to arguing over partial instead of full censorship, to focusing arguments on child pornography. I will now provide rebuttals to my opponent"s points. Child Pornography -Consent There is more to videos of children than porn. A child also cannot consent if their parents posted an embarrassing video of them online, such as their first stumble, bath, et cetera. Children belong to their parents and so before the consent age parents have authority over which videos of their children they post. If the poster is not the child's parent, then they violate the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which as stated later below goes into problems of legality and prohibition. Note this is not to say child pornography isn't morally wrong, This is only to say that it is not rationally wrong. -Molestation/Rape Our society is full of such material that "may" desensitize people. Scenes of war in movies (violence) and depiction of black slaves/women in books (racism), for a start. We trust ourselves and others to contact those things to achieve further understanding of our society and not be influenced by them - though there certainly are others who break that trust. Regardless, we do not censor those things solely because a part of our population misuses it. The intent of child pornography is pleasure, but like the examples listed above may not have that effect. It may even have the opposite effect - prompting repulsion to child porn for those who are watching the videos with the actions involved. As this problem is not solely in child pornography, everything is based on speculation, and from speculation results both positive and negative are possible, this point is null. Finally, child pornography is illegal [2], and as such is not merely censored, it is prohibited entirely, steering the topic into one of legality rather than rationality and censorship. Actor Harm/Human Trafficking As my opponent has said, "Although more porn actors are not victims of human trafficking many of those who are trafficked are forced to do pornographic scenes." That statement can be framed differently by being expressed in the inverse - although many of those who are trafficked are forced to do pornographic scenes, more porn actors are not victims of human trafficking. As such pornography actually benefits some of its participants by allowing them to make a living when they have little or no other talents (though I acknowledge the risk of STD in that industry, the actors participate knowing the risks), and censoring porn will benefit some while harm others. Furthermore, many porn (including and especially child porn) are distributed underground, and as such censoring porn will have more of a negative effect on the legitimate actors than on the porn traffickers. Rape/Abuse Rate Another meta-analysis in 2000 has found the opposite result [3]. It suggests that violence from pornography depends significantly on the type of pornography watched "... Here it was found that violent pornography resulted in significantly greater increase in attitudes supporting aggression than did nonviolent pornography ...", and violent pornography is a portion of overall pornography and more of a statement on all violent depictions (films, video games, books) than on pornography. It also suggests that we do not have a complete understanding of the effects of pornography as in some studies "... Exposure to nudity alone (9 studies) was found to reduce aggression ...". Last it concludes by "... The current findings do suggest that for the majority of American men, pornography exposure (even at the highest levels assessed here) is not associated with high levels of sexual aggression ..." and gives a hypothesis for what has been observed: "Associations between pornography consumption and aggressiveness toward women could be explained by a circular relationship between high coercive tendencies and interest in certain content in pornography, whereby aggressive men are drawn to the images in pornography that reinforce and thereby increase the likelihood of their controlling, impersonal, and hostile orientation to sexuality ... " Decreased Sexual Desire/Attraction A study in 2015 has, again, found the opposite result - that viewing porn may actually prompt higher sexual desire for both partner and individual sexual actions [4] - "Those who viewed VSS (visual sexual stimuli) more also reported higher desire for both partnered sexual behaviors and solo sexual behaviors." At most, this study shows that porn, contrary to popular belief and past research, contain positive effects and should definitely not be censored. At the very least, it shows that the effects of porn is not fully explored, and that it can be a double-edged sword - which does not provide sufficient reason for censoring. I extend my arguments for the irrational censorship of profanities from the previous round, thank my opponent for an increasingly interesting debate, and eagerly await his rebuttals next round. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.justice.gov... [3] http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu... [4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...