One Direction should be banned from Asia

PRO asks why I took this seriously--though was it, seriously, not his intention for someone to actually take this debate with the intention of exposing the hilarity inherent in his arguments? Overview: PRO does nothing more than provide new arguments. He drops every single one of my contentions and rebuttals, and doesn't respond to my arguments that you ought to weigh freedom of speech over subjective evaluations. Already, you're voting CON, because he is unable to issue a new rebuttal in the last round. PRO says, "They do things they shouldn't. Smoking and alcohol is terrible no matter what. Any smoking can ruin your voice. "The reason this is flawed is because PRO's "ought" claim is unwarranted--he fails to establish why they ought not do this, or any objective moral framework for why this is so , other than "it can ruin your voice. " They have the freedom to do as they wish even if they are smoking--and you'll note is "source" is nothing more a word, without a link, so we can't even buy that they actually smoke or do alcohol. But even if they do, you are once again weighing freedom to do what you want with your own body over PRO's subjective evaluations of what you should do. Further, as I pointed out and PRO completely drops, this doesn't establish criteria for banning anything--looking at the failure of the Drug War and of Prohibition for evidence that banning anything only pushes it to back alleys, wastes resources on enforcement, and makes it much more dangerous. PRO says, "I think they are talented, just their lyrics are so bad sometimes. "This is a subjective evaluation, and cannot establish the resolution, unless he genuinely wants the government to ban anything it finds to be, subjectively "bad sometimes," which is nothing short of tyrannical. PRO says, "They are rude to other celebrities which isn't okay. "First, he provides no evidence for this. Second, again, he makes an "ought" statement without a warrant. Third, he fails to establish how this could possibly justify a ban. PRO says, "They seem full of themselves. "This is nothing more than a subjective evaluation, and even if it were true, it's likely true of all celebrities, and cannot possibly establish criteria for a ban unless PRO wants to ban ANYONE who "seems" full of themselves. Cross-apply my response to his subjective evaluation on "bad" lyrics. PRO says, "Also, they don't write their own songs. What real band/group wouldn't? " First, he provides no evidence, so you disregard this. Second, he fails to establish why, even if this were true, it were undesirable to have writers or why that justifies "not being a real band. " Again, this constitutes nothing more than a subjective evaluation. PRO then goes on to make an argument about "fans threatening people. " This is ludicrous because (1) he provides no evidence, so you disregard it outright; (2) he provides no reason to think this is indicative of all fans, so he commits a fallacy of composition by extrapolating from "some" to "all"; and (3) he fails to provide a reason as to why One Direction is responsible for any activity by their fans, or why that means that they ought to be banned. You don't punish a band for what their fans to. That's akin to arresting any artist whatsoever because a mass murderer happened to like them--you're not going after the actual culprit. PRO goes on to criticize One Direction's songs--note that this criticism, even if warranted, does not justify a ban, because a free market solution, as my contentions (dropped), suggest, can handle this. If 1D were as bad as PRO says, and people only listen to them for their faces (for which there is no evidence), people would stop listening to them as they age or would eventually get tired of them, in which case their music would no longer exist in Asia. This also applies to other artists, who will rise over time as One Direction wanes in popularity, if in fact they are as bad as PRO claims they are. His remarks on this are all entirely subjective--even if it were true that their songs "cater to teenage girls," and we have no reason to think that this alone is the case, there is absolutely no harm in having a target market. Further, his claim that One Direction "rips off other aritsts" is completely unwarranted and, once again, libel--so you disregard it. PRO says, "Virtually every One Direction song says "I love you, let's kiss! You're so pretty! ", and they are filled with unnecessary "ooohs" and "yeahs". Their songs consist of the same simple chord progressions, and they make millions just because they bat their eyelashes at empty-headed girls with money to burn. Every one of their songs has the same theme, and they are completely incapable of creating anything original or memorable, and they have only managed to last so long because of their looks. "Even if this were true--and, again, we have no reason to think that it's anything more than a hyperbolic, highly subjective evaluation of their music--then the free market will ultimately determine that One Direction is undesirable, and thus their popularity will wane. This does not, in any way, justify banning them, lest we end up with all the consequences that I discuss in my opening contentions and that PRO completely drops. PRO says, "If they were ugly and made that music, no one would like them. " In what way does looking good justify being banned or censored by the government of any country? This remark is completely off-base and ludicrous. PRO says, "Smoking and Drinking is bad for you, no matter what we're talking about. Do you want fans to do the same thing they do? No. "He is making an objective claim without any evidence or an optimal moral framework--this is nothing more than a subjective valuation of "ought" that doesn't contain a single warrant, or justify a banning in the slightest, via my earlier on Prohibition. Second, even if it were true that the members of One Direction ought not be role models, this does not justify *banning* them. Being a role model is not, and will never be, a precondition for recording music or exercising freedom of speech rights. PRO says, "Listening to One Direction will make you adopt Colonial Mentality. You will rather listen to them than your own songs. Like, really? "This is nothing more than a subjective evaluartion, and he provides us with no reason to think that you can't listen to both One Direction and to your own songs. ConclusionAll of my arguments were dropped, so I extend them along with my case that we ought to weigh freedom of speech above subjective valuations.