It should be legal to stream/download movies for free off the internet

Again, you're trying to reshape the resolution as a paradox: that it should be legal to do illegal activities. This is different from saying something currently illegal should be legal; by your own parameters, and as con, you're then allegedly arguing that illegal activities, in general, should not be legal. (Which itself is different from arguing that some specific act currently illegal should remain illegal.) If something is ruled legal by a binding authority, it no longer remains illegal; therefore, you have an inconsistency in your reconstructed resolution. Again, I took the most reasonable interpretation of your original resolution, which, on its face, still stands as the resolution of this debate. But you're apparently contesting that you'd prefer a different analysis. The crux of your argument's problem is simply that your revision does not make sense. My specific example of Netflix (among other companies) directly supported my counterargument to your original second contention. You said: "I know of no websites that allow you to legally download copyrighted movies for free. And that is what we're debating, it has to be completely free." As I already mentioned in my original counterargument, peer-to-peer (P2P) networks exist all over the Internet, and have not been federally shut down in most (if any) countries (certainly not America). High courts have stopped issuing subpoenas to college students and others for participating in P2P file-sharing. I specifically mentioned Limewire as just one example; and as of this day, Limewire's basic server is still 100% free of charge. In your second rebuttal, you say the "camcorders in movie theaters" example (from your first rebuttal argument) was "just an example of how people uploaded illegal movies." You then say, in the very next sentence, "How people upload movies is irrelevant to the debate." So while you claim you weren't specifying the debate as such, you do admit to using an "irrelevant" example to support your claims. My second rebuttal might have seemed redundant because I basically had to say it twice, in order to counter your opening argument and first rebuttal. (I'm making my second rebuttal now, actually.) You say: "[quoting my first rebuttal] 'you are seriously overestimating both the quality and popularity of such pirated copies compared to their professionally produced and distributed formats.' [End quote; then you add:] It doesn't matter if only one person downloads these copies, it is still relevant to the debate." So you said it's an issue in your first rebuttal; and in your second rebuttal, you say it's irrelevant. Also, while alleging that whether or not people download bootleg copies is relevant to the debate, you just finished saying how the bootlegging process itself is "irrelevant to the debate." Yet I specifically gave a direct correlation for how the process itself limits the severity and recurrence of this process, or even the initial urge to choose this format over professionally distributed versions. In other words, I argued that the means affects the ends; you never dispute that, but instead claim that the means don't matter, just the ends. But if you don't dispute my dependent correlation, you implicitly accept it—--and furthermore, sound like you're trying to have it both ways. Again, my specific, working examples like PS Network, Netflix, etc., directly support my attack on your original second contention. I phrased your attempted revision of the actual resolution as "It should be legal to ILLEGALLY stream movies for free off the Internet." You respond by saying, "If you did not agree to the parameter I placed in my initial argument then you should not have taken up this debate." But this is NOT what you said in your opening argument. There, you merely said you referred to illegal downloads, which, as I mentioned in my first rebuttal, was too vague a term—--especially considering such activities are not illegal or federally sanctioned by most (if any) governments. Actually, the burden is on you to state where it is illegal; especially as such was a condition of your opening argument. You merely mention "the illegal downloading" but do not mention in what capacity it is illegal, and under what restrictions, sanctions, and jurisdictions such illegality resides. Like with your original resolution, I used the most reasonable interpretation of your words, particularly "illegal." I have relevantly and exhaustingly detailed my arguments and the flaws, loopholes, and contradictions of your own. This is no stalemate. Based on the actual resolution, and upon the arguments, examples, and rebuttals I've put forth, I urge a Pro vote. Thank you.