Depictions of nudity when done in an artistic and tasteful manner are not pornography.

I am only sorry that he spent more time erroneously criticizing me than he did refuting my actual arguments. Thus, I have decided to respond point by point. It seems to be the only way to clear my name. 1) "My opponent has made the blanket assertion that depictions of nudity when done in an artistic and tasteful manner are not pornography. " I did no such thing. I never said that they AREN'T pornography, I merely said that they SHOULDN'T be. Bending words, when noticed by your opponent, really makes you look bad to the voters, and aren't the voters' opinions what really count on here? This is only my second debate on this website, but I've lurked enough to notice this basic principle. Debate is about defending truth. My opponent invited anyone to contest his resolution, which I have taken word for word from the title. Whether or not he chooses to use "aren't" or "shouldn't" is irrelevant, as both are taking an absolute stand on the matter. If using "arn't," he takes the position that opponents are incorrect. If using "shouldn't," he takes the position that opponents are "immoral. " Either way, he is taking the position that he is right and opponents are wrong. Besides, I don’t see how I am bending words here since I quite literally copied and pasted them. My opponent appears to be splitting hairs over semantics in order to discredit me as a debator rather than actually address my arguments. 2) My opponent has contradicted himself. Earlier, he said that "Pornography is defined by the creator's intent, not the audience's assessment of artistry or tastefulness. " In his most recent argument, however, he said that "Pornography, as it is defined, has nothing to do with tastefulness or artistry. It only has to do with content. " This is a strong contradiction and damages his argument. Is it defined by intent or content? He really should make up his mind. Upon rereading my statement, I will admit my choice of words was poor. Allow me to clarify. By definition, pornography is media designed to stimulate sexual excitement. So, when I said it is defined by content, I meant "content designed to stimulate sexual excitement. " However, I do not think this error constitutes a contradiction because I have been very consistent in my position everywhere else. In fact, both quotes above make the same point: artistry and tastefulness are not the criteria by which pornography is defined. Thus, my opponent is at least partially guilty of quoting out of context here. 3) In his criticism of Spice & Wolf, my opponent said that he claims "it is not tasteful enough. " However, in his first argument, he said that "[My opponent] cannot hope to objectively distinguish between such subjective notions as artistic and tasteful. " If I can't objectively distinguish between those two notions, how/why can he? Another contradiction. I cannot see how I was making any sort of objective claim given the context of the paragraph. I started by stating that artistry and tastefulness are not objective criteria. Then, I have two sentences side by side: the first is my opponent’s claim, the second is my claim. I think it should have been clear that I was making a point that neither of us are qualified to make an objective claim about what is tasteful. There is no contradiction here. If anything, my opponent is reinforcing the very point I have been making all along. 4) "My opponent has chosen to criticize my argument as only having 'one point disguised as two,' a clever little red herring tactic. " Both your disguising of your points and your counter-criticism are also "clever little red herring tactics". If you want to look good in a debate, don't be a hypocrite. I don’t even know what to say here. This is blatant ad-hominem. He is arguing against me and not against my arguments. He attacked my technique by saying that I am disguising two points as one. I called him out on this tactic only to have my counter-criticism attacked in the same way. This issue never would have even came up if he had just focused on refuting my "disguised" points to begin with. 5) I knew it would be a matter of time until my opponent brought up child pornography. CP has nothing to do with my argument or my topic, except they share the word "pornography". My opponent says child pornography has nothing to do with this debate, but doesn't say why. Ipse dixit does not win debates. I showed the absurdity of using artistry and tastefulness to define pornography by using the same criteria in defining child pornography. My point was dismissed, not rebutted, and therefore remains unanswered. To summarie my position, I argue that artistry and tastefulness are too subjective to define what is and is not pornography, therefore making Pro's stance arbitrary. I also argued that pornography also had a clearcut definition that contradicts Pro's stance. I finally pointed out the ethical implications of such thinking by showing the absurdity of using Pro's criteria in the area of child pornography. My points have not be refuted, merely criticized in their form and execution. Therefore, I stand in firm negation of the resolution, "Depictions of nudity when done in an artistic and tasteful manner are not pornography. "