That Rap music should be banned

As a road map im going to defend then attack. (Value)The only arguement agaisnt my value is that it has no link to the resolution. However as I explained in my constructive that if we ban rap music we upholding morality. Morality is your beliefs of bad and wrong. Rap music is affecting this for the worse. (Value criterion) My opponent states that to kill 1000 to save 10000 is no way to view life in any matter and that hitler was a utilitarian. Hitler is in no way sharing the same ideas because he was commiting genocide because he disliked the particular group whereas rap music DOES cause harm and by eliminating we will achieve a better society. (Cont 1) Slang is not a lauguange, if it was, itd be supported through schools or etc. There is little to no positive impact that slang brings. Also Text acronyms such as Lol and others are considers forms of slang and that proves how slang is clearly a detriment. The argument agaisnt solvency is irrlelevant because the affirmative is not trying to prove that if we ban rap music slang wont exist, but proving that banning rap will cause a decrease in slang. (Cont 2) Again my opponent is saying that my argument should be disregarded because the affirmative provides no solvency. The negative stated that the affirmative's burden is a MORE BENIFICIAL society rather than solvency to any issues. The argument states that rap promotes drug sex and voilence so therfore, by using pure logic, if rap was gone there would be a decrease in the issue. I concede to the point where advertisement also promote drugs sex and violence however the affirmative is not trying to prove solvency but rather than a decrease in the issue so therfore my opponents argument falls. (Cont 3) The negative brings up that we have been disrepsecting far before rap came into the picture and all these past speculations. First of all the affirmative is not saying that rap is the cause of the disrepecting however that rap is promoting the disrepting of them. Second, Yes we did disrepsect women in the past however we fixed our mistakes such as allowing women sufferage and etc. Thats what the affirmative is trying to do, attempt to fix the problem. Again all my opponents arguments are based on the point that affirmative offers no solvency. I have proved that solvency is not our goal rather than reduction. Now on to my opponents case ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My opponent drops my argument on his value critereon and as my opponent states "Silence is consent" (Cont 1) As i continue to state, the topic on hand here is rap music, not if we should ban rock or even if we will. And that we are able to express ourselves to a limit where its not detrimental. (Cont 2) The main argument is the usage of rap music as a stress reliever. This argument is completely flawed and heres why: First, my opponent provides no warrant in why not relieving stress is harmful to the society. Second, There is no fact that rap music will actually relive stress in any benifitial way. Third, relieving stress does not outwiegh what you have to do to accomplish it. Doing drugs and having sex also relieves stress but are they benifitial?No. (Cont 3) My opponent ignores the fact that we "should" therefore make an attempt or give a chance. We arleady gave rap a chance and seen the effects. Also the fact of being open minded is only to benificiary ideas. His argument agaisnt being open to benificiary ideas is basicly contradictory. No, because as i stated the true stament is we "should" be open minded therefore giving a chance, so in the case of rap music; we have already gave it a chance. It is because my opponents attacks are based on that the affirmative doesnt offer solvency whereas our case is based on reduction. And that i proved on how by retaining rap music will provide little to no benificial effects, i urge a affirmative vote.