The United States Federal Government should legalize child porn Wylted vs Bluesteel and Mikal

== Rebuttal == *Note: I'm going to switch to saying "I" since Mikal has not really been involved in this debate. Negation Theory Wylted complains multiple times in Round 4 that I am being cheap because I've argued a "state versus federal" plan flaw and for decriminalization. However, the resolution permits me to argue these things. If legalization of child porn by the U.S. federal government doesn't solve or there are better alternatives, then we shouldn't legalize federally. If the U.S. federal government shouldn't legalize, you vote Con. Wylted can't have it both ways. He says that he gets to draft the resolution, so he doesn't have to argue for legalization of child porn produced "for profit" because he said Round 1 that this wasn't included. So when his topic drafting *benefits* him, he wants the judges to give him the full benefits. But when he made a *major* mistake in topic drafting (by limiting it to federal and *not* limiting out decriminalization), he wants the judges *not* to penalize him. So he wants all of the benefits of good topic drafting but none of the punishment for *poor* topic drafting. That's unfair. He got to draft the topic: he's stuck with the one he drafted. It's additionally unfair because I've already spent *a lot* of character space advancing these two arguments. They shouldn't get thrown out when they are *permissible* arguments under the resolution. Voting Wylted down on either the plan flaw or decriminalization is good because it helps make him a better policymaker and gets him to consider more nuanced policy-making (e.g. recognizing the distinction between decriminalization and legalization). Furthermore, Wylted suggests that I argue for decriminalization because I think I'm losing the argument that we should maintain the status quo (with a few exceptions for selfies, etc). However, debate is a game, and the Negative side gets to test the Affirmative in multiple ways. I really don't think I'm losing that child porn should remain illegal. I just wanted to throw out a few more arguments to see how Wylted handled them. And he mishandled them by mostly complaining instead of simply responding. I know I have the easier side on this topic, but that doesn't mean Wylted can't also lose due to flawed policy-making. A) Production of child porn I'll allow Wylted to stipulate that producing child porn *for profit* should remain illegal under his regime. But merely by saying this, Wylted is conceding that under his regime, you *can* produce child porn as long as you don't intend to profit. And Wylted himself said in Round 2 that most people who produce child porn do *not* do it for profit. Wylted's plan therefore still allows children to be exploited by adults (in producing child porn). Wylted says it would still be illegal in his regime to have sex with a minor, which is true (due to statutory rape laws). However, Wylted is *wrong* when he says that you wouldn't be allowed to film two children having sex if child porn were "legalized" because in most states, if both minors are close in age, it's not statutory rape for them to have sex. Only child porn laws prevent you from filming two children having sex with each other. You could try to argue that this would be "normal" rape because consent wasn't fully voluntary since the children were encouraged to have sex, but similar problems are raised in the adult film industry (and that's not considered rape). Additionally, Wylted never contests that under his regime, people would be allowed to produce "softcore" child porn. All of my (unanswered) arguments about how *exploitative* the production of child porn is would still apply. We should keep child porn illegal to prevent children from being exploited by adults in the production of child porn. Wylted claims that because the FBI database would be available, no one would produce new child porn. However, the *adult* porn market is already saturated with free porn, yet tons of people still produce additional pornography. B) The battle of the "studies" My argument here is that the high correlation between child molestation and internet porn viewing means that it's a *good idea* to put people in prison for possessing child porn because we also happen to be getting a lot of molesters off the streets by doing so. This argument wins me the debate as long as I prove a *correlation* between child porn viewing and molestation. In contrast, Wylted has the much higher burden to prove *causation.* His argument is that watching child porn *causes* someone to become less likely to molest children. Not only is causation much harder to prove than correlation, but I am the only one in this debate offering actual testimony from pedophiles showing that causation works in the opposite direction: child porn merely *strengthened* their urges. In addition to the testimony in Round 2 from the Canadian pedophile and from John Carr (who works with pedophiles), the radio series "This American Life" did an episode about pedophiles who have never molested anyone, and these pedophiles say that getting "clean" (from viewing child porn) was a key step. [1] The radio series also interviewed a psychiatrist who said that most pedophiles are "non-exclusive" pedophiles (i.e. have *some* attraction to people their own age), and these pedophiles are capable of strengthening their more age-appropriate urges (e.g. by watching only age-appropriate pornography). [1] Ninety-three percent of pedophiles are "nonexclusive," so it's very important that they strengthen their normal urges *rather than* strengthening their urge to f*ck children (by watching child porn). [2] Wylted also drops my defense of the Butner study and the other study I provided showing a high correlation between child porn viewing and molestation. Also, there's a third study that found that 33 percent of people convicted of possessing child porn were also molesters. [4] Wylted tries to defend his *own* study by saying that Japan and Denmark legalized *all* porn in 1989 and saw a decrease in total *rapes.* However, normal porn is different from child porn and rape is different from child molestation. Pedophilia is a disorder and it is *fueled* by images of child porn. Furthermore, this is not even true: rapes were *increasing* in Denmark during the 1990's. [3] And note that child porn is *illegal* in both countries. [6] C) State vs. federal plan flaw Wylted argues that federal legalization is good because it allows the states to experiment. However, legalization of child porn is an extremely unpopular position. It's never going to happen on the state level. Spending Congressional resources to get Wylted's proposal to pass is a complete waste. And it would be a hard-fought battle in Congress. Let's spend our political capital on better things. In response to my argument that people will be misled into thinking it's legal, Wylted said that's the point: that's what happens now. However, my argument was specific to placing child porn on the *FBI website,* which would mislead people to think it's legal (since the federal government seems to be endorsing it). I don't think anyone seriously believes that child porn is legal right now. Also, Wylted's portrayal of most child porn viewers as normal, fat, Cheeto-eaters is not correct. A very substantial portion of them are pedophiles. "Normal" people don't try to download videos entitled "Nine-year-olds f*cking." In addition, prosecutorial discretion usually means that only people with large collections of child porn are prosecuted, and these collectors are more likely to be dangerous pedophiles than normal, fat, Cheeto-eaters. D) Decriminalization Contrary to what Wylted says, decriminalization is not legalization. Decriminalization makes child porn "unlawful," but attaches only a civil penalty (e.g. a fine or mandated treatment). The advantage is that the government doesn't have to look like it is endorsing child porn. Wylted never answers the argument that the stigma from child porn is good because it causes some pedophiles to seek treatment. "This American Life" also said that there is a very real debate within the pedophile community about whether having sex with children is immoral. [1] If the U.S. government started giving away child porn for free on the FBI website, it would strengthen the position of those within the pedophile community who say that sex with children is okay and "normal." "See!" they would say, "the government is supporting our fetish!" Wylted says that it's worth "endorsing" child porn if it keeps kids safe, but it doesn't keep kids safe if it helps pedophiles justify their urges to themselves as being normal and permissible to act upon. Wylted claims that the civil remedy of mandated treatment would be too expensive, but (1) it's cheaper than jail, so the government saves money compared to the status quo, and (2) treatment actually reduces child molestation among pedophiles, so it's a good intervention. [5] E) Free speech Note that Wylted is arguing that *producing* child porn is a form of protected expression. Merely "viewing" something is not "expression" within the meaning of the First Amendment. The government"s interest in protecting children from exploitation outweighs any claim of a First Amendment right to use children to produce porn. F) Wasted resources Wylted has to win the "studies debate" to win this argument. He has to show there is no correlation between child porn viewership and molestation to prove that the FBI wastes resources. Otherwise, if there is a correlation, locking up child porn viewers also happens to catch molesters. Furthermore, locking up child porn viewers is important because it reduces demand for child porn, which decreases supply [i.e. *production*] (which is very exploitative). [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...