Resolved: The United States ought ban all forms of pornography.

Principle of ConsentHe concedes the property rights analysis that explains why consent is necessary for any type of sexual activity. Informed consent is directly an extension of property with the caveat that they have full understanding of the situation and are rational enough to understand the implications of those actions. This is why children cannot consent to sexual activities: they are not rational enough to understand the implications of their actions. He concedes the argument that if this process is violated, the state has a moral duty to prohibit those activities. One key component of informed consent is the non-domination principle, which is violated in the pornography production process because of undue inducement. Essentially, the monetary rewards for participation are so high that they cause people to ignore all of the harms associated with the pornography production process (extend the dropped evidence that porn actors are more likely to be exposed to STDs than the average adult). The second harm is the “only bad alternatives”, which argues that every other alternative is bad, meaning that there is not really an ability to consent. His first response was that I am reiterating my argument. This is false. There is a distinction between the two principles, and I explained the distinction. Insofar as he drops the second principle entirely (only bad alternatives-meaning that pornography preys on indigent women), you can extend that cleanly across the flow. The impact is that pornography violates the second principle, meaning that the actors cannot consent and the state has a moral duty to prohibit it. He attacks the first principle by contending that I am eliminating personal responsibility. The problem is that personal responsibility requires a rational calculation of the impacts of an action. This is why a toddler would not be held responsible for theft and why insanity is considered a mitigating factor in courts. I am not destroying the concept of personal responsibility; rather, I am protecting it by ensuring that it is not abused to unfairly dominate others. This is why selling kidneys is not permitted by the state: the process abuses individuals who are indigent and thus who are unlikely to rationally examine the harms of their actions because of their circumstances. The harms clearly do outweigh any “benefits”. The average life expectancy for a porn actor is 37.43 years, less than half of the average expectancy of a normal American. [1] This information is not given to workers, as is required by law, when discussing occupational hazards [2]His response to the Lubben evidence about how women are coerced into performing acts against their will is a question: “Is this happening in all of the industry?” The answer is yes. These are standard practices used to induce women to commit actions that they otherwise would not perform as a means of “breaking them in”. [3]Negative PerceptionsHe claims that my sources are not comparative while his are. This is completely false. If you take a look at his Lajeunesse source, you can see that it was just a survey, which have reporting bias [4]. Moreover, the source itself admits that it was not comparative because there was no control group [4] (stated in the first paragraph). The Zillman and Check evidence I provided reference lab studies and control groups. My sources are thus more accurate. Ergo, I have won the “negative perceptions” argument. Pornography degrades women and is thus harmful. ProfitabilityAgainst his “profitability” analysis, I argued that just because something is economically good does not mean it is just. He claims that it is moral under a consequentalist framework. This is an oversimplification of consequentialism. Teleological frameworks examine all of the consequences before making any such determinations. This argument does not do that. In addition, he claims that it fits within the boundaries of his framework. His framework is contradictory because he is using three different standards (deontology with the liberty analysis, Justice, and teleology), and all of these frameworks contradict. There is no reason to accept any of them. He says I have not provided a framework. This is false; my case clearly rested on deontological analysis of consent. Just because I did not explicitly say it does not mean that I did not provide it. Accept my framework because it is consistent; he is using three theories that contradict each other. From a deontological perspective, profitability has nothing to do with justice. Extend the slavery analysis and the profitability of sex trafficking as a clear example of this. Sex Crime RatesHe drops the analysis about how his evidence provides a false negative because the production of child pornography itself constitutes rape and sexual abuse.He also drops the argument that my evidence is more inclusive because it studies the effects of all types of porongraphy, and not just one. He attacks my statistics and studies by claiming that they demonstrate correlation and not causation. This is false. My evidence comes from comparative analysis that controls for mitigating factors such as culture by examining a specific area over time and also examining similar areas. The Australia evidence was a comparative study that studied two areas with similar cultures that varied significantly only is liberalization of pornography. There was a 284% increase in rape in one area and a 32% increase in the other. The Hawaii evidence controls for those factors by examining the same area over a vast period of time. He next says that if he finds even one scenario in which pornography did not increase crimes, there is no causation. This is absolute nonsense for a few reasons. First, it ignores the fact that causation is a result of a complex interplay of a variety of variables. Porongraphy is obviously not the sole cause of rape, but that does not mean it does not cause it. (His argument is the equivalent of saying that one of the many genes that control eye color has no causative effect on eye color because there are other genes that affect it). If I prove that pornography tends to cause sex crimes, then I have proven my points true. Second, his argument ignores the fact that there are different motivators for different people. While some may not be affected by porn, that does not mean that most are not or that porn has no effect. If a drug in a cancer trial reduces cancer for a majority of people but does not work for everyone, that does not mean that the drug is not effective. It means that there were mitigating factors present in those other people. The new evidence he provides does not account for the fact that gender violence is being increasingly demonized and that the state is cracking down more on rapes.His studies are proving correlation only. In fact, his studies are flawed because they only observe this trend for teenagers, a group that the author admits have limited access to porongraphy and who are probably unable to rape anyways, as evidenced by the fact that the average age of a rapist is 31 years. His source also does not account for the fact that the younger generation (15-19) is also more likely to have inherently more positive attitudes towards women as a result of feminism and are thus less likely to rape women anyways.His last piece of evidence is unsourced and the article no longer can be found. Extend the FBI evidence that notes that 80% of serial killers use pornography in their murderous sexual activity. Free SpeechThis was entirely conceded by my opponent. It was dropped, please extend it and take it out of the round. Do not let him give new arguments related to this in the final round. Sources1. http://www.shelleylubben.com...2. http://www.shelleylubben.com...3. http://www.shelleylubben.com...4. http://www.sciencedaily.com...