Resolved: Public Nudity should be legal

A2 R1 (this is starting to sound like Star Wars. inb4 R2 D2 or C3PO):The study you cited was bound to family members in the home, however outside there are more people than just your family. Friends, neighbors, strangers, and hundreds upon thousands of people who aren't your family are out there in the public, which makes the study results too narrow to actually address the resolution. If we were talking about private nudity (which is legal already), then your study would be legit and address the resolution. However, since it doesn't, then it doesn't actually address what we're talking about. Also, the dog analogy is flawed. When we bring the dog outside, we don't change the dog, but rather what the dog interracts with. Whereas in the house he might just have his owner and his bed and food to interract with, when we take him out of the house we expand hundred-fold what he has to interract with, and thus the actions he takes would need to be adjusted accordingly. A2 R2:1. You're assuming that the taboo of nudity came from the ban, but I'd argue that the ban came from the taboo. Before law came into affect that said that public nudity wasn't allowed, it was just socially frowned upon. Also, your reasoning for it being irrational reasons are really bad, but I'll get to that in a second.2. Your argument for rationality and irrationality are really bad, frankly. Why? Because what we consider to be a rational reason is entirely subjective. While I may find practical, rational reason to study for a big test coming up, my friend may think that my reason for studying is totally irrational and stupid. Reasoning isn't objective, and thus we cannot hold society to one big melting pot of reason. If someone feels that their reasoning for x is rational, then to them it's rational. It may not be rational to you, but I would also say that your rationality for claiming that others are being irrational is, frankly, irrational. Thus, if people view something as emotionally or mentally harmful, then to them it does cause harm, while to others who do not view it as such, it doesn't cause harm. But the potential for harm is still there. A2 R3:See refutation 2 above. Rationality is subjective, and thus arguments based on rationality should not be considered or weighed. A2 R4:Fallacy of the moving target. Business areas are still viewed as public spaces (while a person's personal office may be private, the overall area of business is still usually public). This moving target fallacy also applies to his argument about the winter time. But also, even if what he said isn't fallacious and abusive, the market would still be irreparably damaged even if they made normal profits during the winter. Even if we allow that people buy clothes normally during the winter (dividing it up by seasons means we multiply the average monthly expenditure of 142 by 9 to include three seasons instead of 4), we still have 1278 dollars per person annually. Multiply this by 10,000 people and we get over 12 and a half million dollars lost each year. By 50,000 and we lose almost 64 million dollars annually. We'd still be massively screwing our economy over. But also, even if the damages weren't as bad as I'm proving they are, the market wouldn't just "fix itself over time" because there's nothing to replace it with. We're taking away clothes sales and not replacing it with anything else. This means that we'd get job loss from clothing companies trying to compensate for the decrease in sales and from that job loss we get even more negative impact on the economy. It's not going to just "fix itself". Again, I'm still proving why we shouldn't allow public nudity. I'm fulfilling my BOP. My opponent has failed to do so.