Child pornography should be legal to posses.

Your claim that there is no such thing as a victimless crime is wrong, I will refute the examples you gave me one by one. Drugs do not hurt the taxpayers, the government does. While the taxpayers are the victim- who committed the theft, the drug abuser or the nanny state government? Why the government of course! CP increases the chances of a child being molested as much as photos of murder risk all of our lives, by making murders want to murder more..... Drunk driving should be legal, however the simple crime of 'wreckless driving' can easily hold back all offenses without any risk. If somebody is drunk and unable to drive properly, they are allowed to be arrested- however if somebody is sleeping in their car drunk they can not, as their driving was not wreckless. Possession of assault weapons harms nobody, and should be perfectly legal- unless those assault weapons are used to harm others, which is a very important part in my argument so I will deal with this issue separately later in the debate. Counterfeiting harms the taxpayers, all of them, by creating illegal artificial inflation (A mild form of theft), conspiracy harms whomever they are conspiring against, accessory to murder is DIRECTLY allowing the murder to murder, not something as simple as viewing his crimes. All of these are different from viewing photos of a crime, regardless of whether you get off on the photos or not. Viewing videos of people carrying assault rifles (and let's just say, shooting people) does not increase crime, you could arrest people for viewing these videos because you disapprove of the rifles, however, that would not help you cut down the crime of murder one bit. The murder rate does not increase because people are interested in watching this video, they're essentially separate. You seem to have misunderstood me, I said they have not committed a crime against a person, in other words, they did no personal harm to children. They committed a thoughtcrime, a crime against society rather than a crime against a child. The viewers of such material did not molest the child, the producer did (If somebody is caught with possession of CP, and it is clear that they are the abuser, they would obviously be charged with production / molestation / etc ). The producer is the person who violated the child, the perverted viewer of such activity is just that, a perverted viewer. You seem to believe that it is the governments duty to enforce morals. That is simply not true. While some may find other sexually deviant behavior immoral (Such as homosexuality, Bisexuality, ETC) it is not the governments job to regulate either of these either. True, CP is very different from homosexuality because generally another homosexual can consent; and a child can not.... but here is the key point. The person who went into the non-consensual relationship was not the viewer of the indecent material, it was the PRODUCER. While you may find pedophilia immoral, you have no right to punish pedophiles for having a sexual identity other than your own; unless they act on their urges and actually harm a child. Anything else would be thought crime. Please remember that I am not arguing whether or not CP is illegal, it is illegal, I am arguing that it SHOULD be legal. If this isn't the argument you are trying to make, saying "doesn't make it any more legal" puzzles me and leads me to believe you're using an argument from authority. This argument comes to whether the government has the right to punish thoughts and urges rather than focusing their efforts on those who actually abuse children. My opponent would rather focus efforts on going after the sexual perverts rather than the actual rapists. He claims to want to protect children from who would do harm, however he supports the arresting of people who have done children no harm whatsoever. You suggest that the very looking at this objectionable material is similar to, if not the same as, the actual molestation: this is clearly not true. If you are interested in protecting children while remaining just, you must allow people to possess child pornography, however sick you might find it to be. There are already laws covering the actual molestation of children, arresting even one person who has never made the move to actually harm a child is an injustice. Arresting people for the possibility of committing a crime is totally unjust, we might as well start arresting minority groups for the possibility of violent crime, viewers of violent movies for the possibility of violence, and viewers of other crimes, such as murder on the news, for those crimes as well. Might I appeal to the voters for a second: While you might find my argument offensive, please be sure to realize a few things. A. I do not support child molestation, it is wrong. B. I find those who view CP to be morally wrong, but I do not believe that I should punish those whom I disagree with morally for not standing by my points of view, and not following a perfect life. I believe that your right to swing your fists stops where my face begins, however perverted those fists might be swinging. Possessors of CP have not harmed anybody, the producers did. If the possessors are the producers, we obviously cant call them possessors and they should be charged as producers only. Demand for CP increases with more viewers as demand for murder increases with more photos of murder- they're largely unrelated. Nobody will decide to start molesting their child because there is a high demand for child molestation on the internet. C. I plead to you to vote objectively, not automatically shunning my argument because you find it objectionable, but voting on who you believe actually presented his argument best.