It's time to rid England's countryside of Neolithic gay porn

First of all, I apologize for failing to realize that this debate was originally intended as a joke. Had I known of Pro’s true intentions, I guarantee that I would have posted an equally silly response full of innuendo and double entendres. After such a genuinely impressive Round 2 argument from my opponent, however, I feel obligated to respond with a commensurate level of effort. Let me say for the record that, while I am pleased to hear my opponent is not a homophobe, I now harbor strong suspicions that my opponent may be a "hustler." [1]Returning to the argument at hand. While my opponent certainly made a valiant effort in Round 2, Abraham Lincoln himself couldn’t save such a ridiculous resolution. Namely, the Cerne Abbas Giant simply isn’t offensive enough by any objective moral standard to justify trampling over the local preferences of the people of Dorset.1. The Cerne Abbas Giant does not violate any objective moral standardCertain moral truths may be characterized as “objective,” in that they exist “in the rhealm of sensible experience perceptible to all observers." [2] Objective moral standards are those which are universally or almost-universally recognized, such as the human rights codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (approved by a 48-0 vote by the UN General Assembly). [3] My opponent refers to objective moral standards as "robust moral standards that apply to society as a whole."Analogizing to the practice of child marriage common in the former religious sect run by cult leader Warren Jeffs, my opponent argues that the Cerne Abbas Giant violates an objective moral standard serious enough to disregard the non-conforming views of Dorset residents. While an interesting argument in theory, my opponent's argument falls flat in practice because the Cerne Abbas Giant simply does not violate any objective moral standard.There is no universal "right" to be free from possible exposure to offensive artwork. By contrast, arranged child marriages clearly violate at least two of the human rights codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 4's prohibition against "slavery or servitude" [4], and Article 16's command that "[m]arriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses." [5] By comparing the artistic depiction of the Cerne Giant's erect penis with the abomidable practice of child marriage, my opponent is comparing bananas to oranges.As further evidence that the Cerne Abbas Giant violates no objective moral standard, please refer to the following comprehensive compilation of penises as depicted in art throughout the course of human history:http://www.circumstitions.com...http://www.circumstitions.com...http://www.circumstitions.com...http://www.circumstitions.com...http://www.circumstitions.com...;At one point, my opponent suggested that the Cerne Giant could be preserved as an antiquity, but with limited access rights. According to the logic of this compromise solution, my opponent would endorse covering up almost all of the artwork linked above, including such famous works as Michelangelo's Statue of David [6] and Sistine Chapel Ceiling, [7], respectively. As the prevalence of such artwork attests, however, no objective moral interest would be promoted by such draconian censorship.2. In the absence of any violated objective moral standard, Dorset's local autonomy should be respectedWhile I concede my opponent's point that the financial impact of censoring the Giant would probably be negligible, I maintain that Dorset residents would be hurt psychologically by the censorship of such an important historical landmark. My opponent acnkowledged that "obscenity . . . is a matter of opinion," but whose opinion should matter more than the residents who actually live by the Giant? In the absence of any core moral wrong, Dorset residents alone should have the cultural right to decide what they think is appropriate to display in their own town.In summary, my opponent has failed to establish that the Cerne Abbas Giant is actually obscene or harmful in any way, much less harmful enough to warrant some form of imposed censorship. Accordingly, Dorset has every right to continue displaying the Cerne Giant and his glorious masculinity for all the world to see!Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[3] http://www.un.org...[4] http://www.un.org...;[5] http://www.un.org...;[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[7] http://www.1st-art-gallery.com...;