> These services use vast amounts of data and bandwidth for free on ISPs infrastructure.

... at the whim of the ISP's customer. The CUSTOMERS are the ones demanding the data, not Hulu and Google.

> While this will increase consumer costs in the short terms as the big players pass it on, it will mean better and cheaper access in the long term.

Or, with Net Neutrality, ISPs will have to compete on the quality and price of service they charge their actual customers, without arbitrarily locking certain services (which they themselves aren't producing) to rich people.

> With Net Neutrality, anyone can access content such as nudity, riots, suicides or other illegal websites.

This argument is completely orthogonal to Net Neutrality. ISPs can be required to block such content regardless of Net Neutrality.

> ISPs can also crackdown on peer-to-peer file-sharing, which is responsible for a lot of illegal downloads, thus preventing piracy.

Same argument, same reason why it's invalid.

> Parts of the Internet could be free

... At the cost of arbitrarily marking certain parts of the internet the "rich people" internet.

> “basic” internet (e.g. Wikipedia and Facebook) could be completely free.

Once again, locking the internet such that poor people can't access the rich peoples' internet, but rather are locked to a tiny mind prison. As opposed to innovating cheaper ways to provide the entire internet (say, Starlink?)

> Net Neutrality slows things down
> Net neutrality is a form of regulation, and that does not bode well for fast reactions to changes in internet technology and use cases.

This argument makes no sense.

> Net Neutrality harms the “Economy”
> By repealing Net Neutrality, different pricing schemes could stimulate more competition within companies, which could be advantageous to the economy.

By not repealing it, different companies could stimulate more competition within the ISP ecosystem. There is no "harm" here.

> Furthermore, net neutrality is said to preserve the Internet. However, the opposite might be true. In fact, net neutrality may not be necessary.

"might", "may". Weasel words to make it seem like an argument was made when no such thing has happened.

> In all the years before, the Internet functioned very well without it.

... because no ISPs had the monopoly or oligopoly power to try to enforce price-tiered internet access before.

> Additionally, the government’s efforts to regulate the Internet has always been counterproductive.

... hand waving, sweeping statement. BTW, did you know that it was government regulation that forced the telephone companies to allow consumers to plug in competitors' phones to their networks? Before that, Bell only allowed Bell branded phones to be plugged in, because it made no business sense to allow otherwise in a monopoly. And those phones were PRICEY!

> This success of the Internet proves that new regulations are unnecessary.

No it doesn't.

> Moreover, the fears that consumers have are hypothetical.

Like your "might", "may", and "could" arguments?

> Precisely, this is about ISPs lying to consumers or degrading content.

Is it?

> Besides, Comcast (an American telecommunications Corporation) blocked Bittorent’s traffic eight years ago.

What does this have to do with Net Neutrality? And wasn't a previous argument of yours that you need to repeal Net Neutrality to support this? Which is it?

> Also, Apple introduced Facetime over wireless networks before cellular networks.

What does this have to do with Net Neutrality?

> With those broken Net Neutrality regulations, the internet speed we have in 10 years from now would be the same as it is today.

Really? That doesn't seem to be the case in the rest of the world.