Iain Corby presents reasonable arguments for protecting minors from inappropriate content through technological solutions, supported by public opinion and existing precedent in other domains, but fails to adequately address the complex implementation challenges and potential unintended consequences of mandatory age verification systems. His argument is dismissive of critics' concerns about privacy, effectiveness, and constitutional rights through oversimplified counterarguments.

1. bandwagon • The author uses the high percentage of public support for age verification laws as evidence of their validity, rather than focusing on the inherent merits of the laws themselves.

A national poll by RMG Research found that 83 percent of Americans support a federal requirement for age verification on pornographic websites. That's not culture war politics. That's a mainstream consensus that children deserve basic protections online.

The popularity of an idea doesn't automatically equate to its correctness.

2. weak man • The author misrepresents the critics' argument.

Critics argue that these laws are ineffective because tech-savvy teenagers will find workarounds using VPNs. But no state law creates an exemption that says children can access porn if they just disguise their locations.

The core criticism is not about a legal loophole, but about the practical limitations of enforcement given readily available circumvention technologies. The author simplifies a complex issue to create a weaker argument to refute.