These four points are the ones that attack anything from actual child abuse to fucking statues, so I'm going to be writing the reply to them in specific.
>61. Child pornography is defined in article 2 OPSC as “any representation of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities, regardless of the means used, or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes”. The qualification “by whatever means” reflects the broad range of material available in a variety of media, online and offline. It includes, inter alia: visual material such as photographs, movies, drawings and cartoons; audio representations; any digital media representation; live performances; written materials in print or online; and physical objects such as sculptures, toys, or ornaments.
>62. The Committee urges States parties to prohibit, by law, child sexual abuse material in any form. […]
>63. […] Such depictions contribute to normalising the sexualisation of children and fuels the demand of child sexual abuse material.
>64. Moreover, for the reasons explained in paragraph 63, any representation of the sexual parts of a child, including realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes falls under the definition of this offence. Where it may be complicated to establish with certainty if a representation is intended or used for “primarily sexual purposes”, the Committee deems it necessary to consider the context in which it is being used.
The TL;DR is that any and all depiction of a child in a sexual manner will invariably cause the abuse of actual children.
I'll start by saying that japan has really loose controversial laws on the depiction of children, (actual child pornography itself being legal up until 2014), but actual abuse (of both children and women) is virtually non-existent, whereas the UK, a country with really strict laws with regards to fictional sexual depictions of children, has a huge problem with minor abuse, having way more child abuse cases than Japan, despite having almost half of the population. Maybe even mentioning Australia, since Australia is autistic to the point where porn of an adult with DFC is considered child pornography in some cases.
Then I'll support the claim with the study used in denmark ( openjournals.maastrichtuniversity.nl/Marble/article/view/374 , pdf related, which bases itself on various previous studies ) showing that there's no positive correlation between media depicting children in a sexual manner and actual child abuse, and some studies even claim that more media showing naked kids correlates to less abuse.
As a conclusion I'll use their meme term "child sexual abuse material" and say that I agree that actual CP should be banned due to implying in the abuse of a child, but banning fiction will not do any good, due to their nature of being a victimless "crime", and could potentially be harmful, as shown by the study.
I'll try finishing it tomorrow, but if I can't I'll finish it by Tuesday.
Also, I'll probably keep it to the /loli/ thread from now on since some nigger bumplocked the thread.