The Instigator
Spotchman
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Artificial forms of child pornography should be legal to possess and produce

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Spotchman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,257 times Debate No: 27362
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Spotchman

Pro

This debate is about whether artificial forms of child pornography should be legal. "Artificial child pornography" is defined as any sexually-themed image or video that depicts someone under the age of 18, but where no person under the age of 18 was used in the production of the material. This includes drawn or computer-generated images of child pornography (loli, lolita), animated videos involving a child being depicted sexually, and actual pornography footage or photographs where the person being depicted is described as being under the age of 18, but the actor or actress is actually 18 or older. This does not include anything where a child was used in the making of the material (i.e. a child posing to be drawn).

Ad hominem attacks (Such as "Pro jerks to loli" and "Pro is a pedo") will not be permitted. Appeals to emotion or other similar baseless opinions (Such as "CP is just gross") will also not be permitted. This is a serious debate, so I have made it impossible to accept to ensure that the person against whom I am debating is going to take this seriously. If you wish to accept, please leave a comment or message me.

Con has the BOP, so it is his or her job to provide reasons why artificial CP should be illegal. We assume that if there are no compelling reasons to make something illegal in a free country, then it should be legal. Con may not argue "Artificial CP should be illegal because there are no good reasons for making it legal", or any argument that derives from this. In a free country, people should be allowed to do what they want unless there is a compelling reason to make it illegal. Since Con has the BOP, he or she may wish to start the debate off during Round One, and this is acceptable. If Con chooses not to do this, I will debunk common myths/arguments against artificial CP and maybe cite some studies regarding it, but Con should keep in mind that it is still his or her responsibility to provide an argument against artificial CP, not mine to provide an argument for artificial CP.

Only someone who is serious about this topic may accept this debate. Please do not accept this debate if your main argument involves CP being gross or the people producing or consuming CP are gross.
RationalMadman

Con

Firstly, I don't see how you can deny that after watching a lot of child pornography the men (since men watch porn more often than women) would begin to form desires and dreams and fantasies for little children far more commonly than is already present today. The virtual impossibility of finding porn ANYWHERE (since, thank God, child pornography is illegal even in the poorest and most uncivilised nations of the Earth). Don't ask me how I know, but it is actually less common than animal porn. If you seriously wish me to give you animal porn sites compared to child porn ones (of which 0 exist) I will next round otherwise accept this. The only reason the notorious genre of porn, involving another species, is available is because it is actually legal in Mexico, where horse porn is predominantly made (Dog pornography is often made illegally in countries such as USA because it's indoors and is far harder for police to find or spot) (and I think some other countries but don't know them too well). Child pornography is LESS COMMON than such a rare form of porn as animal porn. Want to know why? It is so immoral, even to the most immoral person on Earth, to sexually abuse a child. WE are talking about someone who hasn't even hit puberty (even though technically teen rape under 18 is listed as child abuse) being DISPLAYED (not actually) as being abused and raped for people to masturbate to. This is where psychology comes in.

As an avid psychology geek I can tell you something most people don't know. Something rather notorious that can only be understood if you try it. It works like this. If you show a person, any person, something of a certain topic or nature enough times they will force themselves to begin loving it. Why do you think horror fans begin scared to death by Chucky but end up seeking far more gore and brutality to get the same rush and thrill? Because you build a mental tolerance and acceptance of it.

ALTHOUGH you could argue that it might save pedophiles having to abuse children to ejaculate you must realise what paedophilia is. It is not a sexual attraction to children alone. The attraction to children is far more than physical, it is the VULNERABILITY of the child IN FRONT OF the perpetrator so willing to let them touch and use them that is sexy to the pedophile. If the body was all they needed why do you think they bother touching and molesting the children in the first place? Why not just say 'stay there' take a video and jack off to it later? It isn't sexy to them. The entire vulnerability and innocence is WHAT PEDOPHILLIA revolves around.

All these videos would offer is further inspiration for child rapists.
Debate Round No. 1
Spotchman

Pro

I would like to remind Con that this debate is about artificial forms of child pornography. This does not include anything where someone under the age of 18 was used in the production of the material.

Con begins his argument with a common myth regarding CP, that "after watching a lot of child pornography the men (since men watch porn more often than women) would begin to form desires and dreams and fantasies for little children far more commonly than is already present today." I would like to cite a study [1] that shows that "consuming child pornography per se is not a risk factor for people who have not [...] molested children before" (Endrass). Con then goes on to imply that CP is illegal everywhere, which is not only untrue [2] but also has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

Then, Con explains that, as a psychology geek, he can tell you that people who view child pornography often will develop a tolerance to child pornography, and implies that this will lead to abuse of children. The study that I cited refutes this.

In conclusion, censorship is always wrong. Preventing people from accessing information because it does not align with the morals of the country should never be instituted. And artificial CP does not harm anyone in its making and does not cause molestation of children. Thank you.


[1] http://www.swissinfo.ch...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
RationalMadman

Con

RationalMadman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Spotchman

Pro

whatever, this should have been a four round debate anyway, Con may post his argument.
RationalMadman

Con

I just realised that there is not way to PROVE that people will do something they see a lot. My opponent is right to say that this is not definite and thus artificial pornography should be allowed to the type of people who do not do what they see.

My issue is that since child pornography is virtually impossible to find, the risk of people ever seeing it would open ideas and avenues they never thought they'd get turned on by before which is essentially the slippery slope cliché argument to any debate like this.

So it's like a girl who always just thought she was asexual seeing abusive BDSM sex (which is not illegal because the submissive individual is always a masochist [one who derives erotic pleasure from physical pain] who gives consent, not an ordinary person or sadist forced into such a position) and the dominator is usually a sadist [one who derives erotic pleasure from giving pain] not one forced to hurt others against their will). Now they had never known of bondage, spanking or candle-wax torturing and when they see, read stories about or imagine it they get the most unbelievable orgasms of all time. They will WANT to do it in real life since a porn does in no way compare to the real thing. They will go out seeking dominators, or submissives, depending which end of the scale turned them on more. The truth is I honestly think there are a huge amount of potential ignorant pedophiles who are totally unaware how hot child pornography or sex with a child can be and who go to their grave always settling for a secondary preferred sex partner wince they never knew their true hidden sexuality, but the moment they see this porn it would unleash all those repressed hormones and give them a far more rewarding and fulfilling orgasm that they'd be like OMG I NEED SEX WITH A KID! It's like when you first watched porn (assuming you're anything like me) at first it disgusts you, but by the time you've seen 20 videos you are already hooked on sex with an adult woman (or man depending). Porn inspires sexualities that people repressed or never knew they had to be unleashed via masturbation. We need to make sure pedophiles never get the chance to realise they are one, or at least minimise the methods by which they can. To allow a man to remain ignorant of his sexuality will please him more in the end than letting him know he's missing out on raping little children which would unleash the most unbelievable pleasure for him.

Ignorance is bliss. That is all.
Debate Round No. 3
Spotchman

Pro

Con's logic may work in theory, but he has failed to cite a study that shows that artificial forms of child pornography cause people to abuse children at a higher rate, and I have cited a study that shows that people who watch child pornography and have not previously abused a child are highly unlikely to commit a future offense, which debunks Con's reasoning.

Currently, there is a large black market for child pornography, and that is because it's so hard to come by. Actual child pornography (where children were used in the making of it) directly harms children because the consumption of it provides a market that is profitable for people who produce child pornography. If artificial CP becomes more accessible, there will be less of a market for real CP, because more people will be satisfied with what is legal and readily accessible instead of risking the hefty fines and jail sentences associated with getting caught with possession of real CP.

In essence, child pornography is just an illegal act being depicted. Artificial CP is an illegal act being artificially depicted. Another example of an illegal act being artificially depicted is violent video games. Since violent video games have been shown to cause increased aggression in children who consume them [1], should we ban them too? After all, violence is illegal and bad, and these games have been shown to cause violence. By Con's reasoning, we can derive that porn involving rape or incest, also illegal activities, will cause more rape or incest, and should therefore be illegal. (Some states even have laws enacted that prohibit sex between step siblings.) Porn in which sex is conducted in public should also be illegal, by Con's reasoning, as it can show people how sexy and fun having sex in public, which is illegal and bad, can be. Why doesn't Con's logic apply to these offenses?

In conclusion, there really isn't a reason why artificial CP should be illegal.

[1] http://articles.cnn.com...
RationalMadman

Con

oh that's true...
Debate Round No. 4
Spotchman

Pro

Vote pro.
RationalMadman

Con

ALL HAIL LORD STALIN REBORN AS PRO.

USSR SHALL NO LONGER CENSOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

YAY FOR EXPLOITATION!
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Computer generated child pornography was legal under Federal law at one time, and as far as I know it still is. It did not become popular as a result; it is inherently repulsive to normal people.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Anybody wishing to indulge in Artificial Child Pornography, Has some serious issues they need to address. Just because an actual child is not included in the act, does not mean the person indulging is such images, is justified.
It's a disgusting thougt.
Posted by liyironhawk 4 years ago
liyironhawk
It is a falsehood to say that child pornography is a victimless crime. Once it were to be allowed, it would create a market and demand. The type of graphics and animations required are time consuming and expensive. The creators of porn will look to create as much product as possible and shortcuts will be inevitable and as demand grows, they will turn to using real children, creating the very real danger to children who will be involved. While being attracted to children is morally objectionable by most of society, there is no inherent danger to a children if the impulse is controlled and therefore not acted on. The concept that someone will be more to act after being exposed to porn or violence is statistically not held up, as those that act were generally wired to lean that way to begin with and you cannot withhold something from all society based on the extremely limited exception of the odd weak mind in the audience. On that ground, many current movies or tv shows would need to be banned.

If you disallow the disgust factor, which should not be completely discarded, then I would still stand firm on the factor that market demands and the type of business purveyors of porn will eventually push for allowing the use of real children or would do it that anyway. It is just a slippery slope.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
All I'm saying that the default position isn't legality or illegality, but rather a position of indecision. Like, we cannot consider murder to be legal or illegal until there has been some sort of decision on it. At best, this puts the BOP at shared. And from here, it just looks like you put the BOP on your opponent since there really isn't a good argument for allowing child pornography and you just want to see them strain to come up with a good argument.

Just saying.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
Challenge me if you want.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
I will accept.
Posted by Spotchman 4 years ago
Spotchman
Zaradi, are you saying that, in a free country, we need a reason why something should be legal to make it legal? In other words, that things that have no reason to be legal should be illegal?
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
You do realize that even if someone wanted to accept, they won't evaluate of the BOP, right? I mean, you did try to justify it, but the justification just isn't that compelling.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
I doubt most people would argue against the legalization of "artificial" child pornography.

I actually would argue for the legalization of all pornography, even if it is displaying a authentic depiction of rape, child exploitation, or incest. Do I think that the acts themselves should be legal? Absolutely not. Those actions are the things that should be criminalized, but victimless crimes (such as pornography possession, regardless of the pornography's content) should not be punishable under the law, even if we find them socially distasteful.
Posted by darkcity 4 years ago
darkcity
You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
SpotchmanRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con effectively conceded. Pro had the only sources.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
SpotchmanRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I won't touch on arguments, but one, pro forfeited one round by computer, one by not presenting arguments (he even stated that pro was right), and then posting a rant in the last round. For all that, con loses conduct. As for sources, pro was the only debater to present them. And for S/G, it is more the capital letters I am voting down, but pro forgot to capitalize the first word in a sentence on several occasions.