The Instigator
DucoNihilum
Pro (for)
Losing
50 Points
The Contender
rwebberc
Con (against)
Winning
58 Points

Child pornography should be legal to posses.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,293 times Debate No: 2364
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (46)
Votes (31)

 

DucoNihilum

Pro

Hi, and thanks for accepting this debate challenge.

Might I make it perfectly clear to anybody reading this that I am not in support of child pornography, nor the production of child pornography. I strongly believe that abuse like the production of CP should come with punishment.

My debate is on the topic of the possession of child pornography.

While the possessors of Child Pornography may be sick, wrong, and perverted they are realistically doing nothing to harm anybody. They are not harming the child by simply viewing the material in any real way, the harm that may actually come out of the viewing of this material is caused by the producer- not the viewer. Viewers of Child Pornography will not necessarily molest children in the future, just as those who drink a sip of liquor do not necessarily go on killing sprees.

While I believe it is wrong, and objectionable I believe that CP should be legal to possess only.
rwebberc

Con

This is an interesting debate topic, albeit a disturbing one. My opponent claims that someone who possesses child pornography is "are realistically doing nothing to harm anybody". Here is the point of stasis between us. Child pornography should not be legal to possess because:
1. possession and viewing of child pornography increases the demand for it, thereby encouraging its production
2. child pornography arrests help law enforcement to crack down on and find sexual predators
3. child pornography fuels sexual fantasies about children and can play an important part in leading pedophiles to physically molest children

Here are my justifications:

1. This is a simple supply and demand argument. The more people who possess child pornography, the bigger an industry it will become. If the child pornography industry grows, it will have to satisfy the demand by making more films/pictures. Therefore, more children will be abused, molested, and mentally and emotionally scarred.
2. 40% of all child pornography arrestees in the US are dual offenders who have sexually victimized children in the past (http://www.missingkids.com...). Child pornography laws give the Department of Justice another outlet to monitor and convict sexual offenders.
3. All fantasies must start somewhere, and child pornography has been clearly linked to being a starting point for pedophilia. Sexual abuse against children has risen 1500% since 1988, and this is largely credited to the advent of the internet and the access it provides to child pornography (http://www.nch.org.uk...). Also, most convicted pedophiles acknowledge that viewing child pornography helped lead them to molest children (http://www.guardian.co.uk...).

In conclusion, unless my opponent thinks that people should also be allowed to molest children, then I have a hard time seeing how he can defend the legalization of possessing child pornography.
Debate Round No. 1
DucoNihilum

Pro

Thanks for accepting my debate rwebberc.

For all of those of you who plan to vote on this debate I must ask you to objectively look at both of our arguments and vote based on who you think honestly won this debate. I understand this is a controversial topic and it is a strong possibility that some of you might immediately vote, assuming I am incorrect without even reading my arguments, but please at least give me a fighting chance before saying I lost.

My opponent wrongfully assumes that for me to believe possession of child pornography to be legal, child molestation should as well. This assumption is boldly incorrect, even by his own statistics and reasoning.

The CP industry is a special industry in many respects. Firstly, while most products demand increases drastically as price moves closer to zero (Such as, for example, holywood movies. If free DVD's were being given away for popular movies, a very large number of people would try to get them, depending on the circumstances). However, when CP is distributed a very small amount of people are interested in it- even if the price is zero. Secondly, as most modern CP (By your own argument) is distributed over the Internet, thusly, even with relatively high demand- scarcity is almost impossible, and does not come with more people desiring it. Furthermore, most people would be absolutely repulsed by the very idea of CP and not seek it if it were legal, I suggest that the occurrences of CP would hardly be effected at all. Look at other black market industries, like those of drugs and prostitution. Going after the possessors (Or johns) stops a very small amount of people, and barely puts a dent in the demand. In fact, it effects demand so lightly that it hardly takes a hit. However, when the supply is taken down the supplier is unable to supply his or her multiple clients. When the US invaded Afghanistan Opioid production dropped significantly, they did this by removing the supply- not the millions upon millions of opioid abusers. Lastly, CP is arguably not an industry. Typically, for something to be considered an industry, it has to be a "Commercial enterprise". CP has very few instances of commercial production, and in my research a majority of the arrests are for production at home for distribution on the internet, though IRC, P2P, FTP, and the like- not commercial production. It would not be logical to think that if less people were getting arrested for CP possession people would decide "Maybe I SHOULD molest my kids, after all, I can get 10 people to download my file on the internet when I could only previously get 7!"

By your own statistic, 60% of arrests have never sexually victimized a single child. Meaning 60% of those arrested are totally innocent, and have not committed a crime where there has been a victim. These people are not out molesting children, they're looking at (albeit disturbing) images. We already have laws covering the molestation of children, it would be far more logical to go after the actual molesters than /potential/ molesters. It is somewhat comparable to outlawing pornography to prevent prostitution, or perhaps rape. Outlawing something for the slight possibility of somebody ALSO doing something illegal while doing something legally innocent is against Liberty. In some areas, Black people tend to commit more crimes than whites. Does that mean we should round up all black persons into jails, for having a /possibility/ of committing crimes in the future? Should we round up those who view pornography for the /possibility/ that they will later rape? Should we round up those who drink for the possibility that they may commit violence? Should we outlaw guns, for the possibility that they will be used unjustly? No- there are laws against all of these behaviors already, we do not need to throw innocent people into the mix.

Fantasies are just that- fantasies. Outlawing fantasies is thought crime at best. There are already laws preventing child sexual abuse without throwing innocent fantasizers into the mix. Do Pedophiles necessarily commit sexual crimes against children? You would think so- but many sexual abusers are situational abusers rather than pedophiles. I disagree that sexual abuse has risen 1500% since 1988, it is much more likely that it is now easier for (1) the abused to report their crimes to the police, due to social change. and (2) police to catch (and notice) sexual abuse, as as you said it might be posted on the net rather than in photographs. Police no longer need informants, they just need to get into the net- find it, and prosecute. While convicted pedophiles may claim that pornography may have helped them lead to molesting children, it does not necessarily go the other way. In other words, viewing such does not necessarily make you a sexual abuser- it just makes you a viewer. I'm sure most rapists are fueled by hard core pornography- yet hard core pornography is still legal.... why? Because of choice. People, upon viewing child pornography (or hard core pornography) have committed thought crime by the viewing of it, but have only committed actual crime when they CHOOSE to act on these fantasies. A fantasy is perfectly alright, many people have many different kinds of fantasies- some of them more main stream, and some of them absolutely 'weird'- however, unless those fantasies transcend into real life- in which another person is harmed, they have not caused any harm and should not be punished.
rwebberc

Con

My opponent can make whatever claims he wants, but this is a fact that cannot be disputed: CP (I will adopt this usage from here on out as well) is a criminal exploitation of a child's rights. Legalizing the viewing of such criminal behavior is to be indirectly complicit with that criminal act, and a person who is in possession of CP is very likely to be an active child abuser already or is on a path that will lead him to become one (http://www.csecworldcongress.org...).

Let's look at some of my opponent's claims from the previous round:

"60% of those arrested are totally innocent"

This is simply untrue, the fact is that possession of CP IS a crime, and therefore they are guilty of it. As far as possession of CP being a victimless crime, that is merely semantics. A crime was committed for that image or video to be produced, and the person in possession of it is propagating that crime. Also, since that time I have come across other studies with different numbers. One, done by the Chicago PD, found that "almost all" of the persons they arrested for CP possession had photos of themselves having sex with children(http://www.csecworldcongress.org...). Another, conducted by US Customs, found that "over 80% of those who buy child pornography are active abusers" and they suspected that a significant proportion of the rest simply had not been caught (http://www.csecworldcongress.org...).

"Look at other black market industries, like those of drugs and prostitution. Going after the possessors (Or johns) stops a very small amount of people."

My opponent makes reference to these to industries in order to equate them with CP possession as a supposed victimless, or public order, crime. However, unlike these two industries, the perpetrator is knowingly taking advantage of the exploitation of a child. This in itself makes the act morally and criminally reprehensible. As far as the deterrence argument goes, that doesn't make it right. Laws against theft do little to deter most thieves, but that in no way justifies the decriminalization of theft. Theft may not be a "victimless" crime, but the logic still applies.

"I disagree that sexual abuse has risen 1500% since 1988"

Putting aside the fact that you haven't come up with any evidence to back up your theories, I will address your claim nonetheless. According to the United States Department of Justice, child pornography had been all but eradicated by the mid-1980's (http://www.usdoj.gov...), but with the advent of the internet, CP has become exponentially more popular. And guess who consumes 62.7% of the world's CP now? That's right, the United States (http://www.csecworldcongress.org...).

Whether my opponent agrees or not, the US has become the world's leading consumer of this abhorrent material, and the only way we can crack down on it is by arresting those who possess and view it. Most CP comes from Eastern Europe or Asia, places outside our jurisdiction. As my opponent has said, the market for CP is very small, and the majority of the material is consumed by a very small number of people. A 2003 sting in which 1,300 people were arrested produced nearly a billion images. Each arrest takes away a significant portion of the market when compared to other industries. Your argument that these are simply fantasies holds no water. Fantasies involve one's own imagination; CP involves the graphic sexual exploitation of an innocent child.
Debate Round No. 2
DucoNihilum

Pro

And I agree that the production o CP is a criminal exploitation of a child- however, when somebody producers CP who is doing the exploiting? Who is the person who is actually harming the child? Obviously the producer is the person who made the video or took the photos, and is thusly the one who harmed the child. The producer is the one whom distributed the CP, further causing harm to the child. The viewer caused no harm to the child at all. Pictures and videos of other crimes such as murder, arson, and other serious criminal offenses are all widely available- both real and fake. Few people, however, would suggest that possession of videos or pictures depicting other tragedies cause them to happen more often, as there is more 'demand' for them. The video or pictures of the abuse is happenstance, and unrelated to it in the way you're trying to relate it to. People do not abuse their children to pleasure people on the internet.

If you claim that my claim that 60% of the people arrested are innocent, you deny your very own statistics, which state "40% of all child pornography arrestees in the US are dual offenders who have sexually victimized children in the past (http://www.missingkids.com......).", meaning that 60% of all CP offenders had no prior convictions of child abuse. Regardless of whether or not you contradict your own statements, it is clear that you are trying to correlate CP with child sexual abuse, why? Because child sexual abuse is the BAD thing- CP itself is not legally bad. Even if a single person is arrested for possession of CP, even if he had molested a child, is unjust. They have already committed a crime, the crime of child sexual abuse (if they had committed such), and therefore will already be punished for it. There is absolutely no sense in punishing somebody for the chance that they may be committing another crime when you can simply charge the real criminals.

You yourself claim that the "perpetrator" is knowingly taking advantage of a child- I contend that the perpetrator should indeed be punished severely. The viewer of the CP is not taking advantage of a child, the producer is. Laws against theft, while not deterring thieves strongly, are absolute. If somebody stole my laptop, he stole something of mine. I am the victim, my rights have been violated. As far as CP goes, it is simply a deterrent crime, such as outlawing guns, alcohol, colored people, knifes, or anything else that 'might' correlate with another serious crime with a victim.

Each arrest could not take away as much of the market as arresting a producer, the real criminal, could.

You suggest we throw innocent people* in jail for thoughtcrime, before they even made the move to molest a child.

*I know you don't like me calling them innocent, because you believe they have committed a crime- however, they have not committed a crime against a person. You can not name a victim they harmed directly. The producer of the CP harmed the child by not only producing the material, but molesting the child and distributing it across the net, or other media, causing substantial damage. The viewer is just a by-product, and has had no direct contact in the abusing of the child or the distribution of the material, both of which can be pinned on the producer.
rwebberc

Con

Apparently my opponent insists on playing the "victimless" card in this debate. So I suppose it is my job to refute this standpoint. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. Drugs hurt the taxpayer's who must pay for their rehabilitation, and CP harms all children by its presence, increasing the likelihood that they will be sexually abused in the future. I doubt my opponent denies that the mere presence of CP increases the risk of child molestation. Simply because children don't complain about the danger they are in due to the presence of CP doesn't mean that there isn't a direct victim. Also, the "no direct victim" definition for a crime discounts other crimes which are equally serious, such as drunk driving, possession of an assault weapon, counterfeiting, conspiracy (to commit murder, terrorism, etc), accessory to murder, attempted murder, and the list goes on.

"I know you don't like me calling them innocent, because you believe they have committed a crime- however, they have not committed a crime against a person. You can not name a victim they harmed directly."

Here are the four definitions of crime given by the American Heritage Dictionary

1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.

I suppose you could argue that the fourth definition supports your argument, however it is a figurative use of the word. Other than that, CP possession violates all of the above definitions. The first two are obvious, and I think it is generally accepted in our society that to derive sexual pleasure from the graphic exploitation of a child is immoral. So yes, they have committed a crime. I have already addressed your supposed "no direct victim" defense.

I agree with you that child pornography is a less concrete area than theft; however that doesn't make it any more legal. This argument boils down to whether the rights of the citizen to derive pleasure from the rape, sodomizing, and exploitation of a child outweigh our obligation to protect children from those who would do them harm. I believe the latter far exceeds the former in importance.
Debate Round No. 3
DucoNihilum

Pro

Your claim that there is no such thing as a victimless crime is wrong, I will refute the examples you gave me one by one.

Drugs do not hurt the taxpayers, the government does. While the taxpayers are the victim- who committed the theft, the drug abuser or the nanny state government? Why the government of course! CP increases the chances of a child being molested as much as photos of murder risk all of our lives, by making murders want to murder more..... Drunk driving should be legal, however the simple crime of 'wreckless driving' can easily hold back all offenses without any risk. If somebody is drunk and unable to drive properly, they are allowed to be arrested- however if somebody is sleeping in their car drunk they can not, as their driving was not wreckless. Possession of assault weapons harms nobody, and should be perfectly legal- unless those assault weapons are used to harm others, which is a very important part in my argument so I will deal with this issue separately later in the debate. Counterfeiting harms the taxpayers, all of them, by creating illegal artificial inflation (A mild form of theft), conspiracy harms whomever they are conspiring against, accessory to murder is DIRECTLY allowing the murder to murder, not something as simple as viewing his crimes. All of these are different from viewing photos of a crime, regardless of whether you get off on the photos or not. Viewing videos of people carrying assault rifles (and let's just say, shooting people) does not increase crime, you could arrest people for viewing these videos because you disapprove of the rifles, however, that would not help you cut down the crime of murder one bit. The murder rate does not increase because people are interested in watching this video, they're essentially separate.

You seem to have misunderstood me, I said they have not committed a crime against a person, in other words, they did no personal harm to children. They committed a thoughtcrime, a crime against society rather than a crime against a child. The viewers of such material did not molest the child, the producer did (If somebody is caught with possession of CP, and it is clear that they are the abuser, they would obviously be charged with production / molestation / etc ). The producer is the person who violated the child, the perverted viewer of such activity is just that, a perverted viewer.

You seem to believe that it is the governments duty to enforce morals. That is simply not true. While some may find other sexually deviant behavior immoral (Such as homosexuality, Bisexuality, ETC) it is not the governments job to regulate either of these either. True, CP is very different from homosexuality because generally another homosexual can consent; and a child can not.... but here is the key point. The person who went into the non-consensual relationship was not the viewer of the indecent material, it was the PRODUCER. While you may find pedophilia immoral, you have no right to punish pedophiles for having a sexual identity other than your own; unless they act on their urges and actually harm a child. Anything else would be thought crime.

Please remember that I am not arguing whether or not CP is illegal, it is illegal, I am arguing that it SHOULD be legal. If this isn't the argument you are trying to make, saying "doesn't make it any more legal" puzzles me and leads me to believe you're using an argument from authority.

This argument comes to whether the government has the right to punish thoughts and urges rather than focusing their efforts on those who actually abuse children. My opponent would rather focus efforts on going after the sexual perverts rather than the actual rapists. He claims to want to protect children from who would do harm, however he supports the arresting of people who have done children no harm whatsoever. You suggest that the very looking at this objectionable material is similar to, if not the same as, the actual molestation: this is clearly not true. If you are interested in protecting children while remaining just, you must allow people to possess child pornography, however sick you might find it to be. There are already laws covering the actual molestation of children, arresting even one person who has never made the move to actually harm a child is an injustice. Arresting people for the possibility of committing a crime is totally unjust, we might as well start arresting minority groups for the possibility of violent crime, viewers of violent movies for the possibility of violence, and viewers of other crimes, such as murder on the news, for those crimes as well.

Might I appeal to the voters for a second:

While you might find my argument offensive, please be sure to realize a few things.

A. I do not support child molestation, it is wrong.

B. I find those who view CP to be morally wrong, but I do not believe that I should punish those whom I disagree with morally for not standing by my points of view, and not following a perfect life. I believe that your right to swing your fists stops where my face begins, however perverted those fists might be swinging. Possessors of CP have not harmed anybody, the producers did. If the possessors are the producers, we obviously cant call them possessors and they should be charged as producers only. Demand for CP increases with more viewers as demand for murder increases with more photos of murder- they're largely unrelated. Nobody will decide to start molesting their child because there is a high demand for child molestation on the internet.

C. I plead to you to vote objectively, not automatically shunning my argument because you find it objectionable, but voting on who you believe actually presented his argument best.
rwebberc

Con

I agree with my opponent that this debate should be judged based on the arguments, not the viewpoint each debater is representing.

Let me also point out that my opponent believes that drunk driving and the possession of dangerous and unnecessary assault weapons should be legal. You will not find a country in the world where drunk driving is legal. This should give you insight into his skewed logic. Also, his claim about conspiracy is weak. Conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism does not harm anyone; it is the act of murder or terrorism which harms them. Just as viewing CP doesn't "harm" anyone, the act of producing it does. Someone might be conspiring to murder me right now, but I don't know because it doesn't directly impact me. Perhaps my opponent believes this should be legal as well?

The difference between CP and a video of a murder is that the tape of the murder wasn't made explicitly for the enjoyment of its viewers. The murder was going to occur anyway, and the cameraman either happened to see it or wanted it as proof that the murder occurred (i.e. Budd Dwyer, Daniel Pearl). If there were a wide demand for murder videos for people's sexual fantasies, I think we would see a different attitude towards them.

My opponent's argument centers upon these two points:

1. Possessing CP does not harm any specific person; the damage has been done by the producer

2. However perverted we may think sexual fantasies about children may be, possessors of CP have the right to these fantasies

I have already argued about the dangers of allowing people to view these images, as they often lead to the viewer physically abusing a child. However, I will now address these claims from a different perspective.

Each and every time a CP image is viewed, that child is victimized again. The lives of these children have already been permanently changed, and the abuse they have suffered is inescapable as the images are circulated around the world. The damage of this enduring reminder of their exploitation is something which should be minimized at all costs.

Next, even if I was to concede that a person's sexual fantasies about children are harmless; they have other outlets for these fantasies which are already legal and less harmful. The main example of this are the digitally altered photos which have been made to look like CP. Pseudo-CP, as some people refer to it, contains the face of a child superimposed onto the body of someone who is over the age of 18. While still disturbing, it allows pedophiles to indulge in their fantasies without possessing an image of an actual child who has been raped or otherwise victimized. In this scenario, there is no need for actual CP to be produced, and it's already legal.

When thinking about this matter, we must seriously consider the effects of these images on the children who are depicted in them. The following is an excerpt from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's information section about CP:

It is important to realize these images can have a devastating and lasting effect on children. In addition to any physical injuries they can suffer in the course of their molestation, such as genital bruising, lacerations, or exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, child victims can also experience depression, withdrawal, anger, and other psychological disorders.24 Such effects may continue into adulthood. For instance women abused as children have statistically significant higher rates of nightmares, back pain, headaches, pelvic pain, eating binges, and other similar symptoms.25 Child victims also frequently experience feelings of guilt and responsibility for the abuse and betrayal, a sense of powerlessness, and feelings of worthlessness and low self-esteem.26 These feelings are often expressed through increased fearfulness and changes in sleep patterns including re-occurring memories, flashbacks, dreams, and nightmares associated with posttraumatic stress.27 Younger children tend to externalize stress by re-enacting sexual activities through play, while adolescents may experience negative effects on their growing sexuality as a result of inappropriate early sexual experiences.28

The lives of children featured in these illegal images are forever altered, not only by the molestation but by the permanent record of the exploitation. Once sexual exploitation takes place, the molester may document these encounters on film or video. This documentation can then become the "ammunition" needed to blackmail the child into further submission, which is necessary to continue the relationship and maintain its secrecy. In addition these documented images allow molesters to "relive" their sexual fantasies with children long after the exploitation has stopped.

(http://www.missingkids.com...)

This is not something which we should take lightly. These are not just fantasies; they are the manifestations of dangerous minds. As far as whether or not it is our country's duty to insert at least some semblance of morality into its citizens, I will leave you with this quote by one of the fathers of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine: "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary."
Debate Round No. 4
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jm1983 5 years ago
jm1983
First off i am not for the legalization of child pornography, because it is wrong. But I don't like the way people are being treated over this matter. Let me give a couple of examples

I dated a woman named heather she was 35 years old and had a 14 year old daughter. heather told the story in front of her colleagues of the following. Basically her daughter ended up at some friends house and stayed the night, her friends brother was 23. That night heathers daughter slipped into the guys room and started flirting with him, he told her to leave then she started grabbing a hold of his private and trying to kiss him. one thing lead to another and the guy had sex with the 14 year old girl. Even though the 14 year old girl started it and through herself at the 23 year old by trying to kiss him and grabbing his privates. The 23 year old was now considered a child rapist and was on the run. Then she laughed about how they finally found the guy. I was shocked at this conversation, the mom has said every word that I have typed here. She then went on to say that even though her daughter entered the mans room and initiated contact and started grabbing and flirting, her daughter was not at fault it was t mans fault. And that all men are nothing more than pigs that deserve to go to jail.

Also many people have committed suicide over this crap. And I am talking about innocent men that never done anything at all. One mans internet was hacked and his neighbor downloaded child porn, the wrong man was arrested and his name was ruined, his children were taken away, and he committed suicide in his garage leaving his wife and 2 children behind. It was later found the man was innocent and his neighbor down the street was later arrested.

Also cops are setting up hyperlinks and even going around mailing people what appears to be child porn links and if you accidentally click it, your house is raided and you are arrested, doesn't matter if you are innocent you still must go to jail
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
I feel a little out of place interjecting here but I just wanted to say, in response to the last comment, that I voted for Duco, yet I'm far from a Libertarian. Not because rwebberc made a poor argument because he didn't, it was excellent. But because Duco made a bit of a better one and frankly because of my own personal leanings.
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
You just said "the right of the child to not have somebody view or produce it is important", and "The government has no right to determine that sombody should be removed of their natural rights unless that person is violating the natural rights of another."

This seems to agree with my argument that someone who views and possesses CP has violated the rights of that child and should therefore be punished. Please explain to me how it isn't.

I agree with you completely on the argument thing, I wasn't saying you had to convince anyone completely. Like I said, I'm sure people's opinions influenced this debate, but your arguments were based on very libertarian viewpoints instead of taking into consideration all angles of the topic. I'm sure you swept the libertarian vote, but this site is about convincing the entire audience. I personally take offense to the implication that the only reason I won was because of people's biases. While I'm sure bluejoewho's comment was quite irksome, there were other users, such as steveperry and sjay who commented on the avtual debate itself.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
I disagree, rights do not come from the government. The government does not necessarily protect our natural rights as much as it should, some nations are better at protecting natural rights than others. The government has no right to determine that sombody should be removed of their natural rights unless that person is violating the natural rights of another.

I agree, the right of the child to not have somebody view or produce it is important, which is why I am strongly against the production of such material. Both the production and viewing of such material is at the fault of the producer alone, after all, how could the posessor view the material if it were never producied?

I do not have to convice people of my argument completly, it's impossible- especially given that people are stubborn, I just have to have a more logically sound or more convincing argument than you do.

If you notice in the commments section, a vast majority of the people commeting said something of the lines of 'im not a sicko pedo like he is, gosh why would u vote for him.'
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
But where do our rights come from? They come from the government, and it has the right to determine what freedoms put a community at risk. We have freedom of speech, but I can't yell fire in a crowded theater because other people's rights not to be trampled trump my right to speak freely. Similarly, we have freedom of privacy but child pornography puts other people in that possessors community at risk and promotes the continued production of that commodity. Finally, the right of that child not to have the crime committed against them be viewed for someone else's sexual pleasure trumps that person's right to privacy.

As an aside, you may believe that there isn't anything else besides freedom, but to win a debate you have to convince other people that you're more right than I am. You didn't, and that's why you lost. Not just because people don't like child porn. I realize that's why some people may have voted for me, but there are plenty of libertarians on this site, and I'm sure many of them voted for you based on their ideologies as well, take scyrone for instance.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
See, that's the problem with that mindset. You think that there should be some /necessity/ to have a freedom. I don't believe there is anything but the name of freedom itself.
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
There are legal alternatives to CP, why should we allow it when it's dangerous to the community and unnecessary? Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the pity party.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
I am certain you would have. I'm surprised you got as many votes as you did.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
Thanks. It's funny, I thought people on this site would be more logical. Just because I don't want to throw a group of people in jail does not mean I belong to that group, that logic is quite obvious to anyone who uses their reason rather than their emotions when judging debates. I have a feeling I would have lost even had con not has given a strong argument.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
Awesome debate. Well done, DucoNihilum, I don't know why you're not the winner. Oh wait, yes I do, because most people think voting for you on this debate is supporting child porn. Idiots.
31 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by PsyPhiGuy 7 years ago
PsyPhiGuy
DucoNihilumrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 7 years ago
DucoNihilum
DucoNihilumrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rwebberc 8 years ago
rwebberc
DucoNihilumrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
DucoNihilumrwebbercTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
DucoNihilumrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dbershevits 9 years ago
dbershevits
DucoNihilumrwebbercTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by artC 9 years ago
artC
DucoNihilumrwebbercTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JimmyKerr 9 years ago
JimmyKerr
DucoNihilumrwebbercTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Hypnodoc 9 years ago
Hypnodoc
DucoNihilumrwebbercTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by nitrogen85 9 years ago
nitrogen85
DucoNihilumrwebbercTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03