The Instigator
s0m31john
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
James.ticknor
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Christopher Handley Should Be Punished by the US Government For Owning Loli Doujins

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 6/9/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 34,536 times Debate No: 8569
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)

 

s0m31john

Con

I do not want to debate semantics. If you need clarification on the resolution please say so in the comments before accepting this debate.

In a recent court case Christopher Handley plead guilty to "mailing obscene matter" and "possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children". It is important to also know that their was no "evidence that he also collected or viewed genuine child pornography". As a result of owning only drawings Christopher Handley faces up to 15 years in prison.

The law says that only "obscene" materials are illegal, but that itself is absurd. Regardless if something is obscene or not the sole act of owning drawings harms no one. How obscene the drawings are matters to no one but the buyer, as he may have certain tastes.

One must also take into account that Christopher Handley did not just make one random doujin purchase out of the blue, but that he had already collected hundreds, if not thousands, of lolicon doujins. If he were really interested in real children surely the prosecutors could have linked him to at least one piece of child pornography containing real children.

To punish a man and possibly send him to prison for up to 15 years for drawn pictures is wrong and should not happen in a "free country". I put free country in quotes because there are many aspects of the United State government that reek everything but freedom, yet we like to tote around those two words.

[Source] http://www.wired.com...
James.ticknor

Pro

Many will not deny that the sexual abuse of a child in any form, fictional or nonfictional, is morally wrong.

My opponents own source states that: "A U.S. comic book collector has pleaded guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex abuse and bestiality." If he has pleaded guilty to owning depictions of children's sexual ABUSE, then there is no reason to not punish him, especially when he pleaded guilty.

Since this is an U.S. 'artist', he must abide by the United States and it's laws, which as my opponents source provided, states that, "2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct." In which he has pleaded guilty.

My opponent stated "If he were really interested in real children surely the prosecutors could have linked him to at least one piece of child pornography containing real children."

I say: The Protection Law of the U.S. states that it does not have to be real children in order for it to be agenst the law, and if he committed a crime agenst the law, he should be punished for it."

My opponent stated, "To punish a man and possibly send him to prison for up to 15 years for drawn pictures is wrong and should not happen in a "free country" It is not because of the drawn pictures, it is because of the numorous times he has held ill regard for the law and subsequently violated said law.

Also, my opponent said, "One must also take into account that Christopher Handley did not just make one random doujin purchase out of the blue, but that he had already collected hundreds, if not thousands, of lolicon doujins."

I say: This is even worse. If he did it just once, it would be much better that he refrained from breaking the law again, rather than collecting "hundreds, if not thousands" of this illegal contraband. It may be considered an art form, but an illegal one.

Let's look at why it is illegal, shall we? It is my own perception that it is illegal because it promotes the sexual abuse of children and is developed for sole sexual provoctivity, and not education. It is for the enjoyment of others who find arosual in the molestation of children. Now, THAT, is wrong.

I fail to see the benifet in this form of 'art', which I use the term loosely.

I will now rest my arguementation and move to rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1
s0m31john

Con

The majority of my opponent's argument consists of "it's illegal right now, so he should be punished." Would my opponent also have let Nazi officers free after WWII? They were just following orders, and besides what they were doing wasn't illegal in their country. The government isn't some magical body that only makes perfect laws. In this case they are banning pictures that have no connection to real life children, nor does the accused person have any ties to real life children. Regardless, as made clear in the comments this debate is not about the current legality of the law, but rather that it should be illegal in the first place and that Christopher Handley should not be punished.

"It is my own perception that it is illegal because it promotes the sexual abuse of children"

So what if it does? I ought to be able to promote whatever I want because in the end promoting something is not actually doing something. Should we also ban violent video games because they promote violence? I think we should ban romantic comedies because they promote a false reality. We could also ban all movies that show underage drinking, it is illegal after all. We don't ban these though because the promoters are not responsible for another person's actions, only that person is. If a person goes out and physically harms a child they should be punished to the full extent of the law. They should not be punished for looking at fake and drawn pictures of child abuse any more than a video game player should be charged for killing a person in game.

"developed for sole sexual provoctivity, and not education."

So we should ban everything that is not useful as education? Not everything has to be useful to you. So what if it's made for "sexual provoctivity(sic)"? That doesn't change the fact that no real person is harmed in the making or viewing of the material.

"I fail to see the benifet in this form of 'art', which I use the term loosely."

I also fail to see a lot of things as art, but I do not call for their banning.
James.ticknor

Pro

You said, " Would my opponent also have let Nazi officers free after WWII? They were just following orders, and besides what they were doing wasn't illegal in their country."


I say: This is outside the realms of the debate. I find it next to impossibile to have a meaningful debate based upon high pathetical theories and falacies. I will try to entertain my opponent though.
The mass genocide they commited was agenst the Rules of War (yes there are rules).

You said, " The government isn't some magical body that only makes perfect laws. In this case they are banning pictures that have no connection to real life children, nor does the accused person have any ties to real life children."

I say: Doesn't matter. If we don't abide by the laws of our country, or seek reform, then we are not solving anything. Besides, he has pleaded guilty and deserving of punishment. Guilty of breaking the law.



You say, "So what if it does? I ought to be able to promote whatever I want because in the end promoting something is not actually doing something. "

I say: Yes you are. You are attempting to influence the public into breaking the law. That's also agenst it. That's enabling. I can't go to an elementary school and tell them to smoke crack. That's illegal and doing something.

You say, "I think we should ban romantic comedies because they promote a false reality."

I say: If it is a false reality, it isn't possible. Therefore there is no way they can do that. Besides, they don't promote something illegal.

You say, ". We could also ban all movies that show underage drinking, it is illegal after "

I say: It is illegal, unless it's an informative video showing the negative effects of it.



You say, "So what if it's made for "sexual provoctivity"?

I say: I was talking about drawing pleasure from the sexual abuse of a child. it's sick, it's wrong, it's illegal. It often goes hand in hand with a mental illness.

You say, "I also fail to see a lot of things as art, but I do not call for their banning"

I say: It is banned because it promotes the abuse of children in the form of art. It's slandering as well! That's illegal too, if art was a person.

I rest my arguements. Good luck
Debate Round No. 2
s0m31john

Con

This debate will be formatted using my new Greasemonkey script. I would suggest my opponent check out this thread on the Debate.org forums for more information: http://www.debate.org...

[quote]This is outside the realms of the debate. I find it next to impossibile[b](sic)[/b] to have a meaningful debate based upon high pathetical theories and falacies.[/quote]
I agree to drop this point. I was out of line and wrote it in the heat of the moment.

[quote]If we don't abide by the laws of our country, or seek reform, then we are not solving anything.[/quote]
This debate is me [i]"seeking reform"[/i]. I certainly don't have any major power in the real world but arguing the issue with others over the internet could be beneficial for change.

[quote]he has pleaded guilty and deserving of punishment. Guilty of breaking the law.[/quote]
Again, I did not want to debate whether the law was broken but rather if the law should exist or not. If I were to entertain your point I would argue that because there hasn't been a case like this Christopher Handley's lawyers probably suggested he take a plea bargain not because he really should be punished but because they probably didn't want to defend this type of case due to its nature.

[quote]You are attempting to influence the public into breaking the law. That's also agenst[b](sic)[/b] it. That's enabling.[/quote]
No it's not.

[quote][color=blue]Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[/color][/quote]
[u]Source 1[/u]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[u]Source 2[/u] http://www.nytimes.com...

Even if my opponent can find specific laws about enabling, like I said this debate it not about current legality, but how things should be. I also fail to see how drawn pictures of sex with children enables people to go out and do just that. If a person is deranged enough to physically harm a child though sexual means they do not need a guide on how to do it as that stuff come natural (sex).

[quote]If it is a false reality, it isn't possible. Therefore there is no way they can do that.[/quote]
Have you ever heard of a movie? It is possible to show things in movies that are not possible. Do you take live action movies like Transformers and Star Trek as reality?

[quote]Besides, they don't promote something illegal.[/quote]
Many many many movies show illegal activities and do not say outright that one shouldn't do them. If a movie were to do that it would take away from the immersion. Take for example the movie [i]The Bourne Identity[/i]. Tons of people are killed in that movie (murder is a very illegal act) and not once does Matt Damon stop, stare at the screen, and say [i]"hey people, killing is illegal, don't do it."[/i] In fact something like that is never even hinted at in the movie. Would my opponent say we should ban the Bourne movies?

[quote]It is illegal, unless it's an informative video showing the negative effects of it.[/quote]
No, they're not illegal. Take for example the movie [i]Superbad[/i]. The kids in that movie are shown getting wasted and having a good time. They hang out with corrupted cops and drink while destroying a cop car. They also get fake IDs and buy alcohol even though they are underage. Later that same night they get wasted at a party. No where during the movie was I even remotely told that drinking is bad. I wasn't informed of anything, I was entertained like I should have been. Did I go out and do all of those illegal activities afterward? No.

[quote]I was talking about drawing pleasure from the sexual abuse of a child.[/quote]
You're forgetting the part where no real child is harmed.

[quote]it's sick, it's wrong[/quote]
Perhaps to you. Other people have different tastes. Banning something on your opinion is not okay. in fact even if the majority dislike something it's still not okay to ban it if it's not harming or infringing on anyone's rights.

[quote]It often goes hand in hand with a mental illness.[/quote]
So what if it does? It doesn't change the fact that Christopher Handley never physically or mentally harmed anyone. Perhaps he mentally harmed himself, but the last time I checked he owned himself so he should be able to do that.

[quote]It is banned because it promotes the abuse of children in the form of art.[/quote]
How does it promote the act of physically harming a real child? I've read many loli hentai doujins have yet to come across one that outright says I should harm a real child. In fact I've seen the exact opposite.

In a popular loli doujin magazine called [i]Comic LO[/i] they very frequently promote the exact opposite of what my opponent talks about. I will now present my opponent with several pages from a real loli hentai doujin (they contain no nudity, and are just informative.) Some of them are translated, if not I will provide the translation.

[i]Stop! Don't touch[/i]
http://img300.imageshack.us...

[i]Please by no means touch any children.[/i]
http://img300.imageshack.us...

[i]I'm a lolicon. I love children. So I won't lay a hand on them.[/i]
http://img300.imageshack.us...

[i]We're serious when we say we want to see an end to all sex crimes against children.[/i]
http://img300.imageshack.us...

[i]It's summer, so be sure to masturbate properly![/i]
http://img371.imageshack.us...

The next one is fully translated and I will just let my opponent read it:
http://img526.imageshack.us...

As you can see one of the most popular lolicon magazines actually promotes not touching and thinking about real little girls.

I would also ask my opponent to look at this comparison picture:
http://img526.imageshack.us...

As you can see the 3D girl really looks nothing like her 2D counterpart. It could be argued that most lolicons are attracted to the art style and wouldn't even find real 3D girls to be attractive at all. This is true in my case, because I do not find real child model pictures to be arousing.

This debate will be formatted using my new Greasemonkey script. I would suggest my opponent check out this thread on the Debate.org forums for more information: http://www.debate.org...
James.ticknor

Pro

James.ticknor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
s0m31john

Con

Extend my arguments.
James.ticknor

Pro

James.ticknor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 7 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
But... he hasn't done anything. There is no real child being harmed and even if there are 'studies that show looking at those kind of animated images encourage paedophilia', you can't punish someone for owning them because you cannot prove Loli Doujins= real life paedophilia in later life. 15 years? ridiculous.
Posted by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
If you want feel free to challenge me to a 2 round debate with your rebuttal to my round 3 from this debate. If you do make sure you like to this debate and say that it's a continuation.
Posted by James.ticknor 7 years ago
James.ticknor
Heh, summer camp =)
Posted by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
Tick tock. My opponent hasn't been online in 3 days. I hope he doesn't forfeit.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
That last magazine warning was hilarious when it got to the solutions part.
Posted by James.ticknor 7 years ago
James.ticknor
Well I shouldn't have to inferr, I should be able to read in print what the debate means. You'd never get away with that in court s0m31john!
Posted by James.ticknor 7 years ago
James.ticknor
To Lexi,

I said "many" not all.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Interesting debate, good points made on both sides...obviously, like most people, I abhor paedophilia and am deeply troubled by anything related to it, yet I must accept that cartoons, in isolation, do not equate to child abuse.

I remain, for the time being, a floating voter!
Posted by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
"but rather that it should be illegal"

should say

"but rather that it should NOT be illegal"
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
"Also, I am entirely against this form of child pornography. There are myriad studies that show that viewing these materials encourage pedophilia."

I propose it's something of a chicken/egg scenario. Does viewing life-like images of 4-year-olds being raped TURN one into a pedophile, or is the person who gets off on these images in the first place ALREADY a pedophile. I'd personally suggest the latter.

This is kinda like saying going to the beach with a surf board in hand encourages surfing, when really it's the other way around. The person wanted to surf, so they grabbed a surf board and went to the beach.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by brycef 7 years ago
brycef
s0m31johnJames.ticknorTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
s0m31johnJames.ticknorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
s0m31johnJames.ticknorTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
s0m31johnJames.ticknorTied
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