The Instigator
BlueDragon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KBShop
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points

Do you think child porn should be allowed on the internet?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 6 votes the winner is...
KBShop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,458 times Debate No: 41673
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (55)
Votes (6)

 

BlueDragon

Con

By saying you don't agree with censorship, you are saying "let people upload and watch porn". You say you don't agree with censorship, and then say "but I don't think think child porn should be allowed" or what ever you may say, because by removing child porn from the internet, monitoring internet connections to see if people are viewing it, and all other things you are against, all counts as forms of censorship and monitoring. You can't add a clause that says "if it's child porn, it's not censorship" because it is. If you are against censorship, you think child porn should be allowed.
KBShop

Pro

I will take this argument.

There are a few things wrong with your argument. First being that you are jumping from extremes very quickly; "If you don't agree with censorship, then you agree that child porn is ok".

The problem with this is that:
A) Censorship covers a WIDE range in terms of what it means
B) You are drawing an erroneous and ultimately false conclusion

Censorship can mean anything from 100% viewing prevention (You aren't allowed to view anything) to almost zero viewing prevention (You are literally able to view anything except this one specific thing). Believe it or not there is a gray area. The question that most people get at is what they feel is allowably censored and what isn't. Most people have a problem with world matters being censored and the things that go on within our country being censored. Most people DON'T have a problem with child porn being censored.

To make a blanket statement that you either love censorship or you are ok with child pornography floating around is pretty far on the extreme in terms of what you are trying to present in this argument.
Debate Round No. 1
BlueDragon

Con

I may be jumping to extremes very quickly, but I don't think the majority of people even give this type of thing a second though when they state thet the internet should have no censorship.

Onto your points

"Censorship covers a WIDE range in terms of what it means"
Yes, censorship does have a wide range in terms of meaning. My question to you now is. Who decides what amount of censorship is too much and not enough? It's very easy for censorship to escalate from minor amounts to extreme amounts, and still my argument is, any amount of censorship requires some degree of surveillance, which many people oppose. Why is the statement "if you don't agree with censorship, you agree with child porn" and more absurd that saying "If you agree with letting murder go free, you agree with murder?"

There are people who don't agree with any form of censorship, but if asked about child porn, they would say "that's different" Whether they really believe that, or they are just saying that because they know if they said they don't think child porn should be censored, they' have a lot of crap on their head.

I'd be interested to see a study on this, where the people are 100% anonymous, and the options being

"agree with censorship of child porn, rape, murder" "don't agree with any form of censorship"

I'd be very interested to see the results when it is anonymous.
KBShop

Pro

I don't think people give that thought process a second thought because that is probably not what they mean. People tend to say things in ways they don't mean. I think it'd be a completely odd if EVERY person who said there should be absolutely zero censorship literally mean ZERO censorship unless they happen to be nihilistic or interested in child porn themselves.

Who decides what amount of censorship, in a perfect world, is the general public. We all collectively decided that child porn was not ok. We all more or less collectively agreed that having websites devoted to providing ways to bomb public facilities is not a good thing. We haven't collectively agreed that preventing people access to the news of our world or our country is a good thing. We all more or less feel like that is something that SHOULD be available.

Now obviously the laws are put in place by elected officials who may or may not have our best interests at heart, but that is neither here nor there....

It's not that your statement is more absurd than saying "If you agree with letting a murderer go free, you agree with murder", it's that they are BOTH a bit absurd. You are drawing a conclusion based on something that is only slightly correlated. People like freedom but they also think that certain things SHOULD be controlled. There should be lack of censorship, but within reason.

I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who truly 100% believed that there should be absolutely zero censorship, and be more inclined to believe that what people really mean is "With the exception of heinous things, most of the internet shouldn't be censored"
Debate Round No. 2
BlueDragon

Con

"I don't think people give that thought process a second thought because that is probably not what they mean"

I reject that statement. You have no evidence to back it up, and you also have a lot of uncertainty in it. For instance, "that probably not what they mean" I could accepts statement with no evidence, but when you aren't even sure yourself, I can't accept the statement

"Who decides what amount of censorship, in a perfect world, is the general public. "
We don't live in a perfect world., so that point is irrelevant to me.

Who said we all collectively decided to ban certain things? We didn't! It was people in the government. You even said yourself,

"Now obviously the laws are put in place by elected officials who may or may not have our best interests at heart, but that is neither here nor there...."

It is very much here but you have avoided explaining yourself by saying "that's neither here nor there" This has no relevance to my side of the debate.

When there is hierarchy and closed doors (the government) there can be no such thing as limited censorship. If you give the power to censor, they will censor what THEY want, and a large percentage of what they will censor will be information that is likely to damage the countries image, or release sensitive information. I'm going to use the UK as an example. The Pirate Bay is blocked because the courts said so because the record companies in the UK said so. The Pirate Bay is just a search engine that is dedicated to torrent searching. Google also has the same ability as The Pirate Bay. Now, what s saying that the government blocks Google, because technically, it is a search engine with the ability to search for torrents, and once one site is blocked,, where is the limit? My point is, once you introduce ANY amount of censorship, you open to door to mass amounts.
KBShop

Pro

"I reject that statement. You have no evidence to back it up, and you also have a lot of uncertainty in it. For instance, "that probably not what they mean" I could accepts statement with no evidence, but when you aren't even sure yourself, I can't accept the statement"

Then by this token, you actually believe that a large portion of the general public actually believes that free ranged child pornography is ok.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

71% of the people view censorship as a major threat. YOU are making an outrageous claim that they, by virtue of your argument, agree that people should be allowed to have free range to download child porn.

Likewise

http://www.techrepublic.com...

Shows an overwhelming majority concerned with internet censorship entirely.

I don't even need to do any research to accurately assume that most of those people actually DO have a problem with child porn. So either people are schizophrenic, saying they want zero censorship but then turning around saying they want SOME censorship, or what they REALLY mean is that they want extremely LIMITED censorship, aka monitoring of heinous things such as CP, not the monitoring of news events or pirating video games and movies.

"We don't live in a perfect world., so that point is irrelevant to me.

Who said we all collectively decided to ban certain things? We didn't! It was people in the government. You even said yourself,"

Off on a tangent..

We vote with our voice in that we let officials know that if they support something we don't like, they don' get our vote. That's an extremely powerful persuasion. We don't directly control what goes on, it's an indirect action.

"It is very much here but you have avoided explaining yourself by saying "that's neither here nor there" This has no relevance to my side of the debate."

I avoided explaining because this is 100% off on a tangent. We're not talking about whether or not our voting system is entirely flawed or whether or not our voices are heard, the point of the argument is whether or not people who agree for zero censorship actively agree that child pornography is ok.

Our voting system and representation system shouldn't have even come up.

"When there is hierarchy and closed doors (the government) there can be no such thing as limited censorship. If you give the power to censor, they will censor what THEY want, and a large percentage of what they will censor will be information that is likely to damage the countries image, or release sensitive information. I'm going to use the UK as an example. The Pirate Bay is blocked because the courts said so because the record companies in the UK said so. The Pirate Bay is just a search engine that is dedicated to torrent searching. Google also has the same ability as The Pirate Bay. Now, what s saying that the government blocks Google, because technically, it is a search engine with the ability to search for torrents, and once one site is blocked,, where is the limit? My point is, once you introduce ANY amount of censorship, you open to door to mass amounts."

This is REALLY going off on a tangent.

The Pirate Bay got shut down because they were knowingly allowing illegal activity. They knew torrents of pirated movies and music were being handed out from their site en mass and they did virtually nothing to stop it. So get that part straight.

Again this is NOT about how censorship can go too far or about whether or not elected officials will take it to far.

Your position : People who agree there should be no censorship agree with child porn.

stick to this, because I am telling you that this is flat out a ludicrous statement. Censorship is NOT a black and white system and has a massive gray area. Most people want limited censorship, I make this claim simply by virtue of most people easily hating child pornography and it's distribution, and most people as sited above having a problem with censorship. It's not a stretch to assume people are really saying:
"We want the internet censored, but only within reason"
Debate Round No. 3
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AbhijeetWatts 3 years ago
AbhijeetWatts
I think that it is inevitable that the teenagers of this era will learn more about their sexuality at a much more faster rate than the previous generation. This is because of the multiple advancements in technology which can get you information from just the click of a button. Teens don't need to ask their parents about matters relating to their sexuality. They can just as easily get information from the Internet. This is precisely why we need to deal with the main cause of the problem. Child Pornography is caused mainly by the child's inability to understand that he/she is being sexually abused. Even if that is not the case, it is clear when teens use sexting as a means to sexually satisfy themselves via nude pictures of different people, whether it be people whom they know and people whom they don't know. Therefore, it is crucial that we deal with the crux of the problem. We need to start properly educating teens and children about sexuality related matters so that they have a better understanding of what it is and will hopefully, in the future, make better decisions regarding their sexual lives. There is no point in voting on whether we should remove child pornography from the Internet or not. That does not solve the problem of teens being wrongly abused and staying silent and enduring. We need to educate them via sexuality education modules in schools so that they are well-prepared to meet any challenges facing them in their sexual lives as well as their period of growth (Puberty).
Posted by BryceBennett 3 years ago
BryceBennett
I'm just going to say I would like to go on the internet and not see a penis on the screen or just weird stuff
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
Teenagers are pretty stupid. I am a teenager, and I act like a retard all the time, and regret it later. Most of my friends do too. To say that the majority of teenagers are smart is wrong, because it simply isn't true. Are there pretty smart teenagers out there who seem to have everything under control? Yes, but like millionaires there isn't a lot of them.
Posted by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
I do agree there should be internet censorship to some extent. I also agree child porn shouldn't be allowed on the internet. Neither porn it's self. It's degrades us as human beings, as being nothing but an object to each other, which is insidious. People need to grow up and stop being like immature teenagers, who don't know no better. We do have responsibilities as adults and we are to uphold our society to a certain standard, at the least. A society without a standard has no value in it's self.

As for BlueDragon, he should of based his argument off of the question and not have based his argument off of censorship in general.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
So true Makhdoom!
As soon as any of their material pops up on the Internet, they should be arrested and jailed.
Once they are all behind bars it will deter all others wanting to peddle their pornography on the web, and then there would be no need for censorship.
Swear words, blasphemy, they are okay, that's just freedom of speech, which shouldn't be an issue.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
pornography itself is bad thing.
and child pornography is worst.
than 3rd thing comes which is censorship.
if first two are not there the 3rd would not be needed.
;)

child pornography is child abuse.
which is so so so so bad.
Posted by zrg4848 3 years ago
zrg4848
KBShop you have clearly walked into an argument about age and intelligence that you clearly cannot win.
Allow me to use common sense facts and real life experience to refute your claims.
First, I am 19 years old and work so I can eat and pay rent while going to school. Notice I didn't acknowledge transportation as I have to avoid using my car more than absolutely necessary in order to eat. I walk to work and school. So at the age of 19 I have fulfilled your requirement of knowing the value of a dollar.
Next, I am a full time college student and going through college one will learn an enormous amount of knowledge in an extremely small amount of time in comparison to the rest of their life. Mastering a field of study in 4 years is just an explosion of knowledge, however, everything in my life to this point has been about waking up in the morning to go and learn more. Isn't that amazing? SO factually yes all of ones reference knowledge will come from the 0-early 20's range of life. You will reference this knowledge for the rest of your life and it will be the deciding factor on if you can or cannot thoroughly understand something.
Finally, my cousin is 27 and has two children from a gf he has been with for 10 years. From your experience, what do you do when your child cries? You put down your xbox controller and care for your little bastard child. This man that is 8 years older than me just continued playing his game and after a few minutes I got up and changed his child's diaper. I have seen 40 year olds in my neighborhood go bankrupt because their parents stopped caring for them and they couldn't stop partying. You are attempting to use a type-token argument in relation to age but this fallacy quickly falls apart as you will never learn this much this quickly ever again. Your brains ability to learn will decrease over time, hence why its so easy for a toddler to learn a language but an adult can find it near impossible. Life experience is accrued over your whole
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I've been using the Internet since it started here in Australia and prior to that we used Bulletin Board Services, though Censorship is rarely an issue until recently.
This debate is an endless circular argument.
There will always be censorship on the Internet.
I'm against Authority Imposed Censorship, though if we remove all such authoritative censorship, the Internet will likely achieve self censorship. So censorship will always exist.
As far as kiddy porn goes, those posting it would expose themselves and be shut down and arrested for it, so the Internet would not be so much censoring them, but they would be jailed and prosecuted in their country of origin. Thus they would be removed without the need to censor the Internet.
Also I have experienced self-censorship in my family, as we often had visitors who loved violent and sexually explicit movies, to which we had no household censorship. Our children were often exposed to such violence and sexual scenes, to which we would explain (educate) them about when asked, as we also had open discussions on all subjects. Our children simply decided that they did not want to view such movies and even in their adult years, steer away from such material.
Like our children, the Internet would become self-regulating, porn would lose it's value and market as people would simply get sick and tired of seeing it. It's the same argument as prohibition of drugs.
Remove the prohibition, the black market crashes and marketeers are more easily exposed and charged if they do the wrong thing.
Posted by Rio89 3 years ago
Rio89
This post reminds me of the endless debate of obcenity laws. KBS argued your posiition well, however you used terms like "clearly heinous" and others similar to discribe your position of child porn. As insane as it may be in todays world to think of it as anything else, try to consider there were times that acts of homosexuality were MORE heinous than sex with a child.

My point is that nothing is "heinous" or "obscene" by a universal standard, therefor no one can tell someone that what you are viewing is vile and punish them for it.

Child porn is considered in this country to be crime scene evidence, which is a whole different topic in itself.

But should it be "allowed", who is the gatekeeper of what is allowed? I think censorship can exist when restrictions are placed on preventing the accidental exposure of highly despised material, but I myself will tell no one they can't view something, it's not my right or a governments right to determine what their citizens can or can't see, let alone incarcerate for seeing the "wrong" thing.
Posted by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
You entire rant so far has been one big insult to any young person here. You have called us "stupid," said that we lack life experience, condescendingly sneered at how we take offense to your name calling, denied that you meant what you said, and slang other things around like calling me "butthurt."

You are saying a few "true" things. like how we accumulate knowledge and so forth, and how we learn as we get older. And you are using those "the sky is blue" statements to make it look like we deserve to be called names and treated like we are inferior to you.

Now, say you are sorry and knock it off. You are acting less mature than the teens here are.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
BlueDragonKBShopTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were incoherent to the point of being very difficult to understand. Pro used sources that backed up his arguments.
Vote Placed by Kc.Nycolle 3 years ago
Kc.Nycolle
BlueDragonKBShopTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not believe in this but Pro did conduct himself in a better way than Con did.
Vote Placed by zrg4848 3 years ago
zrg4848
BlueDragonKBShopTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: KBShop offered up a logical argument with sources while BlueDragon, knowing that his argument is inherently weak, decided to do the equivalent of saying "nuh-uh" the whole time.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
BlueDragonKBShopTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had poor grammar and Pro had sources
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
BlueDragonKBShopTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I expected a debate on the merits of child pornography, but this was a debate over whether or not any internet censorship all is appropriate. Con relied on a slippery slope fallacy to argue that eliminating internet censorship would lead to a widespread acceptance of child pornography, or that any opposition to censorship is tantamount to an acceptance of child porn. Either way, the notion is fallacious.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
BlueDragonKBShopTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Just to point this out, I think the words "Pro" and "Con" got mixed up in relation to the topic. Just sayin' :) Con: "My point is, once you introduce ANY amount of censorship, you open to door to mass amounts." Con's point was linked entirely to a slippery slope argument that any censorship, even good, could lead to too much censorship. Pro did a good job rebutting this claim defensively, and overall won the flow, so I say (s)he wins. However, I should point out that Pro had precious little offense, and not for lack of available ammunition. Con was debating for child pornography, which is one of the more vulnerable positions I've seen. You could have capitalized on this with some powerful harms for child pornography, and even pornography, but instead you wasted half of your space quoting huge blocks of your opponent's words. You did a little offense, Pro, but make sure to do offense AND defense 50%. Con: I think you'd do better to arguing censorship in a round devoted solely to that.