Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1- Acceptance and Rules
Round 2- Arguments
Round 3- Rebuttals
Round 4- Final Rebuttals and Conclusions
- These definitions will be accepted and used throughout the debate.
- Censorship: the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.
- Unacceptable: not satisfactory or allowable. By this, I will refer allowable as either morally or legally.
- Use reliable sources.
Looking forward to another debate with you!
I accept this challenge. Looks like the tables have turned; you're gonna be on the easier side of this. But whatever, let's do this!
However, I will begin with why we should censor the internet.
Content is already censored:
Some content on the internet is already censored, for example, a pornographic website. This does not meant that people cannot find their way around the censored materials in order to view them, it just means that there are efforts in which the government/website creators make in order to follow certain rules, legal or moral. YouTube, also, blocks content for certain age groups, but, much like anything else, people find a way around it by creating fake accounts that reach the age limit set on the video.
Content is censored for a reason:
Pornographic content, for example, is censored for everyone under the age of 18. This is because at 18, people become a legal adult and can enjoy all rights other adults have, other than drinking of course. But why is it limited to people under 18? Why is it not censored for people under the age of, say, 25? Porn glorifies regular situations and deteriorates the values of actual sex, and can often lead people to sexually please themselves. According to , porn nullifies the real world experiences as it fills the minds with more erotic/exotic situations. It is staged to glorify the situation, and will often lead to less pleasing experiences first hand.
Violent material should also be censored as it will desensitize humans, esp. young children exposed to this material, leading them to have no emotions when committing a harmful action against another. Studies may show that video games, although not internet, may actually cause violence in teens and children participating in them . Video games give people the experience without the consequence, while the internet would give neither experience or consequence, leading people to believe that, "If it's on the internet, it must be okay to do." Four year olds are beginning to pick up bad behavior they have viewed on (CENSORED) tv , so imagine the consequences of a child getting a hold of uncensored material on the internet.
Nah I'm just sayin' I'm arguing for porn here. Fine with me, though :P
Your Argument 1: "Content is already censored"
I'm not sixty years old, you probably have found that out by now. So I've got some experience with this stuff. On some porn websites, all you have to do is click on "yes I'm 18." Then the censorship does absolutely nothing to stop us. On your second example, youtube, I seldom run into a video that I have to be 18 to watch. Even the dirty ones. They have to be flagged by viewers as inappropriate. Who, besides grown-ups, are really going to do that? Also, this is the same with the porn websites. All you have to do is say "yes I'm 18." And then you get to watch the video. On some, you just have to say you understand that it may not be age-suitable. To sum up, censoring is doing nothing to stop us.
Your Argument 2: "Content is censored for a reason"
This rebuttal is going to be a little bit disturbing. Just giving you a heads up.
I had friends that started watching porn when they were seven. It was censored and everything, but it did absolutely nothing to stop them. And they aren't any different than anyone else today, and it did nothing to hurt them. Neither did violent videos on Youtube. And I'm pretty sure young children don't even have access to anything except TV. It's their parents fault if they find the dirty stuff, not the child or the government. As for video games? I'm sure parents know the risks of video games before buying it for children who will be influenced by it. Plus, this isn't Internet.
Argument 1: First Amendment
Not only are many people against the censorship of the Internet, it is also a violation of one of the pillars of our country.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
Right there proves that it is a violation of the first amendment. We should have a freedom of speech anywhere, even on the Internet. Our country is built on this foundation, and censoring the Internet would cause a major uproar. You saw what happened with SOPA. So not only does censoring the Internet violate a rule, it would cause a major uproar all across America.
Argument 2: What About the Good Parts? 
Instead of just focusing on the bad parts, like porn, what about the good parts? I doubt that the government will search every website to see if it contains bad content. And if they make a mistake on an educational website that seems dirty, like "Boys, What's Going On Down There?" and is really just a website that explains facts about life to boys. And other good Internet sites would be banned, also. Doesn't the good parts of the Internet outweigh the bad parts vastly? Surely you can't do an Internet ban on just specific sites, the government would never do that. To sum up, in addition to censoring bad sites, good sites would be censored, also.
Your move! :)
Rebuttal 1: "They have been flagged by viewers as inappropriate."
This is actually helping my case as it is proving that people do believe the internet needs to be censored. There is a reason that the people flag these videos, "Even the dirty ones. They..." So by flagging the videos, people are putting the censoring into their own hands, meaning that they do believe that the content on the internet, the internet, needs to be censored.
Rebuttal 2: "They aren't different than anyone else today..." "...anything except TV. It's their parents' fault..."
Let me start of with this: Although your friends may be no different than anyone else today, that does not mean that majority of porn viewers aren't either. In fact,  shows all of the negative effects in a human's brain and behavior that changes when viewing pornographic material.  calls porn an addiction as it releases the same chemicals as if you were doing a drug, and calls it a "ritual" for some people as they become more dependent on this addiction.  (a branch of ) shows that people who watch pornographic content are more likely to commit sexual crimes such as rape.  bases their information from primary sources like studies done at different universities like the University of New Hampshire.
You also said that young children don't have access to anything except TV. This is seldom the case as different devices such as iPads, tablets, and phones can do more for the young child in a learning perspective, so parents will be willing to let their child play with their devices. However, this does not mean that the child will only be on the permitted applications as (personal experience) once, a family friend's two-year old daughter was playing on her father's phone and found some pronographis material. This was unintentional, of course, but do not think that it doesn't happen.
Your First Argument: The First Amendment
Luckily, I have been studying the Amendments in AP Government this year. The first amendment does allow free speech, freedom of the press, etc, but this amendment only applies as long as it does not infringe on others' rights. With this explicit content being qualified as "freedom of speech," and therefore being uncensored, that would infringe upon the rights of the people who want it to be censored, of the people who feel uncomfortable with such sites. I know it may not make sense at first, but if porn or anything was available and uncensored, the porn companies would start advertising on the most common sites as it would now be okay, but that infringes the peoples' rights to be guarded from this content. Also, I would like to note that "freedom of speech," when written, was more towards the freedom to speak up against the government. You cannot say anything you feel like and use the first amendment as an excuse. You can, however, use the first amendment as a safety when you speak up against the government.
Your Second Argument: What About the Good Parts?
I am a little confused as to why you are saying this. I realize that web engines have safety filters that block out certain words, phrases, or ideas, but if a website is as good as it appears to be, why would it fall under this blacklisted category? If people are concerned about sex education or puberty information, there are always pamphlets with the counselor or books on sale at the nearest bookstore. Mind you though, these books have been passed by publishing companies that read, revise, and regulate these books to fit certain conditions. You won't find a pornographic book in your closest Barnes and Noble. Also, "the government would never do that," may appear true, but the government has control over everything and its sole job is to work for the benefit of the people, and if the government sees it fit, then who would stop them?
Thanks, your go!
Yeah, you're actually right. I don't have anything else. You win this debate.
Well seeing as we still have one round to go, I would just like to say that SOPA was for restricting websites that were pirating copyrighted material. Piracy, as we know, is illegal.
But oh well. Thanks for the debate, anyway.
dtaylor971 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.