The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is it okay to censor nudity and swear words but not extreme violence?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,710 times Debate No: 74138
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




On mass media, theres this strange phenomenon.
You can watch Family Guy where a baby tortures a dog.
You can watch South Park where a child gets another child to eat his parents.
You can watch the serial killer Dexter kill people and carve their bodies up.

It is absolutely acceptable to show violence so severe it would make many of us sick to see in real life, but censor's feel that the F word that we all hear daily, or a womans nipple (which most of society would have seen by age 16) is to much for the public audience.

Is this logical, is there a reason for this, or is it left over puritanism values we cant quite shake off, the last remnants of 50's sensibilities?


This is why it is better bad words and sexual part should be censored and why extreme violence should not have to be censored. First off if a kid that's under 13 changes the channel from kid cartoons to "adult shows" and hears a bad word he is more likely to say the word then be affected by extreme violence he see's on a show. My second point if they show a nude parts or a fully nude woman yes 16 year they may have seen it old but that is just 2 years away from the age of consent in the USA what about the 15 and under. the parent saw they would not be happy but if they saw extreme violence they would be ok with it because we have been so desensitized to the extreme violence on tv. I rest my case for round one.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanking you for taking part.
Apologies for any spelling or grammatical mistakes, English is not my mother tongue nor do I live in an english speaking country.

It is my belief that it is dated puritan based theory that somehow introducing a child to an insult, especially such a primely used word such as F--k would mostly be done through television.
Children are sponges of information, and they are of the bastions of the "forbidden fruit" theorem where something that is not allowed is only more desired. A single boy in school will learn of sex or swearing at an early age, and he will use it and share it and it will spread like wild fire. This was true in a time when such words as damn and sh*t were just not put on television. Even movies with light swearing on HBO often had heavily censored versions.

I am certain most will agree that they did not need television to form their vocabulary of swear words, nor did they need to be pushed to look for the naked female or male form given the chance - as the Internet inevitably gives all today - it is a natural process of learning of the world, not to be feared and hidden, for then when the child learns of these things they will hide them from adults for fear of shame and they will not be able to confront them and be given advice and explanation from someone with more experience and understanding, thus putting it in a more healthy moderated outlook.

Lastly, violence. Psychologically speaking, I think we can both agree that if, in the street as a child, you see a naked woman or man pass you, or hear some men or women swearing (as is inevitable) without it being directed at you, it will most likely not be a traumatic experience unless it directly links to a traumatic past experience.
Meanwhile, a child who was witness to have violence or even a dead body in pristine condition out in public in a non-controlled environment (EG: Not a funeral) will most of the time be taken into psychology, at times even with society 'insisting' if the parents or guardians may disagree.
A good example is the Canadian zoo where two tigers, not even people, fought in a zoo with one being killed. The main focus of the story was that it happened in front of teenagers, all of who were offered counseling even though they actually saw a perfectly natural incident that they could freely watch on National Geographic since the 70's (link added down below).

There it would be my understand that violence is the true psychological pathogen that most affects children, with nudity and swear words being almost lost to the background.

I rest my case for the second round.


Side note sorry for the wait I have been busy.
For round two i will be focusing more on why the extreme violence should not be censored.

My first reason is what if a tv channel is having a scary movie week and a movie with a part with extreme violence the people will not be happy with it blocked out or skipped people will get mad because that make a horror movie. they may not own the movie and they have watching it for a good amount of time and won't get scared.

My second reason i found how many people were murdered in 2012 437,00 people were murdered if you think 50% were not extremely violent and the other was 25% seen were not witnessed by civilian with for the other civilians would be ok with the extreme violent would be ok .

My third and final point to much swearing and nudity just gets old. its ok on occasion but if it was uncensored it would just make tv enjoyable after a wile but I and a majority of people would rater watch the extreme violence

I rest my case for round two and again sorry for the wait.
Debate Round No. 2


Similar apologies for tardiness.
I appreciate your manners and your patience.

Alot of humor, alot of it, includes profanity. In fact, the majority of all of our most revolutionary stand up comedians, ones that really broke boundaries in society, did so through vulgarity. Moms Mambly, Red Foxx, Richard Prior, Lenny Bruce, Eddie Murphy, George Carlin, and to this day Louis CK is the most appreciated comic in the western world because he uses that profanity to make very relevant social commentary.
Vulgarity is amazing relevant to our society, and its health, and its positive change. It proves that silencing language does more to harm the progression of thought via censorship then to have any genuinely positive results.
There are numerous books as well dating centuries that have both importance to modern literature - and profanity.
Famous works of art have profanity in them, often meant for comedic effect.
Profanity only gets old when its used in the same manner time and again. A true word smith twists it into his own making.

Nudity - did you know prior to American interventionism in Japan in 1945, it was common to see bare breasted women in public? It was not shameful, it was part of the culture. The shame was exported in.
Imagine a show or movie about Japan prior to this period, can you say its an accurate representation if your limiting what happened in feudal Japan by limiting the reality according to 1940's American puritan ideology?
The human body is not supposed to be a statement and, by the fact that some of the oldest relics from ancient man that we have our small headless idols of women with large breasts, it doesn't seem like the human body will ever 'get old', but more importantly it will get normalized, we wont be so in shock from seeing a penis or breast, and I see that only as a boon to culture as it means being more open about ourselves as humans.

Lastly - violence. In America, as of consensus of 2010 (the latest year I could find with most supported statistical conclusion), the murder rate in America is 8 per 100,000.
If you imagine everyone lives on average to 75 years on average, then out of 100,000 people, 600 will be murdered (0.6%)
The majority of those are adults, the majority of those tend to happen in very specific locations like certain cities and population centers, and many of those tend to happen away from public view (by the very nature of the threat of jail that witness's bring).
Some of us may see a body that had seen violence, yes, and that number will be low.. but in horror movies laced with gore, you don't see a dead body mutilated.. you see the mutilation of a human being, screaming and crying in untold agony, a scene which sends intense outrage whenever you simply read of its occurrence in the news. Many of us are subject daily to nudity (our partners, nude beaches, nudist colonies) and profanity (everywhere, all the time) but violence is a true social rarity for us, and thus that is somehow put as less of an extreme is then a nipple or the f word makes no logical sense.

I need to clarify this one more time. In a cartoon show, a baby - who has made jokes of being raped - beats a dog bloody, and then shoots him in the kneecaps for owning him money. In that same show that same dog has sex with that babies sister, an underaged girl. In that same show that underaged girl is hit on and eventually sleeps with their neighbor, a man who is constantly joked about his rapist tendencies and has stolen bodies from crime scenes for clearly necrophiliac purposes.
In that same show, it is illegal for them to say F or show a nipple.

To close my argument, id like to to quote a show I've mentioned before: The Simpson's.
When the Simpson's have a cross over with Family guy, the two lead father figures have a 15 minute gore and blood laced fight. People are almost ripped in two, some scenes are purposefully made to make you flinch with accurate portrayal of pain to specific situations.
At one point Peter gets thrown through a studio wall and is shoved into a cannon on Krusty's tv show, about to fired back into the violence.
At this point Krusty turns to the live children audience in the room and, with his only lines in the whole episode, says with a chuckle at the end,
".. And remember kids, tv violence is fine, as long as you dont show a nipple!"

That is the end of my argument.
Thank you all for you time, especially you xitost. Its been a pleasure.


xitost forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Leopold_Butters_Stotch 1 year ago
Hey we aren't that bad.
Posted by brented 2 years ago
I do agree somewhat. If I had my choice I would much rather see a beautiful body than to see someone being murdered and blood spurting everywhere.
Posted by Fuzzed 2 years ago
Sorry folks
Not a native speaker so confused myself with the pro-con aspect.
Posted by m4j0rkus4n4g1 2 years ago
Pro, you aren't for the statement above. You're against it. You should rephrase the title of the debate "it is not okay that censorship applies to language and sexuality, but not to violence"
Posted by Emma.Leah3 2 years ago
What is Pro arguing? I can't tell but interested in the debate.
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
I see what you are trying to say, and I can hardly say I disagree.
No votes have been placed for this debate.