The Instigator
markalantrimeloni
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Jation
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Nudity Should Be As Legal As Clothing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
markalantrimeloni
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,315 times Debate No: 66946
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

markalantrimeloni

Pro

Opening Statement:

This is not an issue of morality. This is not an issue of what might happen if people are not wearing man-made clothing. This is not an issue of "I don't want to see people naked." This is an issue of freedom. This is an issue of personal choice. This is an issue of equality.

Point #1:

God created us naked. God wanted us naked. If you believe in God, then you cannot disagree with me. To do so is to go against God's will.

Point #2:

Clothing has seen many atrocities from child labor in sweatshops during the industrial age of America. To slaves working cotton fields that led to countless deaths during the Civil War. With the incredibly destructive history of a product meant only to cover a part of the human body no more meaningful than the rest, how can anyone support forcing others to use it?

Point #3:

Genitals are not sexual organs anymore than a person's fingers or mouth. All of these parts of the human body can be used for physical gratification. If you are going to cover one of them, you need to cover them all. There are people that go their entire lives without giving in to their animal needs. No one goes a lifetime without expelling waste from their bodies. So you tell me. What is the primary function of genitals? The answer is simple. To remove waste product from the human body. The mouth is used the same way when we vomit. Our nose is used the same way when we sneeze or blow it. Don't choose one part of the human body and place an inaccurate label on it then force others to cover that body part up. If a person can go around without a mask or gloves, then a person can go around without pants or underwear. To argue otherwise makes no sense at all.

Point #4:

If you can't see the beauty in your own body, then you shouldn't have one.

Point #5:

Nudity and clothing have nothing to do with rape, molestation, sexual abuse, or any crime dealing with physical assault. If you believe clothing prevents any of these things, then check out your daily news. If you accuse nudity of causing any of these things, then you've just made a point for eliminating clothing altogether. Because all of these things exist in a clothed society.

Point #6:

Clothing is a costly lifestyle. Nudity is a state of being and costs nothing. When you force people to have to live your lifestyle, then you may as well clone yourself and not have anyone else around. What makes us different is what makes us wonderful.

Point #7:

Would you be willing to go without clothing if laws were in place banning you from wearing any? If you answer no, then to not allow someone else the freedom to choose between clothing and no clothing marks you as a hypocrite. If you are not willing to allow others the same freedoms you enjoy, then you don't deserve to have any freedoms at all.

Point #8:

A nudist has lived as a clothed person. Before you debate me ask yourself this, "Have I ever lived as a nudist?" If the answer is no, then tell me who is better capable of discussing both sides of this debate?

There is a difference between the people on this site that have debated this or similar topics in the past. I have debated this topic for over twenty years now. I look forward to your comments and participation.

With love and understanding.--mark :)
Jation

Con

Point #1:
(God created us naked. God wanted us naked. If you believe in God, then you cannot disagree with me. To do so is to go against God's will.)

- This I must refer to the good book, the Bible
Genesis:
"Yahweh God made clothes out of skins for the man and his wife, and they put them on." This sacred text shows us that God covered the bodies that had stripped themselves, through sin, of the garment of grace. For this reason, we must all clothe ourselves decently, modestly and with dignity. Those who appear indecently dressed are an incentive to sin, and so are responsible not only for their own sins but also for those that others may commit because of them. Reflect that fashion, if it is indecent " and we see that the world unfortunately follows it as if it were a law " is a trick of the devil, a clever trap in which the devil catches souls, in the same way as hunters catch game in the woods and fields.

Point #2:
Clothing has seen many atrocities from child labor in sweatshops during the industrial age of America. To slaves working cotton fields that led to countless deaths during the Civil War. With the incredibly destructive history of a product meant only to cover a part of the human body no more meaningful than the rest, how can anyone support forcing others to use it?

- There have been countless atrocities through history, from war machines to making drugs, prostitution and the like.
This is not a valid enough to point your finger at an industrialized nation that has better standards than the time that you are referring to.
Also note that these same clothes may very well have protected them from the elements.

Point #3:
Genitals are not sexual organs anymore than a person's fingers or mouth. All of these parts of the human body can be used for physical gratification. If you are going to cover one of them, you need to cover them all. There are people that go their entire lives without giving in to their animal needs. No one goes a lifetime without expelling waste from their bodies. So you tell me. What is the primary function of genitals? The answer is simple. To remove waste product from the human body. The mouth is used the same way when we vomit. Our nose is used the same way when we sneeze or blow it. Don't choose one part of the human body and place an inaccurate label on it then force others to cover that body part up. If a person can go around without a mask or gloves, then a person can go around without pants or underwear. To argue otherwise makes no sense at all.

- Of coarse our body has many functions. A very complex system, capable of performing multiple tasks.
Can you tell me that an erect penis or an aroused vagina has a sole purpose of excreting waste?
Genitalia is the outwardly parts of our reproductive system. They are vital in reproduction and an essence to survival.
Twisting around such a notion that any body part can be used for gratifications is a meager attempt to downplay the role our genitalia play in our reproductive cycle and to support your argument.
If you were to use that theory our brain would be our biggest adversary. How would that be covered up?

Point #4:
If you can't see the beauty in your own body, then you shouldn't have one.

- I can and do see beauty in my own body and in others. I personally feel the body is the greatest work of art known to man. This however does not negate the fact that for the betterment of a society, that some body parts should not be exposed.

Point #5:
Nudity and clothing have nothing to do with rape, molestation, sexual abuse, or any crime dealing with physical assault. If you believe clothing prevents any of these things, then check out your daily news. If you accuse nudity of causing any of these things, then you've just made a point for eliminating clothing altogether. Because all of these things exist in a clothed society.

- We could only know if nudity made these crimes worse if we lived in a current nude society. A subjective stance on both of our parts, nudity may not be the sole cause but would certainly play a role in fostering such behavior.
Nudity is not the cause, it is the perpetrators. Yet again, it could very well make a bad situation worse.

Point #6:
Clothing is a costly lifestyle. Nudity is a state of being and costs nothing. When you force people to have to live your lifestyle, then you may as well clone yourself and not have anyone else around. What makes us different is what makes us wonderful.

- Clothing can be costly but there are many charities, fund raising, subsidies, etc. in place that make clothes affordable and accessible. Clothes can also be beneficial against many elements that are outside of our control, inside and out.
In addition, our culture has grown to enjoy the many benefits and comforts of clothing. Yes, even the superficial ones.

Point #7:
Would you be willing to go without clothing if laws were in place banning you from wearing any? If you answer no, then to not allow someone else the freedom to choose between clothing and no clothing marks you as a hypocrite. If you are not willing to allow others the same freedoms you enjoy, then you don't deserve to have any freedoms at all.

- To be willing and to not abide by a law are two different things altogether. A law is enforcement and to willfully act would be on my own terms.
I would not choose too go without clothing by choice, unless a law was enacted that I had to abide by, unwillfully.

Point #8:
A nudist has lived as a clothed person. Before you debate me ask yourself this, "Have I ever lived as a nudist?" If the answer is no, then tell me who is better capable of discussing both sides of this debate?

- This, from your own perspective makes you better at answering your question. There are many things legal and illegal that I have chosen not to partake but have used reason and data to support my decisions. I don"t feel being a nudist is a prerequisite for debating this topic.

There is a difference between the people on this site that have debated this or similar topics in the past. I have debated this topic for over twenty years now. I look forward to your comments and participation.

- I look forward to your replies and would like to thank you for starting an intriguing debate!
Debate Round No. 1
markalantrimeloni

Pro

Thank you for responding to this debate so quickly. Nudity will be a hot button issue over the next few years and it doesn't hurt for me to get fully prepared with a few debates. Thank you for your participation.

Point #1:
(God created us naked. God wanted us naked. If you believe in God, then you cannot disagree with me. To do so is to go against God's will.)

- This I must refer to the good book, the Bible
Genesis:
"Yahweh God made clothes out of skins for the man and his wife, and they put them on." This sacred text shows us that God covered the bodies that had stripped themselves, through sin, of the garment of grace. For this reason, we must all clothe ourselves decently, modestly and with dignity. Those who appear indecently dressed are an incentive to sin, and so are responsible not only for their own sins but also for those that others may commit because of them. Reflect that fashion, if it is indecent " and we see that the world unfortunately follows it as if it were a law " is a trick of the devil, a clever trap in which the devil catches souls, in the same way as hunters catch game in the woods and fields.

My Response:

The religious significance of nudity in the public arena will play a small part in getting nudity as legal as clothing. But there are a few things that fascinate me.

#1: I never sinned back then. You never sinned back then. Why should we pay for someone else's sin?

#2: A number of people don't believe in God and are not bound by this punishment for original sin.

#3: Although the bible hasn't been added to since it was written, there have to be new prophets appointed by God to bring a new message. Why wouldn't God want us to go back to a time before original sin? Why wouldn't he appoint a new prophet to relay this message?

#4: We are better off moving forward than being stuck in the past.

(Response Closed) Next:

Point #2:
Clothing has seen many atrocities from child labor in sweatshops during the industrial age of America. To slaves working cotton fields that led to countless deaths during the Civil War. With the incredibly destructive history of a product meant only to cover a part of the human body no more meaningful than the rest, how can anyone support forcing others to use it?

- There have been countless atrocities through history, from war machines to making drugs, prostitution and the like.
This is not a valid enough to point your finger at an industrialized nation that has better standards than the time that you are referring to.
Also note that these same clothes may very well have protected them from the elements.

My Response:

I'm glad you agree there were many atrocities attributed to societies perceived need for clothing. A need probably further enforced by the very people committing them. But this is getting off-track a bit. I guess my question is, How can anyone continue to make others wear clothing when clothing itself has such a bad history? Nudity doesn't have such a history. I would prefer to offer a more environmentally friendly and humanistic approach to appearing in public.

People can still wear clothing whether it's for protection or any other reason. I just don't see why a person can't choose to go without it as they see fit. Me and you didn't invent clothing. We didn't make it socially unacceptable to wear nothing in public. We should be allowed to make that decision on our own and not be told we have to.

(Response Closed) Next:

- Of coarse our body has many functions. A very complex system, capable of performing multiple tasks.
Can you tell me that an erect penis or an aroused vagina has a sole purpose of excreting waste?
Genitalia is the outwardly parts of our reproductive system. They are vital in reproduction and an essence to survival.
Twisting around such a notion that any body part can be used for gratifications is a meager attempt to downplay the role our genitalia play in our reproductive cycle and to support your argument.
If you were to use that theory our brain would be our biggest adversary. How would that be covered up?

My Response:

An erection in males is perfectly natural and the cause of which is not important as long as other activities are not being done. Criminalize the act. Not something as natural as arousal. A person will become aroused with or without clothing on. That doesn't mean we should require everyone to wear clothing to cover themselves just in case. That's like saying we should all be required to wear rain coats just in case there is a shower.

Not everyone reproduces and not everyone cares if we survive. Is that all you think about when you see genitals? So you do not see anything else?

I think I made a clear case when I said other parts of the body can be used for sexual gratification. Don't you agree? The question is whether or not a body part with multiple uses should be covered for no better reason than some concept of decency. Genitals are no better or worse than any other part of the body. Why do people want to make them into something dirty or indecent? Accept them as equals with all other parts of the body and cover nothing up. Soon no one will even refer to genitals as sexual organs. They will be nothing.

(Response Closed) Next:

- I can and do see beauty in my own body and in others. I personally feel the body is the greatest work of art known to man. This however does not negate the fact that for the betterment of a society, that some body parts should not be exposed.

My Response:

So you love your body yet treat parts of it as....Why do you feel society will be better if certain parts of your body are not seen? In a clothed society, how often do you look at another person's genitals? If you're like me, not often. The same is the case if the person were naked in front of you. You might take an initial glance, but after it wouldn't make a difference.

(Response Closed) Next:

- We could only know if nudity made these crimes worse if we lived in a current nude society. A subjective stance on both of our parts, nudity may not be the sole cause but would certainly play a role in fostering such behavior.
Nudity is not the cause, it is the perpetrators. Yet again, it could very well make a bad situation worse.

My Response:

And I can make a similar statement about clothing. The perpetrator is the cause, but since clothing covers what that person desires it makes them commit the acts to get their fix. Therefore, clothing makes a bad situation worse. Therefore, clothing should be banned.

Since we don't know what makes people commit sexual crimes, we can't blame clothing or nudity. The right way to handle this situation is to allow both. All I do know is clothing doesn't stop crime. So protection is not a good reason to make everyone wear it.

(Response Closed) Next:

- Clothing can be costly but there are many charities, fund raising, subsidies, etc. in place that make clothes affordable and accessible. Clothes can also be beneficial against many elements that are outside of our control, inside and out.
In addition, our culture has grown to enjoy the many benefits and comforts of clothing. Yes, even the superficial ones.

Yeah, it's nice when you are able to feel comfortable. Not everyone gets that choice without the threat of reprisal. Why is it so hard to allow others to be comfortable without clothing? If you are allowed to wear clothing to be comfortable, why be afraid to allow someone else to not wear clothing and be comfortable? It really doesn't effect you, does it? Just like a bad outfit, if you don't want to see it, turn your head.

(Response Closed) Next:

- To be willing and to not abide by a law are two different things altogether. A law is enforcement and to willfully act would be on my own terms.
I would not choose too go without clothing by choice, unless a law was enacted that I had to abide by, unwillfully.

Lucky for you the laws are with you. But laws change. Would you fight against a law you didn't believe in? If made to go naked all the time in public, would you start a petition or possibly debate the issue?

(Response Closed) Next:

- This, from your own perspective makes you better at answering your question. There are many things legal and illegal that I have chosen not to partake but have used reason and data to support my decisions. I don"t feel being a nudist is a prerequisite for debating this topic.

Anyone can debate any topic. I do it myself. But I also understand that until I've experience the topic first hand. I can only offer an opinion.

Bottom Line: If you can think of any reason why someone going naked in public should not be allowed the same freedom as a clothed person, please chime in. Nudity harms no one. Clothing harms no one. Both should be as legal as the other. Just not wanting to look at someone doesn't mean you should take away their freedom and a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are hundreds of people at Wal-Mart in clothing I wish I never would've seen. I would not, however, take away their freedom to wear it.

(Response Closed) Next:

- I look forward to your replies and would like to thank you for starting an intriguing debate!

My Response:

I'm kind of forced into it. Not being able to live your life as you'd like can do that to a person. I hope you'll continue this debate with a response to round 2. I think we have a few more issues we can cover. Take care and God bless!

(Response Closed) Exit:
Jation

Con

Pro -"(Bottom Line: If you can think of any reason why someone going naked in public should not be allowed the same freedom as a clothed person, please chime in. Nudity harms no one. Clothing harms no one. Both should be as legal as the other. Just not wanting to look at someone doesn't mean you should take away their freedom and a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are hundreds of people at Wal-Mart in clothing I wish I never would've seen. I would not, however, take away their freedom to wear it.")

- With the exception of your first posted argument,
I am comfortable with our answers and rebuttals from the first round. I also would like to move forward. We covered many points, however if there is anything you feel needs further attention, please make me aware of that.

That exception being that of Gods intention for us to be clothed. As your first point of argumentation, it appeared that you believed that Gods will was for us to be clothed. With that, I formed my rebuttal in context to that.
Your follow up seemed to go against what I thought was your own principle.
As an atheist, I do not feel that God plays a role in this debate. Debating over the existence of a God would have taken us way off base.
In either case, it seem that we align in our views.

Although...you may wish to state what side of the argument you are posing for this debates purpose and for clarification.

- Many of our personal freedoms and individual liberties are subject to our own personal and subjective beliefs, it seems clear that our debate will rest upon our own interpretations of subjective rules, laws what should and should not be.

Contrary to our subjective views I feel it is necessary to post the guidelines that are currently in place and are in effect.

Because it is too lengthy to post every states law on public nudity, I urge readers of this debate to visit his or her own states laws and regulations.
My primary source:
Hg.org
http://www.hg.org...

You will find that in each state, similar wording nd termonolgy is repeated.

Here is an example of some preliminary content and guidelines.


(a) A person commits the crime of indecent exposure if, with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire of himself or of any person other than his spouse, he exposes his genitals under circumstances in which he knows his conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm in any public place or on the private premises of another or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises.

(b) Indecent exposure is a Class A misdemeanor.

* Section 13A-12-130 – Public lewdness.

(a) A person commits the crime of public lewdness if:

(1) He exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

(2) He does any lewd act in a public place which he knows is likely to be observed by others who would be affronted or alarmed.

(b) Public lewdness is a Class C misdemeanor.

Debate Round No. 2
markalantrimeloni

Pro

You've hit the nail on the head, my friend. From what I've seen there are no laws that specifically ban public nudity. Which is a good indication the public is not supportive of banning public nudity.

This is Pennsylvania's take on this:

CHAPTER 31. SEXUAL OFFENSES
Subchapter B. Definition Of Offenses

" 3127. Indecent exposure.

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or in any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm.

The laws are open to interpretation. If there was a public outcry against nudity, then why don't we have laws specifically banning it? The issue is freedom.

No one can answer the question.

What harm physical or mental does nudity pose to the public?

Or, for that matter, the question.

What harm physical or mental does clothing pose to the public?

The answer is none. And for that reason alone, "Nudity Should Be As Legal As Clothing".

I'm not talking about lewd acts here. That is a different debate. Lewd acts can be performed with or with out clothing. How a person acts in public doesn't have anything to do with whether they are clothed or not. The acts themselves are worth passing laws against. Not the state of dress a person is in when performing them. And a law against lewd acts is enough. We don't need laws against clothing or nudity.

Let me pose some questions to you to put this debate in more perspective.

Has anyone ever been harmed by a naked person in public? If no, then why not allow nudity in public?
Has anyone ever been harmed by a clothed person in public? If yes, then why are we allowing clothing in public?

Have you ever heard of someone being harmed by a naked person in public? If no, then why not allow nudity in public?
Have you ever heard of someone being harmed by a clothed person in public? If yes, then why are we allowing clothing in public?

Are you offended by the way others look? If so, do you believe that person should not appear in public? Does it really matter if they are clothed or not?

Do you find certain clothing people wear offensive? Would you tell them to stop wearing it and put on something else?

When you meet people in public do you look at their genitals specifically? Do you feel others might look at a person's genitals if a person wore no clothing in public?

I guess the basis of what I'm saying is whether a person is clothed or not in public makes no difference as to how someone will treat them. Makes no difference as to how people will react. If someone is going to treat someone badly, then whether clothing is worn or not will not effect the outcome. If someone is going to act badly in public, then clothed or not the result will be the same.

So if clothing or nudity have no effect on how people behave in public, then each one should be treated as the same when it comes to the law. Anything a naked person does in public, can be done by a clothed person.

You don't see laws banning certain articles of clothing. You don't see laws banning nudity. Therefore, nudity should be as legal as clothing in pubic. And the indecent exposure portion of laws needs to be removed entirely.

If we take the Pennsylvania law and reword it like this would you support it:

CHAPTER 31. SEXUAL OFFENSES
Subchapter B. Definition Of Offenses

" 3127. Indecent exposure.

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits indecent exposure if that person (wears certain clothing) in any public place or in any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm.

No. Because it doesn't make any sense.

To a nudist their clothing is their naked body. Why shouldn't they have the same rights in public that a clothed person has without this "Indecent Exposure" part of the law being present? If you wouldn't want this law including clothing, then there's no logical reason to have it when clothing is not worn.

Indecent Exposure can also apply to clothing if the person wearing it knows the clothing is likely to offend, affront, or alarm.

So based on all of the above let me try to clarify things a bit.

Point #1: Nudity and clothing have nothing to do with how a person acts in public. The person committing the acts is the sole one responsible for what they are doing. There is nothing a person can do in public naked that they can't do clothed. It's just a matter of what body parts can be seen. The act alone is enough to make it illegal. You shouldn't ban clothing or nudity because of it.

Point #2: Just because you find something distasteful doesn't mean it should be banned. Taste is a subjective matter and if you could ban something based on it then everything would eventually be banned because everyone's taste differs. Not everyone wants to see certain articles of clothing the same way not everyone will want to see a person's genitals. Does that mean personal freedom to wear the clothing or go naked should be banned? Of course, not. We have to allow people to be themselves. The same way we want to have the freedom to be ourselves.

Point #3: Why would you not want more freedom as opposed to less? Banning clothing or nudity results in less freedom. Don't we have enough restrictions without adding another one to it?

Point #4: Since there are no laws directly banning public nudity (and trust me certain lawmakers have tried), then my argument that "Nudity Should Be As Legal As Clothing" is fully supported by the majority which have chosen not to support such public nudity banning laws.

Point #5: Just because you don't see people exercising their right to go naked in public, doesn't mean more people won't as people become more open about their bodies through education. Sometimes all you need is for someone to say it's ok. I am here to tell you.

It's OK to go naked in public.

Let's advance as a society. Fight for the rights you deserve and don't give in to someone else's perception that certain parts of the human body are wrong, sinful, indecent, etc. That simply is not true.
Jation

Con

Because of a quickly waning weekend, I oppologize for a somewhat sloppy formatted response in this round.

All of this debating has now come down to where we can clearly identify the differences of opinion that we share.

Law makers have put forth these laws because they believe that it would be in the publics best interest to not allow nudity.
We too could consider that these, as a human rights law, will be drafted with the utmost care due to its sensitive nature. Making them much more susceptible to an opaque interpretation.

I do understand your point of view but I do not feel you are any where near close to the majority in your take on nudity. If that were the case every state would not feel the need to put in place laws restricting nudity. There would also be far more people demanding otherwise

We cannot make assumptions on what crimes would or would not occur about a naked society with no data to support it. We know these crimes do occur and if we are making assumptions, I would lean towards nudity making these crimes more prevalent.

We don't live in a perfect society and this can be illustrated through many examples.
In short, it is a relatively simple argument.

I have seen my entire life scantly clad outfits that one would find attractive. The allure of this will never go away. Looking at a nude female to me is batter than a clothed female.

Look at any television show. There is more nudity shown each year. It is what the public craves. But not for any reasons of freedom. It is lust. It is the law of attraction. It is a natural

Why do Strip clubs do so well? Not because the subject matter is that people want their freedom. They want nudity, they want sex. They (we) have urges. Seeing nude people everyday would not make my own urges for the opposite sex any less.
Nudity sells because of the urges we have.

Don't you feel there are many people that would not exercise this right with caution and with good sense?

I can think of how public nudity could turn ugly very quick in our natural everyday surroundings. Not because I'm conditioned to believe nudity is anything terrible. There is just good judgement to be made and a time and place for certain things.
Debate Round No. 3
markalantrimeloni

Pro

No need to apologize. We all have lives. I appreciate you taking the time to debate me and give me your views on this highly volatile issue. You've treated me better than most when this discussion comes up. For that, I thank you.

Note-I'll present my opponents comments in parentheses to separate them from my responses.

(All of this debating has now come down to where we can clearly identify the differences of opinion that we share.)

Nothing wrong with that. I love differing opinions. Makes life interesting.

(Law makers have put forth these laws because they believe that it would be in the publics best interest to not allow nudity.
We too could consider that these, as a human rights law, will be drafted with the utmost care due to its sensitive nature. Making them much more susceptible to an opaque interpretation.)

I guess I'm a bit more cynical than you. I don't put anything past an elected official. Might be why politicians have such bad reputations. I can only hope the laws they pass reflect the majority. If for no better reason, than they want to keep their jobs.

(I do understand your point of view but I do not feel you are any where near close to the majority in your take on nudity. If that were the case every state would not feel the need to put in place laws restricting nudity. There would also be far more people demanding otherwise.)

The laws mistakenly mention nudity while leaving clothing alone. Certain clothing is not acceptable in public, but politicians didn't see the need to include them in the wording of indecency laws. My question is, "Why is that?" I believe they knew that clothing alone didn't represent a problem. If nudity was more accepted, then it wouldn't be included in the indecency laws as well. It's my job to educate the public and that's what I'm doing now.

(We cannot make assumptions on what crimes would or would not occur about a naked society with no data to support it. We know these crimes do occur and if we are making assumptions, I would lean towards nudity making these crimes more prevalent.)

There is crime in a clothed society. People commit crimes while clothed. Can we agree on that?

Do you believe clothing is causing these crimes? Do you believe clothing is increasing the number of crimes? If not, then what is? Why do you think nudity would cause more crime? I don't believe you can blame one or the other. And if you think nudity would increase the crime rate, then you can't give clothing a pass based on the fact you prefer clothing to nudity. Let's be fair.

Clothing and nudity do not contribute to crime in our society. One should be as legal as the other.

(I have seen my entire life scantly clad outfits that one would find attractive. The allure of this will never go away. Looking at a nude female to me is batter than a clothed female.)

Funny thing is I get no desire from seeing anyone naked. I actually need to see people clothed to get any sexual feeling. But I think we are moving away from the point of this debate.

Why not ban clothing since it is creating sexual desire as well?

The more nudity becomes accepted. The less people will feel any desire. Then we can truly evolve as a society.

(Look at any television show. There is more nudity shown each year. It is what the public craves. But not for any reasons of freedom. It is lust. It is the law of attraction. It is a natural.)

If we don't ban clothing in public for creating this desire or lust, then we can't ban nudity in public for it either.

(Why do Strip clubs do so well? Not because the subject matter is that people want their freedom. They want nudity, they want sex. They (we) have urges. Seeing nude people everyday would not make my own urges for the opposite sex any less.)

But you can control them in public and act decently I assume? The same would apply to your interactions with naked people in public. Just seeing someone clothed or naked is not enough to make you act indecently in public. Do you ever see someone clothed that turns you on? How do you act when you do? If you pose any threat to naked people in public, then you are an equal threat to clothed people.

You see many clothed people in public and hardly notice them anymore. You might look at one or two more closely, but then you don't care and move on. The same will apply to naked people. If I put you in a room of naked people, it will take less than five minutes for you to become comfortable and forget they aren't wearing clothing at all. The same applies to clothed people. If I put you in a room with clothed people, it will take less than five minutes for you to become comfortable and forget they are wearing clothing.

Naked people are no more interesting or desirable than clothed people. Your attraction is based on your own desires. And I trust you to keep those in check.

(Don't you feel there are many people that would not exercise this right with caution and with good sense?)

If a person is incapable of such, then they pose a threat to both clothed and naked alike. I don't give people a pass for bad behavior based on whether the person they choose to commit these crimes on are clothed or naked. To me, someone who cannot control themselves in public deserves what punishment is currently on the books. You can't blame the victim for the crime. Neither can you blame clothing or nudity.

(I can think of how public nudity could turn ugly very quick in our natural everyday surroundings. Not because I'm conditioned to believe nudity is anything terrible. There is just good judgement to be made and a time and place for certain things.)

Crimes are already committed in a clothed society. Things already turn ugly pretty quick if someone does indecent acts. Can you blame nudity for that? Can you blame clothing? A person who is willing to do indecent acts in public won't care if the people are clothed or naked. They are beyond the point of operating in a civilized society.

I'm going to make one additional point.

Take a long look at yourself clothed in the mirror. Ask yourself if the clothing you wear makes you the person that you are. Ask yourself if you become a different person while wearing clothing.

Now take the clothing off and do the same. Ask yourself if you deserve any less respect from others without clothing. Ask yourself if you're any more desirable without clothing than when you were wearing it.

And finally ask yourself,

I enjoy being able to make a choice of what to wear on my body without someone telling me I cannot wear it. I enjoy being comfortable in public and won't let someone tell me what I can and cannot wear. It is none of their business and if they don't like it they can simply not look. You give that freedom to clothed people. Why not give that freedom to someone naked? Why not choose simply not to look?
Jation

Con

Note- I will also present my opponents comments in parentheses to separate them from my responses.

(Law makers have put forth these laws because they believe that it would be in the publics' best interest to not allow nudity.
We too could consider that these, as a human rights law, will be drafted with the utmost care due to its sensitive nature. Making them much more susceptible to an opaque interpretation.)

(I guess I'm a bit more cynical than you. I don't put anything past an elected official. Might be why politicians have such bad reputations. I can only hope the laws they pass reflect the majority. If for no better reason, than they want to keep their jobs.)

- That is a point a may not have been clear in making. To keep their job they will put into action a law they feel that the general Conesus follows. In this case, it being that the majority I speak of, not being for public nudity.
The second part of my statement was my own opinion of how similar laws; laws that deal with rights and freedoms are often vague in interpretation due to how fragile society responds to them.

(The laws mistakenly mention nudity while leaving clothing alone. Certain clothing is not acceptable in public, but politicians didn't see the need to include them in the wording of indecency laws. My question is, "Why is that?" I believe they knew that clothing alone didn't represent a problem. If nudity was more accepted, then it wouldn't be included in the indecency laws as well. It's my job to educate the public and that's what I'm doing now.)

- I don"t particularly see the point in attacking clothing other than it being the opposite of nudity. I get that you are paralleling the two to point out your view on what happens with clothes can happen without clothes and visa versa.
This I would again argue with my above points I responded with in the previous round.

(There is crime in a clothed society. People commit crimes while clothed. Can we agree on that?)
-Yes, I agree.

(Do you believe clothing is causing these crimes? Do you believe clothing is increasing the number of crimes? If not, then what is? Why do you think nudity would cause more crime? I don't believe you can blame one or the other. And if you think nudity would increase the crime rate, then you can't give clothing a pass based on the fact you prefer clothing to nudity. Let's be fair.)

- This is why I stated my own opinion and what I feel is the case for the vast majority of individuals out there " {I have seen my entire life scantly clad outfits that one would find attractive. The allure of this will never go away. Looking at a nude female to me is batter than a clothed female.}
So I do not blame clothing, I blame peoples response to clothing or the lack there of!

- Do you feel it may be a possibility that more nudity/less clothing could be leading to a more perverse society?

(Funny thing is I get no desire from seeing anyone naked. I actually need to see people clothed to get any sexual feeling. But I think we are moving away from the point of this debate.)

- To your credit, perhaps this may be a result of having exercised this environment as you mentioned earlier.

(Why not ban clothing since it is creating sexual desire as well?

The more nudity becomes accepted. The less people will feel any desire. Then we can truly evolve as a society.)

- I just don"t agree that is works this way. In a perfect world". maybe.
I reiterate that us as humans have desires that are natural desires. The opposite sex, sometimes the same sex, is attractive and is lusted after. Wouldn"t it stand to reason that the more of the body exposed the more pleasing to the eye? Pleasing, sensual and sexual.

If we don't ban clothing in public for creating this desire or lust, then we can't ban nudity in public for it either.

- You are in essence agreeing that this desire exists, correct?
If we ban clothing like you suggest, what does that leave us with? No clothes, perpetuating the issue.

(But you can control them in public and act decently I assume? The same would apply to your interactions with naked people in public. Just seeing someone clothed or naked is not enough to make you act indecently in public. Do you ever see someone clothed that turns you on? How do you act when you do? If you pose any threat to naked people in public, then you are an equal threat to clothed people.)

You see many clothed people in public and hardly notice them anymore. You might look at one or two more closely, but then you don't care and move on. The same will apply to naked people. If I put you in a room of naked people, it will take less than five minutes for you to become comfortable and forget they aren't wearing clothing at all. The same applies to clothed people. If I put you in a room with clothed people, it will take less than five minutes for you to become comfortable and forget they are wearing clothing.

Naked people are no more interesting or desirable than clothed people. Your attraction is based on your own desires. And I trust you to keep those in check.

(If a person is incapable of such, then they pose a threat to both clothed and naked alike. I don't give people a pass for bad behavior based on whether the person they choose to commit these crimes on are clothed or naked. To me, someone who cannot control themselves in public deserves what punishment is currently on the books. You can't blame the victim for the crime. Neither can you blame clothing or nudity.

Crimes are already committed in a clothed society. Things already turn ugly pretty quick if someone does indecent acts. Can you blame nudity for that? Can you blame clothing? A person who is willing to do indecent acts in public won't care if the people are clothed or naked. They are beyond the point of operating in a civilized society.

Haven"t we heard time and time again about how people (unfortunately, mostly woman) Have "asked for it" " meaning them being the provocateur and the provocative attire leads to the offense. I feel this is very wrong but seems to illustrate that my point of showing more is urging more.

(I'm going to make one additional point.

Take a long look at yourself clothed in the mirror. Ask yourself if the clothing you wear makes you the person that you are. Ask yourself if you become a different person while wearing clothing.

Now take the clothing off and do the same. Ask yourself if you deserve any less respect from others without clothing. Ask yourself if you're any more desirable without clothing than when you were wearing it.

And finally ask yourself,

I enjoy being able to make a choice of what to wear on my body without someone telling me I cannot wear it. I enjoy being comfortable in public and won't let someone tell me what I can and cannot wear. It is none of their business and if they don't like it they can simply not look. You give that freedom to clothed people. Why not give that freedom to someone naked? Why not choose simply not to look?)

I repeat that I respect you view and I actually wish there are many freedoms that could be more freely expressed.

- A point that might be worth noting that I have yet to mention is cleanliness.
This topic has got me to thinking how nudity would effect how every day public affairs would effect the average person.

My comments may sound crass but my intentions are to just be blunt and to the point.
Cleanliness and hygiene!
We all know that some people are not as clean as others. How would this effect others on subways, in movie theaters, anywhere for that matter if someone who chooses not to clean themselves after defecating?
How would someone's wife or husband react if their significant other was exposed to an erection due to someone being attracted to them? Would that effect where off over time?
Could woman's vaginas be subject to bacteria and germs? As you point out that the genitals are used for discretion of human waste. An obvious source of germs.
How would young children be effected psychologically? They do not have the same level of understating as we (adults) have.
Just some points to ponder.
I would be curious to know how this does unfold in nudist camps and where nudity is acceptable.
I would welcome your insight.
Debate Round No. 4
markalantrimeloni

Pro

I was going to wait until tomorrow to wrap up my end of this debate since I worked all day, but I think I can handle it tonight.

note-My opponent failed to put parentheses on all my statements, but shouldn't be hard for someone to figure out which comments are mine in his Round 4 response to this debate.

note- I will once again put parentheses around my opponent's comments to offset them from my responses.

note-Where I do not respond to my opponent's comments doesn't mean I've missed them. I simply feel the content has been covered and don't want to beat a dead horse.

(I don"t particularly see the point in attacking clothing other than it being the opposite of nudity.)

I am actually not attacking clothing. I don't consider myself a nudist. I am clothing optional. But in order to debate whether nudity should be as legal as clothing, I have to point out the downside to clothing. I haven't said nearly as much as I can about the advantages of nudity over clothing. It's not a part of this debate. I'll be saving that for another debate in the near future.

(Do you feel it may be a possibility that more nudity/less clothing could be leading to a more perverse society?)

No. I believe the opposite. Clothing creates desire. Desire makes people act perverse. You want what you can't see. That's why marriages break up. Once you see it over and over again, you probably want to try something else. So more nudity will lead to less interest and less crime.

( You are in essence agreeing that this desire exists, correct?)

Yes. Desire exists. What causes that desire is where we disagree?

(If we ban clothing like you suggest, what does that leave us with? No clothes, perpetuating the issue.)

I'm not suggesting we ban clothing. But if you are going to ban nudity, then clothing needs to be banned as well. Neither one contributes to indecency. People do that. Doesn't matter what they are wearing or not wearing.

(Haven"t we heard time and time again about how people (unfortunately, mostly woman) Have "asked for it" " meaning them being the provocateur and the provocative attire leads to the offense. I feel this is very wrong but seems to illustrate that my point of showing more is urging more.)

I could be wrong, but I think you are supporting my point. The clothing is causing desire. Since I exist on both sides of the clothed and not clothed issue, I can tell you. Clothing is way better at creating desire than nudity will ever be. Nothing against you, my friend. But I live both sides of the issue daily.

(We all know that some people are not as clean as others. How would this effect others on subways, in movie theaters, anywhere for that matter if someone who chooses not to clean themselves after defecating?)

That's what a towel is for. It's common practice at places where nudists go for them to sit on towels.

Clothing is way dirtier than nudity. Do you have any idea how often someone will use the same clothing over and over again? Feces will soak through clothing and contaminate an area as well if someone doesn't clean themselves.

While naked people will take better care to present themselves in the best possible light. I don't see this being an issue. We all use public toilets and take our precautions. The same can be done in public places out in the open.

Nudity will not stop people from doing what they do. Same way clothing will not stop unsanitary issues. They are not meant to. Cleanliness is up to the individual. And I hate to say it, but where I work there have been instances of waste product left behind on chairs and that was from clothed people.

(How would someone's wife or husband react if their significant other was exposed to an erection due to someone being attracted to them? Would that effect where off over time?)

Do erections not happen while clothed? Are they not sometimes noticeable? Does anyone spend that much time staring at another's crotch? And if they did whether it was clothed or naked, wouldn't it be up to the person offended to take action as they saw fit?

I can't speak to someone's reaction to an erection. Nudity doesn't cause erections any more than clothing does.

And I can't say whether that effect will wear off over time. It depends on the individual.

(Could woman's vaginas be subject to bacteria and germs? As you point out that the genitals are used for discretion of human waste. An obvious source of germs.)

Tight clothing causes yeast infections. Open air environments kill bacteria who need a moist, warm place to thrive. Clothing provides just such a warm, moist place. In this case, nudity is healthier for women. Not to mention underwear is a perfect place to catch urine drops and feces. The jokes about skid marks in some people's underwear are true. At least with a towel, you can fold it over and not have that crap rubbing up against your skin all day. Why do babies get diaper rash? Clothing is your source of germs. Not to mention ticks and fleas use clothing as a means to hide and travel on their hosts. No clothing means these pests are found easier.

(How would young children be effected psychologically? They do not have the same level of understating as we (adults) have.)

The studies show younger people have less of a problem with nudity than adults. They haven't been taught to see their bodies as a dirty thing that needs to be covered. Until some adult comes along and destroys that innocence. I'd rather someone appreciate the body they have than taught to hate the skin they are in and feel embarrassed by this wonderful gift they've been given. If you want to see what a healthy child looks like, go to www.purenudism.com. All pictures on this site are legal in every state in the US. Disclaimer-Anyone offended by pictures of nudist families, please don't access the website I've listed. I make no money from this website and only list it as a source in which to respond to my opponent's statement.

In Closing:

Before voting, I would like to leave you with a few thoughts.

I was not trying to prove nudity is superior to clothing. My position is that one is no more superior to the other. They are equally appropriate for a person to wear in public. When I say wear nudity, I mean skin. To me a person's skin constitutes clothing. So people are never naked in public.

This is not an issue of moral or immoral behavior. The person commits immoral acts with our without clothing. Nudity and clothing are not to be blamed for someone's indecency. They do that themselves.

By making nudity as legal as clothing you are striking a blow for freedom. We lose so much of ourselves when interacting with other people. We are expected to look a certain way, act a certain way, treat each other a certain way, etc. in public. How many more freedoms can we afford to lose?

We all want to feel comfortable no matter what we are wearing. You enjoy the clothing you wear. Let others have this same enjoyment who enjoy wearing only the clothing they were born in. You lose nothing by allowing them this. In fact, you gain the ability to do the same thing yourself. And if you've never tried to go without clothing, who's to say you might not find out something about yourself. You might be more comfortable without it.
Jation

Con

Somehow transferring from one device to the next, I lost some of my formatting. My apologies for not having parentheses. We all know of the "review" before posting, so... No excuses.

I want to thank my opponent for a very intriguing debate. A debate that has raised a lot of great questions to consider.

It is my argument that our culture conceptualizes nudity with the association of sexuality. This is not due to the dumbing down of our culture to simply accept this as a social norm, it is rather a deeper seeded natural cause and effect. It is the deep rooted physiological need humans have to reproduce. Simply put, the birds and the bees.

This is something that will always exist because of our nature. It would not change with more exposure to nudity.

Many people are sexually attracted to nudity, which they find to be erotic and sexually arousing. Some people employ their nudity to sexually attract a mate or sexual partner or as a form of flirting.

Nudity is a strong facet and at times a very important facet in the expression of feelings in intimate relationships in which there is physical intimacy. Physical intimacy, sexual activity, arousal are all very natural.

Some people have a compulsive desire to express such emotions and to express those emotions without clothing. Some people may experience erotic and sexual pleasure in seeing their partner in the nude, or to be seen nude by the partner. Some people also experience similar pleasure from seeing other people in the nude, and being seen in the nude by others.

For these reasons, here and throughout this debate, I feel give caucausality to rationalize that nudity would not be in the best interest of the public.

(No. I believe the opposite. Clothing creates desire. Desire makes people act perverse. You want what you can't see. That's why marriages break up. Once you see it over and over again, you probably want to try something else. So more nudity will lead to less interest and less crime.)

I believe it is the human body itself that is the object of that desire.

(The studies show younger people have less of a problem with nudity than adults. They haven't been taught to see their bodies as a dirty thing that needs to be covered. Until some adult comes along and destroys that innocence. I'd rather someone appreciate the body they have than taught to hate the skin they are in and feel embarrassed by this wonderful gift they've been given. If you want to see what a healthy child looks like, go to www.purenudism.com. All pictures on this site are legal in every state in the US. Disclaimer-Anyone offended by pictures of nudist families, please don't access the website I've listed. I make no money from this website and only list it as a source in which to respond to my opponent's statement.)

How can any studies in an isolated, shut off and small in number group environments be valid?
Children having grown up in an isolated environment will learn to believe or be "taught" to believe anything!

Something to consider:
Secular groups, colonies and the like are isolated groups with a low number of people compared to that of society.
What is practiced in these groups are in secular divisions because they do not follow the norm.
My opponent claims that society knows no better. But let's consider for a moment that most people are are offended by public nudity not because they are missing out on something but because by trial and error, reason and respect.
Many groups, seemingly with this circumstance, want to bring what they have been taught to believe in a very small framework and apply it to the general public at large.

(This is not an issue of moral or immoral behavior. The person commits immoral acts with our without clothing. Nudity and clothing are not to be blamed for someone's indecency. They do that themselves.)

My argument may come across as a moral one. I assure you that the basis of my argument is not a mental one of morality.
It is based on nature and the physiological effects that the naked body has in its natural form ----- IN A NATURAL WAY!

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Praful 2 years ago
Praful
Testing if I could comment. Didn't think I could.
Posted by Praful 2 years ago
Praful
Ytt hj
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I certainly would not want to take a seat after a naked guy got up.
Posted by Shauna13 2 years ago
Shauna13
Yes God created us naked but after sin we had to be clothed cause our my and our concepts changed so being naked had to change.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
FuzzyCatPotato
markalantrimeloniJationTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Most of the arguments are stupid and yet hotly contested, like the freedom arguments. Ultimately, I vote based on the human rights abuses arguments -- if humans stopped industrial production, it'd be hard for industrial production to hurt somebody.