Nudity on television/any form of media
Debate Rounds (4)
I also believe you said "What is the difference between media nudity and reality nudity? Well, there is your answer. That is why it isnt for children. Kids are getting more and more into sex at younger ages. Thus, what is telling them to do that? there is no way that an ex-Disney star could have any effect on children... (Miley Cyrus..)
I would have no idea what could be wrong... well, mayyybee...:
The fact that human psychology would get them wondering how a vagina works.
The fact that human psychology would get them wondering how a penis works.
They don't need to be seeing each other naked. It is inapporpriate.
The point in which the sex organs actually start to develop is the beginning of pueberty, which makes exposing to them pointless.
I have nooooo idea though..
The body is not essentially pornographic, and I think to make it so is a mistake. It's what's in your mind. Imagine the pope watching a television show. Maybe it's got some redeeming qualities, but I'm sure wouldn't turn him off just because he's watching a few clips of nudity on TV. That said, overreaching nudity on television (like the wrecking ball video) is inappropriate, son in that respect, I see your point. Yet you mistake my meaning. I'm simply implying that simple nudity/brief nudity shouldn't be crucial to parents and neither should it be censored...
Pro made a remarkable claim at the beginning of his argument. His claim was that he saw no harm in having children curious on how they're parts work.
This is troubling to me. What is a child like when it is curious about something? It is a pure, honest look for an answer. Two children at the ages of which my opponent describes could get curious, and thus become curious about each other. Before you know it, there are babies from these children. That is why we do not expose them to it. Eventually, over time, they become mature enough to be able to understand and look at the opposing sex's organs for reproduction.
However, at the age of which my opponent describes, they are not able to handle this knowledge.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't find either side's arguments particularly convincing. You both made a lot of claims, but I could find no warrants or actual impacts to seeing nudity on a T.V. screen or in any form of media. Con never presented me with a harm, and Pro never presents me with a reason why it should be OK. Unfortunately for Con, the burden of the debate is on the one stating that there's something wrong with nudity, since it has to be established in order for him to win the debate. I'm sorry, but Miley Cyrus being naked in a music video tells me nothing by itself. You have to explain how that's harmful, and I don't see that in any round. You get close in R4 (a little too late anyway), but you then assume that we're all going to understand the harm of kids having kids, and I'm not going to give you an argument you don't make. I do, however, award conduct to Con, since Pro tried to modify the debate partway through by saying he was only talking about educational media.
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.