The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

Pornography should remain legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 12 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,802 times Debate No: 53052
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (12)

 

Mikal

Pro

Resolution - Pornography should remain legal and should not be banned

Rounds

Pro


(1) Rules
(2) Contentions
(3) Contentions/Rebuttals/Closing Statements


Con

(1) Contentions
(2) Contentions/Rebuttals /Closing Statements
(3) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing else


Rules

(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon will result in a full 7 point loss due to my adversary having an extra round. This means that if any other words are typed besides the aforementioned ones, my adversary will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss.
(2) 10k character limits.
(3) No semantics or trolling/ this will result in a ff
CJKAllstar

Con

Premise - The Purpose of Law

As is obvious with this topic, many points of mine will be related to safety. Pro is likely to have the contention that is not the law's right to infringe on the autonomy of the person in relation to their personal safety. I would like to set the premise that law has the right to withdraw autonomy to preserve safety and that it does.

Law firstly, has no set purpose. It is defined as "the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties". Law in itself is a system of rules and regulation, to enforce a certain purpose. Said purpose, unless written down, can only be determined by its rules. Sharia law for example has laws in areas ranging from right conduct to the Qur'an, and can be assumed that the purpose of the law is to withhold Islamic morality and lifestyle. Christian law also covers the similar areas, relating from marriage to sacrifice thus it can be inferred that Christian law wants to withhold Christian morality. Hypothetically, if a country devotes all of its law to road safety, then the purpose of that country's law is to withhold road safety. If a country has law only focusing on correct form of pagan worship, then the purpose of the law in that country is to keep the correct form of pagan worship.

If we relate that to the U.S, I presume, then law can generally be seen in five areas. Harm, donation, moral, government and donation. The purpose of harm is to prevent people being harmed by others. Purpose of donation relates to law granting goods or services to its citizens. Parental includes neglect of children and keeping children safe, morality is to withhold morals, usually religious and governmental law is for its own protection, e.g espionage. We see from harm, parental and moral that law has interests in the safety of its people. Each and every person is a part of the country and each person is part of the group the government is for. Therefore safety is a part of that and although autonomy is important, what use is it when it is detrimental upon oneself? Which is where pornography comes in.

I. The Harm of Pornography

1. Harm to Those who Watch Porn

Porn releases dopamine, when watched. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter in the brain, released whenever a reward is given. Whenever somebody experiences something they see as a reward, dopamine is released, so the person feels elated. This includes pornography. However, tantamount to heroin, the body develops tolerance towards it. Whenever somebody watched porn and feels elated, over time they become used to it and it no longer a "reward", thus they seek more. They constantly seek more than this leads to a range of problems. Norman Doidge, a psychologist studied this and this is what he concluded could happen, and what this means:

a) Increased difficulty becoming aroused.
b) They did not find their partners as attractive
c) They had less enjoyment during sex.
d) They had asked their partners to engage in porn-like activities
e) They constantly needed more extreme porn

These can lead, to a variety of problems. The need for porn in the bedroom and more extreme porn results in an increase of the chance of sexual exploitation. Sex becomes self-serving. People want more until they are having to result to sex which features exploitation of women. Their need becomes so grave that sex which is bordering illegal, from sex portraying rape to illegal BDSM people will search for more. This is what results in the sexual objectification of women.

This chains on to a whole lot of other things. Here you have an increased chance of rape. It isn't necessarily the amount of viewed that increases the chance of rape, but the violence of porn.
File:Zillmann Fig 12.png
Also, the chances of porn which is illegal and unsafe being viewed is high. When people resort to illegal fetishes, BDSM and gore, there needs to be more of this made to cater for that. More people are harmed and certain types of porn on the deep web grows in quantity. People themselves are also desensitized to violent sex and are then more likely to want to sexually exploit somebody.

Then you have issues relating to self-esteem and self-worth. Also relationships are effected and you do not necessarily need to be addicted. Sexually explicit material triggers mirror neurons. Involved in the process of mimicking a behavior and planning it out. Mixed with the fact that people will gain an urge for more, people are more likely to carry this out and if they are viewing very explicit material, then what they carry out could not be safe. Also, there is an increased chance of sexually transmitted diseases for obvious reasons. If there is more of a reason for sex then people are more likely to be promiscuous, which again leads to a host of issues.

2. The Social Harm

Now, most of what is written above is about the individual, but with enough people this creates social issues. Firstly, if the need for sex is rising due to porn, then it creates coercion for people to get into the porn industry, creating problem I state below. It is an industry where all that is needed is the right body type and the will. Also socially is where the main issues of sexual objectification happens. Porn is popular. 68% of young men watch porn. This many men scales up the issues I said above. Which has bad social ramifications. The idea of an ideal women is made unrealistic to real women. The real life woman weighs 165lbs. The average porn weighs 117lbs. The average porn star is Caucasian, brunette, has at least one tattoo and a piercing and starts their career at the age of 22. There are a variety of averages which are definite enough to create the perfect stereotype. If men are searching for more sexual gratification, women have to try harder to fit the stereotype. This leads to a host of mental diseases such as bulimia and anorexia, and women in general losing a sense of identity

More women in turn do not feel happy about themselves, leading to suicides and depression. Rather than spreading the message that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone can be seen as beautiful, porn is a large part of the driving force behind this sexism. Women also become sex objects, but they have to in order to fulfill the sexual needs. This leads to even more pornography and explicit images, and worse, sexting among teens. This is illegal, and wrong, but very likely to happen. The most common female role that appears in titles is "teen". with 1,966 titles. This creates even more problems relating to the welfare of children. Teens feel the need to do this as well, to fulfill the standards that young boys are getting due to their experiences with porn, or society around them. This leads to sexting as I said before, but also sexual exploitation and pedophilia. Pedophilia can happen due to the need for more, and how young people are portrayed in porn films. "Daughter", had 261 titles and was the 6th most common so this is an issue. And tie that with the aforementioned mirror effect, it only has negative ramifications.

3. Harm to Porn Stars

28% of porn stars in a survey by the Sexually Transmitted Diseases journal had STI's. But figures from another reach as high as 66%. These are usually gonorrhea and chlamydia which have very little or sometimes no symptoms until it is too late. Condoms are also only used on 17% of heterosexual films. On average, female porn stars in almost 18 years sleep with 148 men. Porn stars do have a higher risk of contracting STI's.

Aside from the obvious risk of STI's. Porn stars usually suffer from relationship issues and the same psychological issues I have mentioned above. With porn, to fulfill the need for more explicit porn, there is a chance that people can be coerced into doing things they do not want. This is abuse, but unless banned, is very hard to regulate, which leads me to my next main point.

II. The Practicality of Regulating Pornography

Porn is a very hard field to regulate. With all the regulation against porn there is, there are still 116,000 searches for child porn everyday. Porn as an industry exists, but so does amateur porn. Banning porn will not stop this issue, but will provide less of an incentive to do this. Although it may not be a drastic change, banning porn will stop the issues presented above and people will be less inclined to film illegal porn. But keeping porn legal means there will be less of a focus on porn, allowing illegal porn of all sorts to go under the radar.

To link everything I've said above, the safety of the people of the state matters. That was my premise. Porn has so many unsafe ramifications that the only pro is short term sexual gratification. Legalising porn results in everything above, and the dark side of porn can survive longer. The government cannot put their efforts into finding people who exploit something that is legal. It would be hard to find sites or videos on the dark web and ending it is impractical. But limiting it can all be done with it. By making porn illegal, you can help all of this and also create a positive stigma. That porn is not real and something fine, which in turn metamorphasizes into the objectification and sexism in society. You can have a society that promotes gender equality and keeps sex something moderately valuable. So that even if you don't think it is, those who do can remain.

For these reasons, I urge the floor to side with me.



Sources:

(Please check my profile, there was not enough space.)
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

Resolution - Pornography should remain legal

BOP - One key factor to this debate is to realize who the BOP is with. My adversary has took a position that is attempting to alter the status quo, so the BOP is with him.

C1) Economic Benefits

The porn industry itself is a monumental industry that puts out quite a bit of money. World wide the industry is estimated to make around $57.0 billion, and just in the US alone it is estimated to make around $12.0 - 18.0 Billion [1][2]. Another statistic shows that the Porn industries revenue is higher than all professional sports which include football, basketball, and even baseball [1]. We can even check those facts here [3].

On average the NFL earns around 8-9 billion yearly[3]. The NBA earns around 3-3.8 billion yearly[3], and the MLB earns around 6-7 billion yearly [3].

Compare this on both a global and local scale

Globally the Porn industry puts out a whopping $52.0 billion dollars. If you combined all three of these major sports on average they would earn around 18.5 billion dollars. On a Global scale the porn industry earns around 2.81 times this amount. This means that porn alone on a global scale makes almost 3 times the amount of the NFL, NBA, and MLB combined.

Now let's look at this strictly on a local level. For me Local is the US and where most of these major sports are housed. So we are still going to take into account that all three of these major sports earn around 18.5 billion dollars annually. In the United states alone the porn industry earns anywhere from $12.0-$18.0 billion dollars. This is more than each individual sport combined and if you look at the high end, it is almost more than all of them combined. Some facts about porn in the United States in regards to this topic.

Low end statistics. Meaning if we look at the porn industry from a $12.0-$13.0 billion dollar perspective

[1] Porn makes more than the NBA and MLB combined
[2] Porn makes just as much as the NFL and NBA combined
[3] Porn makes more than NFL

Just a few other statistics on the porn industry. Porn websites make up 12 percent of all websites on the internet, with nearly 4.2 million websites [1]. On a daily average porn search results average 25 percent of all searches daily[1]. Simplified this means that when you go to you search engine and type something like "DDO" or "x", from a recent study it found that porn search requests make up 25 percent of a days searches on average. This is also on a day to day basis not just the day that was reviewed. Just in California alone the porn industry employs over 12,000 people and manages to pay over 36 million dollars in taxes yearly [4].


I am going to close out this point, but something we have to acknowledge is that the porn industry has a lot of presence. Globally and locally the industry puts out a massive amount of money that equates to almost as much as all three major sports in the United States by itself. The massive amount of revenue that porn makes cannot be questioned. It is huge economic benefit in the United States and produces $12.0-$18.0 billion dollars alone.


C2) Decreases rape and sexual acts

There is something we have to realize, which is that there is a huge correlation between legalizing things like pornography and prostitution and how they intertwine with sexual crimes. Just take a look at this statistic from legalizing prostitution.

" It is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States it would decrease the rapes in the united states by 25% percent alone or roughly decrease it by 25,000 rapes per year[5]"

We can see similar results with the legalization of porn.

" First, porn. What happens when more people view more of it? The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments. The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines[6]"

We can see this from a majority of different statistics as well. When people have an outlet to watch things like porn or go to prostitution brothels, it often prevents rape because it is opening the act of sex up for them. Instead of going out and forcing someone to have sex with them because they can, they can either watch it and please themselves online or go to a brothel and have sex for money. The thought and idea that they can pay money to watch or have sex often far outweighs the need to rape someone and the consequences that come along with it.

The fact is that most rapes are not even about sexual desires but about power.

" Fact: Studies show that the major motive for rape is power, not sex. Sex is used as a weapon to inflict pain, violence and humiliation. Most rapists appear to have normal personalities with an abnormal tendency to be aggressive and violent. Between 2/3 and 3/4 of sexual assaults are planned in advance.[7]"

We can reduce the few times that sexual motivated rapes do occur if there are other outlets like pornography and prostitution. It will reduce the need for a sexual desire through alternative outlets that are more solvent than raping someone.

In fact Anthony Amato found this out as well. He is a professor of Northwestern University.

" the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults [8]"


C3 ) No Harm to Others

This is commonly referred to as the "No Harm To Others Principle or the "Harm Principle". The Harm Principle was developed by John Stuart Mills and states this verbatim.

" The harm principle holds that each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. If the action is self-regarding, that is, if it only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then society has no right to intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming himself [9] "

For the Harm Principle to truly apply, there are a few conditions that must be met. For the Harm Principle to apply, the agent in question must be an adult, fully in control of his or her faculties. A true agent of an action is one who, with respect to that action, is:

1. Free (not coerced).
2. Voluntary (competent to choose).
3. Informed (has sufficient information to choose). [10]


So by this principle we can conclude a few things.

(1) Pornography is not forced, but is an act between two consensual adults. Either it is consensual or it is a personal choice.
(2) It is not directly harming anyone involved. Any harm that comes is a choice by an outside party to engage in watching it.

There is no harm to others that directly comes from this. Porn is an act between two adults that is perfectly legal and accepted in the United States. Any harm that comes such as family problems or marital problems happens indirectly and can be avoided if the third party chose not to watch it. Since the third party is openly choosing to watch porn, this is not a direct effect from pornography therefore it does not violate the harm principle.


Conclusion

Keep in mind my adversary has the BOP and must uphold it. I have shown and how why porn is economically beneficial. In this regard I have shown how much revenue the porn industry generates alone and that it goes above almost all major sports in terms of revenue. I have also shown that there are correlations between things like prostitution and pornography when it comes to reducing rapes and sexual acts of violence. Even in spite of the two previous points, the main thing that we must look at is the harm principle. There is no harm from pornography that directly effects other people or the person involved. Any harm that happens come from pornography is a choice, and not forced.

There is no viable reason as to why pornography should be banned. My adversary has the BOP and must rally to change the status quo. I will reply with rebuttals to his contentions in the following round. For now I hand it back over to him. Vote Pro


Sources


[1] https://wsr.byu.edu...
[2] http://www.familysafemedia.com...
[3] http://www.statisticbrain.com...
[4] http://www.grabstats.com...
[5] http://www.independent.org...
[6] http://www.slate.com...
[7] https://www.mnsu.edu...
[8] http://www.debate.org...
[9] https://www.princeton.edu...
[10] https://richmond-philosophy.net...















CJKAllstar

Con

Rebuttal

C1) Economic Benefits

This was something you made succinct. Tying this with the resolution, your contention is that porn should remain legal because it has large economic benefits. The issue with porn however, is that the contested problem is not the money. But rather, issues I have brought up and more. Although porn does bring revenue, simply because it creates jobs and brings in a lot of revenue isn't an argument on its own. In order to make this point valid, you have the BOP to prove why economic factors are more important that the safety of millions.

Human trafficking for example, is reported to bring a revenue of $32 billion annually and worldwide[1][2][3]. This is more than the GDP of Tokelau; Niue and Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cuhna[4]. It is also more than the NFL, NBA and MLB combined. And if 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked each year[2], then we can only presume that the job capabilities are also very high. But it still has the connotation of evil and is not likely to be legalised. The BOP that has to be withheld in an argument of this nature is as I said above, to prove that the amount of money gained, no matter the cost, is worth the ramifications. This argument cannot hold any ground until you prove why this amount of money is worth the aforementioned ramifications, therefore for now it is negated.

C2) Decreases rape and sexual acts

Porn has been shown to decrease sexual acts. But again, this point misses the fact that there are just as severe negative ramifications. Porn may decrease rape, but it is a factor in 56% of all divorces[5]. Porn also has all of the issues I have said above.

This is why it would have been easier for Pro to start. We are not debating whether porn has benefits. We are not debating that porn is good. The BOP is on the claimant. So above, in any case it would be on you. Here however we arguing that porn should be kept legal. Again, the purpose of law as I have mentioned in my premise is a sum of its laws. Thus in America it includes safety. Porn has harm. It has benefits, but it has harm. Simply because however it has benefits is not enough regarding law. Child trafficking, prostitution and illegal drugs have benefits. But that is not cause for why they should be legal. For something to be legal, the benefit it serves should be greater than any repercussions. This is why there is a heated debate with smoking and drugs, and guns in America. To prove that such things should be legal, the BOP for Pro is to argue is at least that the positives outweigh the negatives. At least, Con has to argue that the negatives are too prevalent.

This means that in this argument, with any positive claim, Pro has to prove that said claim outweighs the negatives thus should be kept legal. My stance is that the negatives are too prevalent and making porn illegal will fix this. With my argument, my added premise means I met what I needed to do. I presented a list of harms which can lead to things that already would be illegal and things that were unsafe, thus would already be in the interest of the law. And that legalising it would stop them. You on the other hand have stated positive claims. Although true, this isn't enough for it being kept legal. Thus, this point and your previous point can only have any effect if you can prove why they are worse the harm which would attract the attention of the law anyway, if it was on its own. Again, I have to negate this fact until you do this.

C3 ) No Harm to Others

Now, this is a point which is effectively saying that there is no harm to others, in which case the negatives are not a matter and this is the only real case that is important. However, I would have not made my above stance if this was true.

First of all, I agree with your assertion of what the Harm Principle is. But I do not agree with your assertion that it has no harm to others. But before, I have an important point to make. Hypothetically, if porn fulfilled the Harm Principle, then according to you, it should be legalised. But that implies that somehow the Harm Principle is put in place. Now, I stick by my guns in that you can only determine the purposes of law by its parts. And the U.S has laws which adhere to the Harm Principle, but in my favour, other than Nevada, prostitution is illegal[6]. Prostitution also fits the Harm Principle, yet is illegal. This means that now the Harm Principle has no higher ground. The Harm Principle is not something U.S law completely abides by but just has laws which support it. But the same applies for my stance. As you have not stated why the Harm Principle should be considered. If I have shown that the Harm Principle does not necessarily have any legal higher ground and thus should not necessarily be used above other law ethics. For the Harm Principle to even be a factor for law you once again have the BOP to prove that the Harm Principle should actually be considered legally, or else there is no valid reason why it should be considered.

But, even if I did, pornography fails it. Pornography you say must be:

1. Free (not coerced).
2. Voluntary (competent to choose).
3. Informed (has sufficient information to choose). [10]

Firstly, not coerced and voluntary.




Do you see the correlation? The small interest during 1970 and the sudden growth, with sex trafficking and porn? In both cases the fastest growth is around the year 2000. Considering that the first porn website was invented in 1994, this makes sense[8]. And this is no random correlation. For obvious reasons, porn does this. The growing need for porn, and because it is such a good market as you have said so, there are more people willing to commit sex trafficking for porn and prostitution. More people as a result of the need for special sex are resulting to prostitution, and there is a clear factual increase in sex trafficking over the years. Sex trafficking and forced sex acts in return for profit will increase due to the increasing need for porn, because of the dopamine effect. This is harm.

Also, I have already mentioned social harm. The harm that it causes socially and creates a need for women to change who they are and become sex objects for them to appease a man. The fact that the ideal woman has been created a porn and women feel coerced into fitting it. The social harm caused by the fact that the mirror effect and need for sex created by porn means that women are sex objects.

There is harm caused by the increased risk of STD's from the porn stars and all their future mates, especially herpes which can be spread air-borne.

There are psychological risks to being a porn star. If you are coerced, as some are, this is harm. If not, it is harm to you which is important as shown in law. Even if you excuse that fact, it is hard to those who care about you considering the strangely high suicide rate within the porn industry.

Summary

In short, I have made my point clear. Porn has irrefutable harm, and making it illegal will create a chain of events, which there are too many to list but I have made sure there is brevity about during this debate. These focus on health, psychology, socially and legally, with issues such as child trafficking. The fact is, porn has issues which chain to affect our society. Mikal's statistics about the success of porn has only strengthened my case. The money it generates is good. But a good incentive for illegal activities to take place. Porn does have harm. Porn has benefits, yes. But I have shown that the benefits do not outweigh the negatives. Because the negatives are things that law would target anyway and is in the interest of law. They can lead to worse activities which are illegal and have harm. No matter what Pro said about the BOP, he has the onus of proving that the positives outweigh the negatives. But no matter how many positives he presents, it does not change the fact that law has an interest in your safety. All of these issues above are serious. But realise that people now view porn firstly at the age of 11[9], this is grave and is only worsening.

Mikal, you now must prove why it is okay for this to go on. And I urge the floor to side with me. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

Reviewing the case

Status quo - the existing state of affairs[1]

Where the BOP lies - This is obviously with my opponent.

Resolution - Pornography should remain legal

In this Resolution, I am pro. My adversary is con. Meaning that he is taking the stance that Pornography should be illegal. Pornography is already legal, which is why I stated it should remain legal. Taking a negative stance against the status quo, gives him the BOP. I did not state this in R1 because it is obviously noticeable as I point out in my last round.

Resolved - The drinking age should be lowered to 18 [In this case pro would have the BOP because he is challenging the status quo]

Resolved - Drinking should be illegal [ Again pro here has the BOP due to the change in the status quo]

Resolved - Porn should remain legal [ I am appealing to the status quo, my adversary is contesting it. Due to this reason he has the BOP. He is challenging the status quo]


Rebuttals


C) Purpose of Law

In this my adversary claims that law has no set purpose. Therefore pornography being legal, means nothing. This is pointless and mute. I will address this as we move down further.


C1) Harm to those who watch porn

The first thing I want to note is that none of this is cited, but I will refute them individually. I am going to go over some of his points and show that they are wrong.

Note : He is automatically assuming that all porn is just immoral and evil. Like there is this pizza dude who walks in to deliver food and ends up boning the wife of the guy she delivered it too while he was away. Not all porn is like this, some porn can be used as a great way to experiment with your sex life and increase your sexual performance in bed. It also adds more thrill to your sex life. I will address these all in order.

A) Increased difficulty becoming aroused - false

Actually porn can be used as a way to learn to control your orgasms and erections. It is also a way to promote sexual arousal. Couples often use this as a way to stimulate themselves and have more erotic sexual experiences. Porn such as the Kama Sutra can teach you to control your orgasms, how to last longer in bed, how to massage certain areas of the body leading to better/longer lasting orgasms and having more pleasure in bed. In general this assumption is false and I will go in to this more in later refutations on this list. See [2]


B) Finding partners less attractive - false

This is a prime example of correlation does not entail causation. If you watch porn , you are more likely to find your partner less attractive. Chances are there are issues that have occurred way before watching porn. In fact couples use porn to help their relationships out. Such as the Kama Sutra. see my following refutation to further clarify this[2]


C) Less enjoyment during sex - false

While this can be the case with some people, porn also gives people ways to experiment with new sexual ideas and positions. If your sex life is boring already, people often turn to porn as a way to increase the thrill in their sex life and it works

Take for example Kama Sutra[2]. This material is most certainly pornographic but often results in greater sexual experiences from couples that try it. Not all porn is bad and dirty like my adversary is portraying it. The Kama sutra has been shown to increase sexual activity among couples leading to better/longer orgasms and having a more fulfilled sex life[3][4].

D) They asked their partners to engage in porn-like activities.

My adversary is assuming there is something wrong with this without providing any evidence to support it. Porn like activities could mean rougher sex, or experimenting with different positions and styles of sex. He would have to show this is wrong, which is an impossible stance.

E) They needed more extreme porn

I am not even sure how to refute this. If he means porn can be addictive, sure that can happen. Also anything can be addictive. Food can be addictive, but that is not a reason to stop food from being legal. This point is null.

All of these points fall flat. This is what we call WIFIM in mafia. He is operating under the assumption all porn is evil, therefore we should lynch it. If all porn is evil therefore (a)(b), and (c) are true. This is also what is referred to as a tautology [5]. Porn is bad, therefore (they need more porn)(wanting to try porn and more explicit sex) and (they asked their partners to be more kinky) is bad. Since Premise 2 follows from Premise one, we arrive at Premise 3 which is Porn is bad. This is a type of logical fallacy, where you use your starting premise to arrive at your concluding premise. We can reject this type logic because it is only true if porn is inherently evil and bad.




C2 ) Social Aspects

I am going to dodge most of this because it is irrelevant. Again he is saying because porn portrays women as sexual objects it diminishes self esteem so it should be banned. I mean not be blunt, but some women like to be sexual objects. Not all but some. That is an entirely different subject and one I am not going to spend all my characters refuting. He would have to show that a general concept of a woman as a sexual object is a bad thing and also prove that women wanting to be sexual objects for men is wrong.

He also tries to correlate pedophilia in with this stance of what a model "porn star" looks like. Again I repeat , correlation does not entail causation. There is no viable evidence presented to support this fact, therefore we can dismiss it. I am not going to even bother refuting it with facts, because it is a baseless assertion. Bear in mind this is also non sourced on top of the fact it does not follow itself.

C3) Harm to porn stars

This is saying because they screw a lot, they are likely to catch STDS. Completely ignoring the fact that this is often regulated, it is also a false statement.

Breaking down his study. That study was done by Huntington post in a controlled group of 168 people that were pre picked for that specific survey. It found that out of 168 adult stars that were surveyed 47 of them or 28 percent tested positive for some type of STD. The only thing this study found was that porn stars had a higher STD rates that prostitutes.

Abiding by the fact this test was already pre picked, this type of thing can be fixed with proper regulation. We can increase regulation on the industry without banning it, but also to note a fact that most people in the porn industry are tested for STDS at least once or twice a month for preventive measures. [6]

C4) Regulation

He brings up child porn in this, but this is a fallacy off the start. Even if porn were banned, it would still be distributed. Regulation helps control the amount of harm that can possibly come from this alone while providing revenue and protection for people in the industry. This is similar to prostitution. It will happen anyway, but by regulating it we can prevent STDS and stop things like child pornography because of the amount of proper regulation. You will never get rid of it one way or the other, but things like child porn can be nipped in the bud with better regulation or any type of regulation.

Without regulation and allowing it happen under the table, the influx of porn and negative effects would be increased significantly. There would be no way to regulate and control STDS , there would be no way to regulate what material can be published. At least we have some control over what is published by regulation.

This entire point is mute. He is saying because it is difficult to regulate it, we should not regulate it at all. We can dismiss this

Rebuilding case

C1) Economic Benefits.

He starts out by saying sex trafficking can produce a high amount of revenue, but it is not legal and tries to use this as a way to show that porn should not be legal. The failure in this logic is that sex trafficking is not consensual, while porn is.

He then goes on to concede this point and state that I would have to show that it should be legal before any argument for money should be considered. The fact is that it is already legal and economic benefits is a huge benefit of that.

This point was entirely conceded.

C2) Decreases in rape and sexual acts

Again conceded, which kind of blew my mind lol. I was at least expecting him to address this but he says

" Porn has been shown to decrease sexual acts. But again, this point misses the fact that there are just as severe negative ramifications. Porn may decrease rape, but it is a factor in 56% of all divorces. Porn also has all of the issues I have said above."

The second part of this was not part of this contention but I addressed the issue about couples above in my refutations.

Note : My adversary concedes that porn decreases rape and violent sexual acts. This point is also mine.


C3) Harm Principle

He does not refute this at all. I am also down to 600 characters so I have to keep this short but he brings up sex trafficking yet again in some type of attempt to show that porn is bad.

The 3 points for the principle to apply are

1. Free (not coerced).
2. Voluntary (competent to choose).
3. Informed (has sufficient information to choose).

He does not address any of this and tires to use sex trafficking as a strawman to get away from the fact that porn is a consensual choice and does not harm any third party directly. As far as STDs porn stars are aware of this and openly choose to accept the possibility of getting them. This does not violate the harm principle at all.

This entire point was straw manned with facts about sex trafficking.


Conclusion

My adversary has not upheld his BOP, nor has he provided any valid reasons for banning porn.





Sources


[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.kama3d.org...
[3] http://www.novelguide.com...
[4] http://www.wewomen.com...
[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[6] http://www.cnn.com...


CJKAllstar

Con

no round as agreed upon
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I probably would have voted Con, sorry mikey :P

But the outcome would have been the same so it doesn't matter. Good debate.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
wow lol CJK did almost beat Mikal...only behind by 8 points. Very narrow!
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
Meh, what can I say? It feels unfair but I accepted his terms.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
The structure of this debate felt unfair. Pro got the chance to fight back on refutations, but Con never did.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Conduct - Tie. I am throwing out this BOP nonsense. Pro had a BOP to uphold the status quo, which he did. Con had a BOP to show how making porn illegal would be a more ideal choice, which he did. Ultimately, BOP should be applied to argument, not conduct. Taking that out of the conduct equation - there was no ill conduct that would have cost either points. Therefore, Conduct is a tie.

S & G - Tie. Neither made any noticeable mistakes worthy of a loss or gain of points over the other. Therefore, S &G is a tie.

Arguments - Pro.
R1 (including presentation and later rebuttals made by Pro): Pro successfully rebutted all points Con raised in Contention 1 part A except increased risk of STD's which he only responded with, "we can increase safety with more regulation." (Which I will expand on later).
Part B focusing on Social Harm was also successfully refuted when Pro raised the point about all the arguments being nothing more than assumptions. Assuming porn will cause diseases in women is irrelevant considering many legal things can cause mental diseases like bulemia/anorexia/or a decrease in self-acceptance. To assume porn is the cause would require valid evidence which was never presented.
Part C was Con's strongest part of Contention 1 because Pro dropped the difficulty dating point, as well as never providing a strong rebuttal against the increased risk of STD's.
Contention 2 - Regulation was successfully rebutted by Pro when he showed how poor regulation should not qualify for something to be made illegal. Also rebutted point about porn only being good for short-term sexual gratification with the rebuttal about Kama Sutra a very popular and common practice even in porn.
R2) Con successfully defeated Pro's point on Economics at first, but later Pro's rebuttal which showed how comparing trafficking to porn is invalid due to the element of consensual(ness) ultimately convinced me that the difference was too much to overlook... (Continued)
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Pro's point about decreasing rape and sexual acts was never appropriately challenged. Con relied on a comparison to trafficking as his saving grace but was successfully rebutted by Pro when Pro showed how the two are not fully connected. Con needed to provide more evidence to support his claims, especially when attempting to build that connection between porn and trafficking. The ultimate rebuttal by Pro was the fact that no-one forces people to watch porn, this statement nullified any and all points about self-harm from watching porn when it was ultimately the choice of the individual to expose themselves to such material.
In fairness, Con's rebuttals in R2 were extremely strong, But the major mistake he made was admitting the validity of his opponent's contentions, and example of this was when he said that, "Pro's claims are true" in regards to the decrease in rape and sexual acts due to porn being an alternative outlet for such desires... In my view, this hurt Con greatly. Last point Con made that I think was the strongest was that the Harm principle is not above the law, and will say that this is the only rebuttal made by Con in this round that really defeated any contentions originally made by Pro.
R3) Unfair advantage overall by Pro for structuring the debate the way it is, but I cannot give mercy points to someone who accepts knowing the parameters which were already layed out. The rebuttal including Kama Sutra which automatically negated 3/5 of Pro's original contentions in part A was incredibly strong and valid when applied in this context. Pro also showed how the possibility for addiction holds no ground when it is not a determining factor for the countless legal things in this world which also have the possibility to lead to addiction.
Incerasing testing for STD's was weak, this was nothing more than assuming that such measures would actually be carried out. (Continued)
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
If I am to hold Con responsible for making assumptions without evidence in R1 & 2, then I must do the same to Pro for his point in R3 which is nothing more than assuming they would actually increase the amount of testing for STD's. Pro saved himself though by showing how banning a product or service does not necessarily mean it will stop distribution. History paints a beautiful picture in terms of prohibition and the effectiveness of halting distribution. Another strong point raised by Pro was how without legality there is no way to regulate it... without regulation, it is evident that the problem of controlling the industry would only grow to be more challenging. For any arguments Con raised by connecting trafficking to porn, Pro successfully defeated those points with the element of consensual acts.

Ultimately, Pro provided much stronger rebuttals and showed how Con's claims were nothing more than assumptions and connecting two somewhat similar practices but in a poor way. Con also hurt himself greatly by conceding two points - although agreeing would be better a better term than conceding because he still attempted to argue against them even after agreeing that they were valid points. I really really really would have enjoyed seeing this go for at-least one more round. Con never really had a chance to rebut some of Pro's later points, which hurt him. This is the trick with Mikal, he always gets the last word in. A strong psychological tactic against his opponents who, for some reason, still accept these debate structures lol.

Sources - Pro. Con, not enough space is not an appropriate excuse for no sources. I've had several debates where I've needed to go back and edit some parts in order to fit my sources. I have never seen anyone use this excuse before and because I do not practice this odd exclusion of sources myself - I will not be honoring your choice to post them on your profile. I hope you can understand and accept this reasoning. Make it fit!!
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
As always, if either of the debaters have questions about my RFD, please feel free to ask. I may or may not check back on this debate, so you are probably more likely to get a response if you message me.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
RFD PART 3:

Pro won this debate largely because of the impacts. He was able to more strongly impact his claims, and Con conceded two of his points.

Voting Con down on sources. When you name statistics, you need to source them. When you give a graph, you need to source it. This goes in round like everything else, is part of the character limit like everything else, and the fact that there were no in text indicators in the first round showing us where to find the sources for each thing made this worse.

Constructive criticisms:
Con needs to work on economizing and impacting his arguments. A lot of his statistics were just describing problems, and they weren"t linked back to the resolution or to arguments, which made it difficult to vote on and a waste of space. Con, when you"re writing your cases, you need to actively think about "Why should the voter on this debate care about this point?" and put the answer in your contentions.

Pro needs to work on his refutations a little more. His substantive case was very well written, but it seemed like he forgot about it when writing his rebuttals. Social aspects and harm to porn stars could have been refuted with his no harm point about it being voluntary and his reducing rape impact. He could have used his case as a framework for the way the rest of the debate was viewed, but he missed out on the opportunity.

I would have liked to see this extend one round more, especially given the fact that Pro didn"t do any refutations until his final round, but that"s neither here nor there.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
RFD PART 2:

Con"s arguments against Pro"s first and second contentions seemed like non-refutations to me. He conceded that both of them were true, but only tried to say that it doesn"t matter based on a weird interpretation of the burden of proof. Though burden of proof wasn"t stated specifically in the first round, Pro was right- it"s clear that burden of proof lies on the one who advocates a change in the status quo. This means that both of those points go to Pro. The only real counter impact to the rape point was about divorces, but ultimately, as a judge, I"m going to weigh reduction of rape more strongly than divorces. To rebut the harm principle, Con showed a graph where the axes weren"t labeled and it didn"t even show pornography, but prostitution and human trafficking. Not effective.

Pro"s many refutations to harms to those who watch were adequate. I"m not going into detail on those just because there were a lot. His refutation to social aspects, however, was not. It was even less impacted than the original contention. I would recommend that he directly clash it with his "No harm" contention, which better refutes it. His refutations to regulation and harms to porn stars were also adequate, but to the porn star point I would again recommend clashing it with his no harm contention by showing it was voluntary.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
MikalCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's pics were irrelevant. Con had better rebuttals in terms of showing that porn would not really contribute economically and the correlation with prostitution (although that was somewhat off topic.) good job to both sides.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Benshapiro
MikalCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a pretty compelling case here. The problem is that many harmful things to society like alcohol and tobacco are also legal but age restricted in the same way that pornography is. We've legalized things that we know to cause harm like alcohol in the case of domestic violence and DUI's but it ultimately boils down to personal freedom of choice. I'll let this be the first debate I've ever voted as a tie but con was able to show some worrying statistics in this debate.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
MikalCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a conduct violation by posting sources on his profile. All debate related material should be in the debate, and if there's too much text, then something should be removed. Exceeding the limit is breaking the rules. Arguments and sources are linked. Since I could not count con's sources (material external to the debate), his arguments had no backing. Pro, however, had a lot of evidence to back what he was saying. So pro gets arguments and sources on those grounds.
Vote Placed by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
MikalCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Agh!! Who to vote for?. Both sides were so good! but I felt like Mikal's points were... effective. Con strongly showed how economics are not important to this particular topic, aggh, who to vote for? Con had a more convincing argument. Good Show.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
MikalCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comment section.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
MikalCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never stated CJK has the BoP within the first round, thus, he had less good conduct; each side has equally good sources (checked profile); and the debate was pretty close, but sex trafficking actually does correlate to porn, and although it does sidetrack a little bit from the actual topic, it contributes to the argument.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
MikalCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case would have been a lot stronger if it was sourced. Pro successfully negated all of con's points and offered some strong evidence for his side as well. If the RFD needs to be elaborated on message me and I'll do it in the comment section.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
MikalCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
MikalCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a close debate. I'll explain each of my point awarding... Conduct goes to Con. Pro didn't state at the beginning that the BOP was on con, then he tried to argue that it was on Con. But then he went on to provide arguments as if it were a shared BoP debate. To me, this came off as Pro trying to stack the odds in his favor in a way which wasn't declared in R1. Pros pics were out of place. SG was tied. I'm giving arguments to Con because his R1 was pretty darn good. Also, Con never had a chance to respond to Pro's rebuttals, which puts Pro's rebuttals in a less important light. All in all, Pro's rebuttals were good, but they weren't blow you out of the water good. So Im going to stay with who was more convincing overall and say arguments to Con. Also most of Pro's arguments seemed to only work if Con's arguments didn't, such as the money one, and this was pointed out by Con. I was originally giving sources to Pro, but then I saw Con's profile.......
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
MikalCJKAllstarTied
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: PRO proposed a compelling defense of the status quo, whereas CON really maintained no reason to change. CON actually even conceded to two of PRO's major points. So, PRO takes the win here. Not a bad effort from CON at all, though.