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

Public Anti-Nudity Laws are jusitfied

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,217 times Debate No: 16454
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)




I will be arguing in favor of public anti-nudity laws. Anti-nudity laws should be upheld if a majority are in favor of them.

This first round should be dedicated to any clarifications, or definitions.


Thank you for allowing me to debate this point with. I would like to as you suggested, take this first round to clarify some topic key words, please let me know if you agree or disagree upon these definitions.

Nudity: "Permitting or featuring full exposure of the body" (
Majority: "The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes"

Arguement: I believe that public nudity falls into the same very basic idea as free speech, what I mean by this is that by telling someone weather they are allowed to walk around in public with or without clothes is the same as restricting free speech, ergo restricting free will. With this I argue, that is it not every persons own right to decide in their own lifetime weather they can wear what they want? or therefore lack of.

Addressing the issue of majority voting, about two years ago a company did a census on the general public of America. The census included weather they believed that public gay marriages should be allowed. When the results came back, it showed that 74% of the population was anti gay mariages and that the other 26% was pro. Yet gay marriages are permitted in the USA. If the gay population can get what they want even if it defies majority voting, why shouldnt public nudists?
Debate Round No. 1



I thank my opponent for accepting his debate. I object to my opponent's belief that public nudity is a right granted under freedom of speech. I instead believe that nudity laws should be enforced due to sanitation reasons, rights of other individuals, and through the possibility of accidental rapes occurring.

I. There are restrains on freedom of speech

The freedom of speech is an important right. However, one must realize that there must be some restrictions on it.

Obviously you cannot say anything, during anytime you want. For example, let's say one yelled "Fire!" in a theater. Would that be protected under the first amendment? No, sense it would cause a panic. Could I spread defamatory false remarks about another person, which I knew to be false? No, since this would be slander, and harm that person. Can I be as loud and obnoxious as I want? No, since it would be labeled as a nuisance and noise complaint. One must even obtain a license if one wishes to protest.

Even if public nudity fell under the label of freedom of speech, the freedom of speech has restrictions.

II. Public nudity does not fall under freedom of speech
However, this does not fall under the freedom of speech. Some consider "freedom of expression" a right equivalent to freedom of speech.

However, public nudity does not fall under the label of freedom of speech? There are no thoughts, or ideas expressed. The right to speech is designed so that new ideas, even controversial ideas can be expressed. Open dialog can occur with freedom of speech so that ideas can compete in the "marketplace for ideas". Public nudity does not fall under this category.

III. Nudity is allowed in private areas:

If one truly wants to be naked, then he/she can go to a nude resort. Private beaches and certain businesses allow people to go naked. One is allowed to go nude in his or her home. One can throw a nude party. Therefore it should be distinguished that it is not illegal to go nude. It is just illegal to be nude in public.


I. Individuals have the right not to see the nude:

Most persons find the penis to be a gross image. Most people do not like looking at the penis. Therefore, if the majority of find the penis to be gross, then these people should have the right to walk around in public and not have to see one. The right of others end, when their rights harm others. It isn't too much to ask for a person to wear pants.

II. Nudity is unsanitary

Imagine if someone has explosive uncontrollable diarrhea. Now, if one was wearing pants, this can be contained instead of it going everywhere. Same goes if a person decides to touch their penis and sticky stuff comes up. Or what if a person has uncontrollable urination when he/she laughs. Neither one of us want to live in an area filled with human waste.

Also, sitting in an area where one's butt and penis was also on is also unsanitary.

III. Accidental Rapes can occur

I'm sure everyone's had the experience of accidentally bumping into someone before. It's always an awkward experience. But imagine how much more awkward it would be if one's naked penis went into a person's butthole vagina. Would that be rape? The line would be fuzzy. Or what if during the 'accidental bump' the person also ejaculates into the girl. Then the girl gets pregnant. What would happen to the child and again did a rape occur?

For these reason, nudity should continue to be illegal in public.


I understand your points and thank my opponent for a good laugh, some of your reasons were rather imagitive! however, seeing as it my duty to win this debate on public nudity, I must argue that...

I would firstly like to say that i was not by any means comparing free speech and public nudity, but more so comparing the ideas of living with a free will, having the personal right to choose what you do with your self.

Yes, ofcourse there are restrictions on freedom of speech, hate speech for example is not allowed in my country. However to a sensative inoccent ear speech weather it be hatred or motivational could be offensive to a particular individual. It is a due fact that to each indiviudal based on thier nurture and nature up brining they would find different things offensive. Im sure that to a religous man, someone screaming the words "Oh my God" would touch on the topic of offensive, a person expressing thier feeling of gay love in public could offend another family who were brought up in the ways of thinking being gay is wrong, or weather it be your neighbour banging on the drums at 2 in the morning screaming north american war chants. The basic point that i am trying to bring across, is that offensive is all around us, and that nudity, something that we all share, all know what it looks like and something that if your willing can find on the internet, is nothing but nature at work and has been labaled as "shameful" and "disturbing" when in truth, what is there to be offended about?

Counter arguement 1: " Individuals have the right not to see the nude"- Individuals have the right to not be exposed to a lot of things out there, war,voilence,rape,hate, second hand smoke, alchaholic dads or even daytime TV. Individuals also have the right to express themselfs. Not a valid point.

Counter arguement 2: "Nudity is allowed in private areas"- So if things are offensive to the public, aslong as we do them behind closed doors that is ok? we can break the law but if it doesnt affect the majority, no worries?

Counter arguement 3: "Nudity is unsanitary"- So are public toilets, door handles, trailer parks, internet cafe's, escalator handles, strip clubs, stranger sex and taxis, the list continues. Not a valid point.

Counter arguement 4: "Accidental Rapes can occur"- Manslaughter, the end of the world in 2012, peace on earth, the making of rocky 6 and a zombie apocalypse can also "occur". Not a valid point.

Therefore i stand my arguement, and challenge a counter debate if you dare.
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks to my opponent for his quick reply back.

It is important to note that this debate is a cost-benefit analysis. It is my job to show that public nudity laws would cause more harm then good, while it is my opponent's job to show the opposite. So far, my opponent has not offered any counterarguments, or shown that my arguments are wrong. His arguments are based on the fallacy reasoning of "two wrongs make a right". In other words, he states since there are other objectionable material that exists, therefore public nudity should not be allowed also. This is just plain absurdity which shall be addressed later on.

My opponent has conceded that public nudity laws are not covered under the right of freedom of speech. This is important to note, since one cannot claim that the right to public nudity is something sacred to be protected. The right of speech is sacred for a variety of reasons. If politicians could control speech, then politicians could ensure their place in office by limiting dissent. Ideas would be unable to spread. The status quo could not be challenged.

Instead my opponent states that individuals have the right to free will. However, what does this mean? Can a person do what he or she wants, without thinking about how it effects others? Absolutely not. One cannot attack others, commit acts of rape, or steal property.

In essence, public nudity does harm others. I would enjoy the right to walk down the street and not see a penis. In fact, If a majority of people do not favor public nudity laws, It likely means that people do not looking at penises. I would challenge you to go to America, whip out your penis, and see how many people look at you in disgust or scream. If a person, looks at you in disgust or screams, it is likely that person was harmed by your penis.

My opponent states that there is offensive speech all around us. However, as I stated earlier, the right to freedom of speech is a particularly important right. I also showed that the freedom of speech can be limited if it causes particular harm. There are laws that disallow harassment, and stalking. I do not need to expose myself to media coverage or political commentary that I find offensive. I do not have to be around people who I find to be annoying. However, If a public nudity laws are allowed, I am bound to run into a penis.

My opponent states that "offensive material is all around us", something we can find on the internet, and has been: "labeled as "shameful" and "disturbing" when in truth, what is there to be offended about?"

However, just because there is offensive material around us, doesn't mean I have the right to be exposed to it. I can choose not to read a dirty magazine or look at pornography on the internet. But why force someone to be exposed to something he or she does not want to see?


1) I stated that individuals have the right not to see others nude. My opponent then gives a list of things individuals have the right not to be exposed to. However, almost all of these instances are cases that can easily be avoided and are in fact illegal.
Also, how does it make sense that we should be exposed to MORE harm? It's like stating that if I saw a puppy being kicked, then I too should kick the puppy. This is a classical case of two wrongs do not make a right.

War -> I do not need to read about war. I also am not forced to join the military. I oppose forced conscription.
Rape -> Illegal
Violence-> Assault is also illegal
Hate -> Harassment is illegal. One does not need to expose themselves to hateful comments a private group makes (example: Don't go on the KKK website if your black)
Second hand smoke -> Smoking inside restaurants and indoor facilities is illegal in the United States. If one see a cigarette, one can move out of the way to avoid the smoke. Smoke from outside will diffuse enough so that it would be harmless.
Alcoholic Dads -> One can seek child custody if a father is abusive.
Daytime TV -> Don't watch it.

2) "Nudity is allowed in private areas"

So if things are offensive to the public, as long as we do them behind closed doors that is ok?

Yes, exactly. Those that want to be exposed to the material can be. Those that do not want to be exposed to it, do not need to worry. Some people like penises. But should everyone be exposed to it? No. Also the law states that one cannot be nude in public, so the law isn't broken if it is done in a private area. How is that hard to follow? Nobody is harmed if I am naked when I am alone or with others who want to see me naked. In fact, it is impossible not to be clothed 24/7. How would one do the following activities: sex, change clothes, shower, remove waste.

3) Nudity is unsanitary

I will reiterate, my opponent keeps on using the "two wrongs make a right fallacy". Many of these "unsanitary" areas are necessary. Developed nations live in a relatively clean atmosphere.

It is unnecessary to live in a world covered in piss, cum, and crap. Not only that, but one must realize the inherit amount of bacteria and disease that exist in these forms in waste. Not to mention, that a naked butt, vagina, and penis creates additional holes for bacteria to enter. The list my opponent describes doesn't even top the list. Many people do not use public restroom since they find it unsanitary. However even still, waste is disposed in a sanitary way. Even if one uses a public toilet, one's butt is not directly on the seat. Instead when one sits, there is a hole to rest one's butt. This is completely different from sitting on a seat where one's naked rear end has also sat in.

4) accidental rapes can occur

I do not know what the point of the list was. My opponent has not proved that my point is invalid.

Also. Rocky 6 was made, and it was awesome. Most critics believe it is the second best in the series, with the best being the original of course.

To reiterate, the harms of public nudity outweigh the benefit. If one wants the "right" to be naked, he or she can do it in private areas. But one should not do it in public areas where one does not want to be seen naked, can produce unsanitary waste, and accidental rape someone.

I await my opponent's response.


Letsgopal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


In conclusion:

The penis is a disgusting thing.

Vote Pro.


Letsgopal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by darkkermit 5 years ago
Nope, I actually support anti-nudity laws.
Posted by Korashk 5 years ago
Devil's advocacy?
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
If the vast majority of Americans weren't so much of an eye sore even when they were clothed I wouldn't be so opposed to public nudity. Those who will take advantage of this law will not largely be attractive, young, and large breasted women, I can gurantee it.
Posted by Sullinger 5 years ago
I support darkkermit. But, even if the laws are lifted, I don't think many people will just go outside naked. The only reason they're law is because of tradition, not because they actually harm anyone.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
1. J.Kenyon is correct. I am in favor of public nudity being legalized under the status quo.

2. Pro, are your contentions serious? I literally lol'd.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
I was considering arguing against this but couldn't figure out how to justify upsetting the majority, even though I think that the majority is often wrong. Letsgopal seems to be doing a good job so far though.
Posted by J.Kenyon 5 years ago
I'm pretty sure Grape thinks public nudity should be legalized, even under the status quo.
Posted by J.Kenyon 5 years ago
I'm pretty sure Grape thinks public nudity should be legalized, even under the status quo.
Posted by darkkermit 5 years ago
Also Grape is against public land, and government in general, so If I debated Grape it would just turn into a debate on whether pubic land should exist or not. I'm in favor of privatization of all property, besides road.
Posted by darkkermit 5 years ago
No, laws are not justified with a majority vote. If two wolves and a sheep want to decide what to eat for dinner, then this is unjustified. If a majority want to kill a minority, it is unjustified.

The Constitution and the rights of individuals is the supreme law.

And through justification, I mean moral.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by Phoenix_Reaper 5 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forefeits two rounds conduct to Pro.