The Instigator
Its-you-or-me
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Resolved: The U.S. should abolish all forms of pornography

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 4 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,253 times Debate No: 6215
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Its-you-or-me

Pro

I Affirm the resolution resolved: The us should abolish all forms of pornography.

Definitions

Abolish-To do away with
Pornography-Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal
Dictionary.com
My contentions will be that porn leads to immoral acts and Exposure to Pornography May Incite Children to Act Out Sexually against Other Children

That porn leads to immoral acts
In a study of convicted child molesters, 77 percent of those who molested boys and 87 of those who molested girls admitted to the everyday use of pornography in the committing of their crimes. Another study shows that male subjects that were exposed up to as little as six weeks worth of violent pornography began to question rape or not even see it as a crime anymore and saw that it was ok to go out and have sex with any one you met as seen in a pornographic movie.

Now as I have stated, the person couldn't find what he/she was viewing interesting so they took it a step up. Let's say they were viewing they softest there is imaginable. Eventually the person would get tired of that and take the next step up and so on and so on. When that person finally is tired of viewing and nothing ever satisfies him/her they do immoral things because they no longer see those things as unacceptable and seek to satisfy. So by viewing porn it is basically a stepladder which will lead you to unjust and unmoral things.

Exposure to Pornography May Incite Children to Act Out
Sexually against Other Children
Children often imitate what they've seen, read, or heard. Studies suggest that exposure to pornography can prompt kids to act out sexually against younger, smaller, and more vulnerable children. Experts in the field of childhood sexual abuse report that any premature sexual activity in children always suggests two possible stimulants: experience and exposure. This means that the sexually deviant child may have been molested or simply exposed to sexuality through pornography.

In a study of six hundred American males and females of junior high school age and above, researcher Dr. Jennings Bryant found that 91 percent of the males and 82 percent of the females admitted having been exposed to X-rated, hard-core pornography. Over 66 percent of the males and 40 percent of the females reported wanting to try out some of the sexual behaviors they had witnessed. And among high scholars, 31 percent of the males and 18 percent of the females admitted actually doing some of the things they had seen in the pornography within a few days after exposure.

So from viewing pornography one becomes questionable of what is right and wrong and does immoral acts to sum it up.

And for these reasons I affirm the resolution and will now stand open for CrossX.
RoyLatham

Con

Definitions. I accept the definitions offered by Pro. However, the definitions beg questions that Pro did not answer. How exactly is pornography to be abolished? How is the "primary purpose" of something to be determined to be sexual?

1. The only apparent method for attempting to abolish something is to make it illegal. But child pornography is already illegal, as it ought to be, yet Pro cites abolishing child pornography as a major justification for the resolution. If the major objective has already been accomplished insofar as it is possible to accomplish it, then that justification for the resolution disappears.

2. The only apparent way to determine whether or not something is pornographic is to have a censorship board determine what is permissible and what is not. How about putting a seventeen foot statue of a naked man in a public space? That is the case with Michelangelo's statue of David http://en.wikipedia.org...(Michelangelo) Pro contends that even the softest form of pornography must be abolished. So would a board of censorship zealots given the charge to ban even the mildest forms allow it? No work of art or science could withstand assault so legitimate cultural assets would be hidden.

3. If we assume for purposes of the debate that something could be done to abolish child pornography beyond making it illegal, then there would be no significant effect on the incidence of child molestation. According to the Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute http://www.childmolestationprevention.org... the four causes of child molesting are:

1. They are children or teenagers who are sexually curious or experimenting.
2. They have a medical or mental problem that needs treatment.
3. They are opportunists, who lack feelings for others and who have an antisocial personality disorder.
4. They have an ongoing sex drive directed toward children.

There is no mention of pornography as a cause. Causes 2, 3, and 4 are disorders in the child molester that would be unaffected by access to child pornography. One might argue that pornography piques sexual curiosity, but sexual curiosity is to a large part also innate. This is discussed in 7 below.

4. Pro gives no source for either study he cites. Therefore their scientific validity and Pro's interpretation of the results cannot be examined. I challenge Pro to produce reference citations for the studies; otherwise they should be discounted.

5. Correlation does not prove causality. Perhaps car thieves are often in possession of car magazines. That would not prove that car magazines cause car theft. It would be more likely that their interest in thievery provoked interest in the magazines to determine relative car prices. I have no doubt that child molesters possess child pornography. that, however, is a result of their mental state, not a cause of it.

According to expert testimony elicited by the British Government http://www.iwf.org.uk...
"There is evidence to suggest that child pornography can be used in an attempt to legitimise their sexual activities with children and to "groom" or encourage compliance from their victims. However, we are not currently aware of any evidence to support a direct causal link between access to child pornography and the commission of sexual offences against children."

6. Pro argues that even soft forms of pornography must be banned, because that inevitably leads to ever-increasing desires. The logic is that if men see a woman's ankle soon they will want to see knees, and thereafter all is lost in an ocean of depravity. Clearly, according to Pro's argument, the only remedy is beekeeper suits. We can observe empirically if this works, by examining the mores of strictly repressive Muslim societies that have abolished pornography. The effect is the opposite of what Pro supposes:

"... Islamist terror can be thought of in part, at least, as a response to sexual rage, frustration, and the humiliation of being connected to a "degraded mother." Thus the men in the culture must constantly assert their masculinity, defend their masculine "honor", and strike out in rage against any who "shame" them. ... This is apparent in the sexual mutilation of terror victims who are perceived as "inferior" by the Islamists, and on a par with women of their own culture. It is also seen in the Freudian symbolism of the barbaric act of beheading; as well as in the ubiquitous rape of non-Muslim women around the world." http://drsanity.blogspot.com...

7. Pro argues that exposure to pornography can prompt children to act out sexually. I agree. However, that is an argument to keep pornography from children, not to ban it from adults. Children see adults drinking alcohol, lighting fires, and driving cars, and indeed children are sometimes inspired to want to experiment with those adult activities. That is a valid reason to regulate children's access to those adult things. However, we do not abolish alcohol, matches, and automobiles as a consequence. The correct approach is for adults to reinforce responsible behavior and to behave responsibly themselves as an example.

I will give one illustration: In Japan beer is old in vending machines that are placed unwatched on public streets. Japanese adults like to drink -- a whole lot. Yet children do not get beer from the machines even though they could. The culture successfully communicates the message that drinking is an adult activity, and children conform. That is the general solution, not attempts at abolishing all things that are inappropriate for children. It is not the objects that confuse children about what is right and wrong, it is adult behaviors that shape society.

Further, it is the parents job to determine at what age their offspring are mature enough to see what level of sexual material, not the governments job. I don't think Playboy is going to do any harm to an average sixteen year old boy. However, I would not presume to make such judgments for other parents. The upbringing should be left to the parents, and the state should facilitate control by thae parents, but not make the decisions at that level.

8. Pro claims "Another study shows that male subjects that were exposed up to as little as six weeks worth of violent pornography began to question rape or not even see it as a crime anymore and saw that it was ok to go out and have sex with any one you met as seen in a pornographic movie." Again, Pro is challenged to produce the study. Let us supposed that male subjects were exposed continually for six weeks to videos of dangerous stunt driving. After being so inundated, would it be likely that they would be somewhat more disposed to driving recklessly? I think so. If so, would that be a good reason to ban driving? I think not.

Violent pornography is an extremely narrow sub-genre that nearly everyone finds revolting. Even insofar as it is legal, it only feeds people who have mental problems. Removing it would not repair the individual's basic problem. In any case, making violent pornography illegal does not imply that all pornography should be illegal.

9. Men like to see pictures of naked girls. At least outside of San Francisco they do. In a society that provides a sensible social context, it is harmless. Repressive societies, such as Pro suggests, are a complete mess. (Of course at my age all the real excitement is in the financial pages.)
Debate Round No. 1
Its-you-or-me

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponet for accepting this debate and i will now move on to attack his and rebuild my own.

"The only apparent method for attempting to abolish something is to make it illegal. But child pornography is already illegal, as it ought to be, yet Pro cites abolishing child pornography as a major justification for the resolution. If the major objective has already been accomplished insofar as it is possible to accomplish it, then that justification for the resolution disappears."-------
Yes child pornography is already illegal but other forms of pornography is not so there for all forms of pornography should be illegal not just child pornography is what im stating

"How about putting a seventeen foot statue of a naked man in a public space? That is the case with Michelangelo's statue of David http://en.wikipedia.org......(Michelangelo) Pro contends that even the softest form of pornography must be abolished. So would a board of censorship zealots given the charge to ban even the mildest forms allow it? No work of art or science could withstand assault so legitimate cultural assets would be hidden."---------There is a differance between art of sexually explict things such as your example and pornagraphy. That is not depicting a man having violent intercourse with a woman. So your example doesnt fall under the catorgory of porn since it is art and porn is not.

"Pro gives no source for either study he cites. Therefore their scientific validity and Pro's interpretation of the results cannot be examined. I challenge Pro to produce reference citations for the studies; otherwise they should be discounted." Sorry thought i did http://www.protectkids.com... and http://www.enough.com... rest after the two studies are my own.
"I have no doubt that child molesters possess child pornography. that, however, is a result of their mental state, not a cause of it." How can you clearly state that when at least 87 stated to admitting to pornography being the engine for their crimes.
"Pro argues that exposure to pornography can prompt children to act out sexually. 'I agree'." Plus what you have after that "... that is an argument to keep pornography from children, not to ban it from adults." No its not, it is another argument on why porn should be banned.
You say against violent porn aka. hardcore"....it only feeds people who have mental problems. Removing it would not repair the individual's basic problem." Yes if if they have i mental problem porn does not help but by removing porn does it not help the person with the mental problem also?
thank you i will now pass it back over to my opponent
RoyLatham

Con

1. Pro agreed that what he is advocating is making all forms of pornography illegal. That, of course, would not abolish it. Pro seems to be especially concerned with Internet porn, if I under him correctly. Passing laws against Internet activity has almost no effect, because sites just relocate to unenforceable locations overseas. For example, Congress passed a strict law against Internet gambling. There was no observable effect overall.

2. I argued that making pornography illegal implies that a censorship board must be established and charged, per Pro's resolution, with banning "all forms" of pornography. I argues that such a board is unlikely to use good judgment in distinguishing art from pornography. Pro responded that he knows the difference for the one example I cited, "David." That does not respond to my argument that a board appointed to be zealous censors will not make good judgments. We have an example of how such boards operate from back in the 1930's in the United States when the Hayes Commission was empowered to censor movies. One of the many ridiculous results was that married couples were not permitted to be shown in the same bed at any time. A husband-and-wife detective team had to discuss cases from perches on separate beds. Pro has given no reason why a modern censorship board, especially one given the charge of banning "all forms" of pornography would not be overzealous in exercising poor judgment.

3. I argued that none of the scientifically established causes of child molesting include pornography, child pornography or otherwise. I provided a reference. Pro offers no contrary scientific evidence.

4. Pro now gives some web sites as sources for the studies he cites. I can find no such studies on those web sites. It is not my job to try to find Pro's sources. If the studies exist then give the title, the author, the scientific journal in which they were published, and a pointer to the study itself -- or at least to an abstract. The field is rank with bogus studies done by people determined to prove their preconceptions, so the work must be carefully examined for validity.

5. Possession of pornography by child molesters does not prove it caused crimes. Arsonists possess matches, but matches didn't make them arsonists. Pro argues "How can you clearly state that when at least 87 stated to admitting to pornography being the engine for their crimes." First, I don't know what "engines for their crimes" means, and until I see the study I cannot evaluate the claim. Second, criminals can always be counted upon to blame something other than themselves for their crimes. It is never their fault, it is always something in society that is to blame. If a questioner offers an excuse, the criminal is likely to accept it, "Yes, indeed, the devil made me do it. It wasn't my fault." Someone observed that child molesters also tend to collect Disney material. Disney is nonetheless not causing child molesting.

6. I argued that authoritarian bans on all forms of pornography did not lead to good societies with little sexual abuse, citing strict Muslim societies that have severe problems of cruel sexual abuse. Pro made no rebuttal, therefore the argument stands.

7. I argued that the cure to children inappropriate mimicking adult behavior, sexual or otherwise, is proper parenting and a better society, not banning adult behavior. I gave an example. Pro made no rebuttal, so the argument stands. If something can be done to extend parental controls, I am in favor of that.

8. I argued that intensively exposing a normal person to any extreme activity, whether it be violent pornography or reckless driving or whatever, is bound to have at least some temporary desensitizing effect. Moreover, normal people do not enjoy violent pornography, so it exists only as a tiny sub-genre. Pro rebutted, "Yes if if they have i mental problem porn does not help but by removing porn does it not help the person with the mental problem also?" I think Pro is asking if the violent pornography were unavailable, wouldn't the person's mental condition improve? We know from the data on extremely repressive societies that it does not help. However, if it did help then that would be an argument for making violent pornography illegal, for which a better case can be made than "all forms." Pro's argument that one thing leads to another is false, because violent pornography is an unpopular genre. If Pro's argument were true it would be the most popular.

9. I argued that ordinary "soft" porn was harmless and appropriate given human nature. Pro made no rebuttal, so the argument stands.
Debate Round No. 2
Its-you-or-me

Pro

Its-you-or-me forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro failed refute any argument, therefore they stand.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by JTHunter 5 years ago
JTHunter
Agreed, It should be illegal.

We'd be better off if it was illegal on the internet. I mean that's public property in a way.

I tell you jobs would be better in the US.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Oh, if only could have taken that debate...

Anyway, although Pro did a pretty good job, Con was the clear winner.

(Sorry I can't vote, Con)
Posted by Its-you-or-me 8 years ago
Its-you-or-me
ok before con says anything the enough.com resource I dont wtf happened I must have typed it wrong pls trust me
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Its-you-or-meRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Its-you-or-meRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Its-you-or-me 8 years ago
Its-you-or-me
Its-you-or-meRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Its-you-or-meRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07