The Instigator
Liberals
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LayersofLols
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should We Block Content From Our Kids?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 356 times Debate No: 67733
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Liberals

Con

No, We Shouldn't. It's the age olde parental mistake.

exual content, Who Cares? ssex is nature, and watching people have ssex shouldn't really be a big deal. If we educate kids ons sex and how stds can kill them, WHO CARES? And violence, the only thing that should scare kids is the news. It's reality, not fake. Watching someone get shot in die hard is fake! And if some kid wants to watch saw one night with his friend and gets scared, that's his fault. Let kids judge what's scary for them and what's not. If we can explain to them that fantasy Is diffirent from reality, than I don't see the problem.
LayersofLols

Pro

When it comes to sexually explicit material, the argument which Con puts forward is that since sex is a natural act, it is okay to show to children. Does that means we shouldn't show our children medicine or robots because they are not natural? If being natural is meant to be the basis on which we legalize things and consider them good to allow, then anything opposing nature in any way should then be deemed illegal should it not? Unless my opponent can explain why he/she would legalize something so vulgar and crime-inducing as showing children sex and violence, one which is illegal to do at their age and the other which is illegal to do at all without explicit legislation in place (such as a contract between professional fighters or military permissions), then my opponent must concede that the nature argument is impotent for the sake of this debate and is not even moot but entirely to be disregarded.

Following this, Con states that because violence happens in reality and is bad there, it is therefore fine to see if it's acted out. What if the movie was based on a true story and acted to pinpoint accuracy? How is this any different or better? My opponent is indirectly stating that only if the violence is so unrealistic that it is virtually incomparable to real life violence he would show it to his children, this is already widely accepted and is why violence in the form of Tom and Jerry (here the ones involved are not human and the violence is very subtle) is acceptable to show children because they will not be able to draw the parallel to real life and act it out.

If a child wishes to watch Saw (which is an 18+ movie) and his parents allowed him to see it, then it is the parents who are at fault for their child's resultant emotion of fear not the child who is under their legal custody.

Children cannot judge what is scary or not for them because they haven't seen the movie in the first place to know beforehand if it is going to be scary; this is a completely ridiculous statement to make.

Children often cannot separate fantasy and reality so easily, this is why they are not trusted to vote, drive, have sex and many other things that come with age and maturity.

Showing sexual content to children is firstly psychologically scarring, especially if the porn is particularly brutal. Children raised in violent households where they often see rough sex and abuse going on, more likely than not grow up to be violent. If they were already prone to psychopathy they amount to degenerate sociopaths (or the other way around, depending on how you define both terms). The point is that children are extremely susceptible to outside influence and their entire personality and tendency to behave in certain way sis shaped by this. Children honestly do act out what they see in 'imaginary games', this is fine if they are playing with toy lightsabers in a faux-aggressive manner but not when they are acting out brutal fights to the death that ended up with on man holding the other's head. The reason that almost all violent kid's shows involve animals instead of humans is so that they do not take it too much to heart that the people on the show are actually relatable to themselves past their personalities. The moment you show them actual human beings fighting the barrier begins to close and the 'fine line' becomes very blurred.
Debate Round No. 1
Liberals

Con

Liberals forfeited this round.
LayersofLols

Pro

The debate has been lost by Con due to forfeiture.
Debate Round No. 2
Liberals

Con

Liberals forfeited this round.
LayersofLols

Pro

Double forfeiture.
Debate Round No. 3
Liberals

Con

Liberals forfeited this round.
LayersofLols

Pro

LayersofLols forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Liberals

Con

Liberals forfeited this round.
LayersofLols

Pro

LayersofLols forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.