The Instigator
headphonegut
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BlackVoid
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

That communities in the united states have the right to supress 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 3 votes the winner is...
BlackVoid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,343 times Debate No: 17367
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

headphonegut

Pro

Pornography - The depiction of erotic behavior intended to Cause sexual excitement
Suppress - To keep from public knowledge, prevent the development or expression of.
Community - A sort of instituition made up of families in a small adea that instruct children in values and tradition of a particular culture.

Intro:
The community is essential to the upbringing of children and a successful life. Individuals voluntarily give up some measure of their personal freedom to come together with other people for the purpose of pursuing their objectives. All just governments contain only the only the authority granted by individuals who contract together to produce that authority. Since I do not believe in government nor in laws what I do believe in is the community with the ability to enforce rules so that rights like freedom and equality are not violated and people do not infringe on others rights. Individuals give up some of their rights for the purpose of establishing order and security. A community exists simply to satisfy the general will the responsibility of community is determined by what citizens as a whole desire. Generally the general will of the people includes the protection of life, liberty, and property but it also includes much more, when that's the case the communities obligation is to see that the general will is carried out.

C1 -
Freedom where it is inconsisten with the views of the community is a movement toward egoistic pleasure at the expense of morality and the general will (if it is to suppress pornography). The golden rule in the community is respect and uphold societies moral order as you would have society uphold your autonomy. If the community knows that you are a sexual deviant and disapproves of you that have every right to make you leave. If it's more basic like the community finds out that you have pornography and don't approve the community has every right to make you throw away the porn; however if the community doesn't know that you have pornography then no harm no foul.

C2 -
While it seems the community itself is like a tyrant it is not the people living in a community make the general will. If the community believes that the Internet is a constant porn spammer and the general will is to put blocks on sites the community has that right. Once you enter into a community you have conceded to it's terms and to abide by it's rules.

In the course of this debate let's not get to caught up in examples.
BlackVoid

Con

I thank headphonegut for starting this debate and wish luck to both of us. I'll point out that this is for round 2 of socialpinko/Merda/Tim_Spin/any future alias's debate tournament.



Con case


C1: Porn reduces crime


Anthony Amato of Northwestern University found that "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 (1)."

"Pornography is more available and consumed than ever before—8,500 adult films are produced each year. At the same time, according to FBI statistics, the incidence of rape has decreased....violent crime rates, including rape and sexual assault, are among the lowest since records began being kept in 1973" (2)

This change can be most attributed to pornography access. Amato theorizes that pornography reduces sexual tension by allowing potential criminals to "get it out of their system". Their sexual desires can be expressed in video rather than forced on someone in real life. Additionally, rape is against the law, so porn videos cant show it or pretend like a video is about rape. This means that most porn videos show consensual partners, which can subliminally send the message that consensual = good. Finally, porn is often vulgar or cynical in nature, so aggressive men use it to get their fix of testosterone instead of raping someone.

A comparison can be made to violent movies. We often think that viewing violent or sexual acts makes our brains more aggressive and more likely to be prone to such things. However, violent crimes actually decrease during and after the hours that violent movies are shown (3). The same page estimates that 1000 crimes are prevented each weekend by violent films. We can extend this logic to pornography. If watching violent movies empirically reduces violent crime, it logically follows that watching porn could reduce sex crimes. This conclusion is supported by my empirical evidence given at the top.


C2: Harm principle


At first glance, pornography doesn't seem to hurt anybody. All participants are volunteers for the job, and no one is damaged by having sex next to a camera. It is my position that an act should only be restricted or suppressed if it is causing definitive harm to an unwilling party. As previously shown, pornography reduces crime rather than increasing it, so it doesn't have any bad impacts on the external world. The participants themselves aren't harmed either. However, even if they were, it doesn't matter because acting in porn is voluntary. We respect the freedom of others and allow them to do whatever they want to themselves so long as they aren't harming anyone else. So even if harm could be linked to those engaging in pornographic activities, that not a reason to suppress it.

In other words, since porn is participated in voluntarily and watched voluntarily, Pro must show that porn is causing some terrible thing to happen that overrides our right to autonomy to justify suppressing it.



Pro case


Intro


I'll isolate the arguments he makes in this section and then give my response.


Individuals voluntarily give up some measure of their personal freedom to come together with other people for the purpose of pursuing their objectives

Cool.


what I do believe in is the community with the ability to enforce rules so that rights like freedom and equality are not violated and people do not infringe on others rights

Cool. Do note that by making this statement, he concedes that the reason rules are enforced (like suppressing porn) is to protect the rights of the people. Therefore, he has imposed the burden upon himself to prove that porn somehow is violating rights or causing some other external harm.


A community exists simply to satisfy the general will... the communities obligation is to see that the general will is carried out.

I actually disagree with this. Saying we should do whatever the people want is an appeal to popularity. If everyone in Memphis wanted to legalize murder, that wouldn't mean the city of Memphis should legalize murder. Determining which action ought to be taken should be decided on an effective weighing mechanism, not by what 51% of people want.



In his two contentions, Pro essentially says "The community must follow the general will of the people. So if the general will doesn't like porn, the community should suppress it".


C1/C2

1. Pro gives no reason why a community would want to suppress porn in the first place. He has not made any arguments against porn itself, so his communities have no reason to act on this right he wants to give them.


2. Pro doesn't warrant why we should follow democratic principles. He has not explained why following the "general will" is good for society or why the majority can make the adequate decisions. This kicks his entire case because its entirely based off following the general will. The very premise that the Pro case rests upon is unjustified.


3. Acting only on what the people want is unreliable because it depends on the majority being able to make rational decisions. But suppressing porn is not a rational decision because, based off my contention 1, doing so would increase sex crimes and limit personal freedom. If doing X action would be overall dangerous to a community, that should override what 51% of people want.


4. I find it ironic that Pro talks about societies upholding your personal autonomy, yet he's directly violating it by telling people what they can and can't watch.


5. Pro says, "If the community knows that you are a sexual deviant and disapproves of you that have every right to make you leave."

I reject his use of the term "sexual deviant" to describe someone in the porn business. Rapists and child molesters are sexual deviants, not somebody who has consensual sex with others in order to make a living.


6. Remember my contention 2. Based off his own self-imposed burden, he must show that porn is having legitimate negative impacts on society in order to justify suppressing it. This is true because he himself said that the reason the community creates laws to protect the people's rights.

He has not done so. No arguments have been made whatsoever as to why porn is bad or why it should be suppressed. In fact, the only thing pro has said about porn in this entire debate is that porn workers are supposedly "sexual deviants". Of course, that was also unwarranted. If he can't link pornography to X bad thing, then there's no basis for giving communities the right to suppress it.




1. http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu...
2. http://www.radfordreviews.com...
3. http://businessshrink.biz...
Debate Round No. 1
headphonegut

Pro

headphonegut forfeited this round.
BlackVoid

Con

Well thats a shame. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
headphonegut

Pro

headphonegut forfeited this round.
BlackVoid

Con

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Hey spinko's rules say that there can only be 3 rounds of debating. So once you adjust that I'll accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
headphonegutBlackVoidTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 6 years ago
ApostateAbe
headphonegutBlackVoidTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
headphonegutBlackVoidTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet.