The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

The United States Federal Government should legalize child porn Wylted vs Bluesteel and Mikal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 10 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/6/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,366 times Debate No: 62582
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (228)
Votes (10)

 

Wylted

Pro

FRAMEWORK


I'm advocating for the full legalization of child porn. My original intention was to take a softer form of legalization, but after diving a little deeper into the topic, I've decided to advocate for full legalization. I don't want anybody to be mislead by the word full. So please continue reading for conext.


I'm not advocating for the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a minor. It would still be illegal to produce child porn for profit or sell it for profit. It would still be illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor. It would be illegal for an adult to coerce children into having sexual relations with each other.


The reason I add the words for profit to what I'm advocating for is that I don't want to see a 16 year old kid take a penis picture and send it to his girlfriend and get thrown in prison for distrubuting child porn (which has happened on several occasions).


One detail that I'd like o add to this is that the FBI has the largest database of child porn on the planet. I'd like to see the FBI make it's database of child porn available and easily accesible to the public, strictly on their website.


VOTING GUIDELINES


This is a highly anticipated debate and I want as many people as possible to give their feedback on it. I understand it reduces my chances of winning quite significantly, but I believe there are more important things than winning to consider. This isn't a topic much people give any thought to other than an initial feeling of disgust.


I'm asking the moderation on the site to more aggresively moderate the votes than is typically taken. All debaters are putting a lot of effort into this debate and I'd appreciate if the voters will respect that enough to give incredibly thoughtful and thorough votes. This debate is open for anybody to judge even if your ELO is 1000.



TEAMWORK


I've been in contact with a few people who've shown interest in teaming up with me in this debate. I'm going to be going at this alone. To say I've recieved no help with this debate would be incorrect. I've had the privelage of debating this topic recently with a few people through PM as well as just bouncing some ideals off of one or two others. To say I've had no help in forming a cohesive argument would be a lie. Anybody who has given me help and would like to be acknowledged will be.



A special thanks is in order for Mikal and Bluesteel to both agree to debating me on this important topic.

bluesteel

Con

Mikal and I accept (no round as agreed).
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

Thank you Mikal and Bluesteel for being willing to debate this incredibly important topic.



I want to take this opportunity to address the voters before I launch into my arguments. I understand I'm arguing against the status quo, but I think the question voters need to ask themselves is; Will legalizing child porn save even 1 child from being sexually abused? If what I'm proposing saves just 1 child from losing their innocence, I'd say it's worth legalizing. When you factor in the life saving implications as well as the increased freedom and the savings in federal spending, you can see legalizing child porn is the lesser of 2 evils.


JUSTICE


A. A 2010 study carried out by Milton Diamond and his team at the University of Hawaii and published in the archives of sexual behavior show a sharp decline in child sex abuse since 1989 whn access to child pornography becam easier in Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA. This trend has also been seen in Denmark and Japan.[1]


The fact is that easier access to child porn will and already has significantly lowered the sexual abuse of children. As much as child pornography sucks it exists. It always has existed in one form or another and it always will. We can't eliminate it, but what we can do is use it in a way that helps at risk offendors get their rocks off in the privacy of their own home as opposed to going out and seeking children to harm.


Just to make this clear I'm not saying let's have a kid take one for the team so the rates of sexual abue go down. The F.B.I. already has the largest database of child porn on the planet. making this available to freely view for the public (discretion used to disguise the faces of known victims), would do a lot to curb actualy harm the underground child porn industry saving countless children. When you take in account that this being publicly viewable will help to solve some cold cases by pervs just by happenstance running into an image of somebody they know. The upside to making this database public could be incredible.


B. Contrary to popular bellief viewing or posessing child porn doesn't make you anymore likely to rape a child than anybody else.[2]Yet the people actually viewing child porn often times recieve tougher sentences than those who actually abuse children. People caught posessing child porn on average recieve 7 years in prison. [3] Compare this 7 years with the average of 4 years that people who actually sexually abuse children get. [4]


A full legalization of child porn like the one I advocate for would reverse this injustice. Under what I'm proposing if you rape a kid, you get a longer prison sentence than if you happen to come across some child porn on the internet but would not otherwise ever actually harm a child.


My opponents might argue that watching child porn actually helps support the child porn industry and keep it alive. However this is completely untrue.[5] It appears that people don't create child porn for commercial purposes but instead to document their crimes. Plus with me advocating for the FBI to make their database available to the public it actually offsets the vast, vast minority of child porn that may be for commercial reasons if that even exists.


C. As long as these child porn laws exist there will be law makers and courts expanding and interpreting these laws in whatever way they feel like to legislate there own morality and put innocent people in prison. Here is a list of things that you can do as a result of child porn laws that can land you in prison sometimes up to 20 years or more.


"



  • A high-school boy over age 18 who engages in “sexting” photos of his naked, underage girlfriend to others via his cell phone (child pornography production and distribution)

  • An 18 year-old high school senior who has consensual sex with his 14 year-old freshman girlfriend (this is sometimes defined as a rape, based on their age difference)

  • A 22 year-old man who makes a home video of consensual sex with his 17 year-old girlfriend and downloads it to his computer, with his girlfriend’s knowledge and with no intent to share the video with others (child pornography production)[6]


A 16 year old girl sexting photos to her boyfriend can recieve a really lengthy prison sentence. Under my plan these types of miscarriages of justice would never ever happen. As long as child pornography laws are on the books these are the types of things that will continue to happen.


'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."


A. This is also a freedom of speech issue. Congress isn't allowed to make any laws restricting the freedom of speech, neither is any other branch of the government. The judicial branch of the government has pretty much ruled that anything the general public views as obscene can be restricted.[7]


The whole point of the first amendmant is to protect material thaat is viewed as obscene by the majority of the population. If the majority of people and the government agreed with the material to start with the first amendmant wouldn't even be neccesary.


"If the First Amendment means anything," Justice Thurgood Marshall said in the 1969 majority decision, "it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."[8]


I just wish Thurgood Marshall would've added something about child porn at the end of that to make my case easier.


If we're going to take freedom of speech serious we need to protect it in the instances where the material offends us the most. The things that offend us most should be the first things we stand up to defend. The battle for our freedom of speech starts and ends with child porn If we fight and win on this front than we win the freedom of speech battle on every front.


Legalizing child porn saves a bunch of kids from being sexually abused but even if it didn't. Even if it saved zero and was null in that area than it would still be worth fighting for based on freedom of speech principals.


Wasted Resources


The FBI is experiencing some severe cuts on their budget which is actually getting in the way of a lot of their counterterrorism work as well as their pursuit of real criminals.[9] It's really hard to get ahold of exactly how the FBI spends their money but suffice it to say that they spent countless millions in pursuit of lonely fat dudes spanking their monkey to little girls. They spend countless millions pursuing people that are in fact causing no harm to annybody. All these people are doing is engaging in some voyuerism and some fantasy. They aren't at risk of raping anybody or engaging in sex with a kid. If the FBI could just redirect this countless millions away from lonely fat guys and redirect it towards counter terrorism or some other vital operation that actually saves lives.


Conclusion


Legalizing child porn not only saves children from being raped it actually could prevent another 9/11 when you consider the FBI focusing on more important counter terrorism measures. Legalizing child porn goes a long way towards protecting our freedom of speech and goes even further in preventing disproportionate prison sentences. There is no reason that some dude spanking his monkey to child porn should get a longer prison sentence than somebody raping a child. There is no reason to arrest some 17 year old kid for distributing child porn because he sent a penis picture to his girl friend.


Vote for freedom of speech. Vote to reduce the victimization of children. Vote to counter terrorism. Vote for child porn. Vote pro.


sources


[1] http://www.springer.com...


[2] http://www.theaustralian.com.au...


[3] http://online.wsj.com...


[4] http://www.examiner.com...


[5] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, The Globalization of Crime: A Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment 214 (2010); Letter from David Debold, Chair and Eric A. Tirschwell, Vice Chair, Practitioners Advisory Group, to Honorable Patti B. Saris, Chair, United States Sentencing Commission 8 (February 13, 2012), available at http://www.ussc.gov...- 16/Testimony_15_PAG.pdf.


[6] http://famm.org...


[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[8] http://abcnews.go.com...


[9] http://www.washingtonpost.com...

bluesteel

Con

Roadmap

In order to properly frame the debate, we will be following a PF-style of argumentation, with our own case appearing in the first round, and our specific rebuttal to Wylted's case appearing in later rounds.

== Framework ==

Let's discuss what the resolution does and does not require. The resolution *requires* Wlyted to argue for full legalization of child porn. The resolution *does not* require Mikal and I to argue for the status quo. As long as child pornography is not completely "legalized," we are still negating the resolution. For example, marijuana is not considered to be "legalized" in California, even though it is *not* illegal in all circumstances (i.e. it is permitted for "medical" use). Thus, Mikal and I do not have to defend illegality in all circumstances.

With this in mind, Mikal and I propose the following child porn law:

(1) Knowingly producing or possessing pornographic images or videos of a child shall be illegal, subject to the following exceptions:

(a) It shall not be illegal for a child to produce or possess pornographic images or videos of himself or herself.

(b) It shall not be illegal for a romantic partner of a child to possess pornographic images or videos depicting the child, provided that at the time the romantic partner came into possession of the images or videos, the romantic partner was of an age at which a sexual relationship between the romantic partner and the child would have been permissible (under the relevant statutory rape law).

(2) "Child" means a person below the age of consent.

(3) "Knowingly" means having actual knowledge that the child is below the age of consent or acting with willful ignorance or extreme recklessness towards the age of the child.

== Benefits of Our Regime ==

(1) No prosecution of children for producing images of themselves

As Wylted points out, child pornography laws are problematic because under the current legal regime, a 14 year old who takes a naked picture of herself could theoretically be prosecuted for "producing child porn." However, our first exception takes care of this problem.

(2) No prosecution of boyfriends or girlfriends who share naked photos

People in relationships sometimes share naked photos of themselves as a form of flirtation. Under our second exception, if both partners could legally have sex under statutory rape laws (e.g. they are both below the age of consent), then there"s no reason they can't also share naked photographs with each other. Wylted says statutory rape laws themselves are problematic, but that's outside the scope of this debate.

The resolution allows us to craft these "exceptions" for two reasons. (1) Adding a few narrow exceptions to a criminal statute does not render the subject matter of the statute "legalized" (e.g. having a "self defense" exception to "murder" does not mean that murder has become "legalized"). We only need to argue for *some* illegality to prove that child porn should not be fully "legalized." (2) Taking a naked selfie or sharing a naked photo only with an intimate partner is not considered "porn" within the meaning of the resolution. Google defines "pornography" as "printed or visual material containing the . . . display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." Couples share intimate photos with each other not solely to stimulate arousal, but also to strengthen their emotional connection. This interpretation comports with common usage. For example, Jennifer Lawrence has defended taking naked photos of herself for her boyfriend by saying, "It was long distance, and either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he's going to look at you." Since such private photos are not considered "porn," the resolution does not require us to advocate that possessing them should be illegal.

== Our Case Against Child Porn ==

(1) Children cannot consent

In statutory rape law, there is something called the "age of consent," which is the age below which children are considered incapable of consenting to sex. The rationale behind the "age of consent" is that children below a certain age lack the maturity to consent to sex with an older person (who may be manipulating them) *and* that children who have not even hit puberty cannot fully understand the *significance* of sex because they have not even experienced sexual desire. Children lack the knowledge and awareness of how a naked photo of them might be put to nefarious uses by an adult. Child porn laws protect naive children from exploitation by adults.

This problem is even more dire because a lot of child sexual abuse is committed by family members, whom the child is more likely to trust and obey than a stranger. Family members are responsible for up to 47 percent of child molestation cases. [1] There are sadly *multiple* accounts online of depraved parents sexually exploiting their young daughters by using them to make child porn (I"ve linked three separate examples). [2] Without child porn laws, parents could not be prosecuted for taking pornographic pictures of their children and posting them online. Uncles and aunts who exploit their nephews and nieces would be immune from prosecution. Because children sometimes need to be protected from adults, child porn laws are necessary.

Wylted spends a lot of time in his case arguing why *possession* of child porn should be legalized, but offers *no* good reason that *production* of child porn should be legal, even though the resolution requires him to prove both. And production is definitely the more problematic aspect of child porn.

(2) Viewing child porn increases the likelihood that the person will molest a child

As James Wolak explains in American Psychologist, pedophiles who view images of child pornography become more likely to molest children because viewing such images serves to *normalize* their fetishization of children and strengthens their urges. [3] It is a common saying in psychology that "neurons that fire together, wire together." When people masturbate to child porn regularly, they strengthen the association they have between sexual desire and "children." One child molester (who is serving a 14-year sentence in a Canadian federal prison) said that looking at child porn online made him more likely to molest children because, he said, "there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it." [4] A report by Carr (2004) concluded, "Many pedophiles acknowledge that exposure to child abuse images fuels their sexual fantasies and plays an important part in leading them to commit hands-on sexual offenses against children."

The studies bear out these conclusions. A longitudinal study of convicted child molesters in the U.S. found that those who consumed more child porn were *more likely to reoffend* after their release. [5] A study by Butner et al estimated that 76 percent of people who consume child pornography have had some sort of illicit physical contact with a child. [6]

The study Wylted cites *does not* prove that viewing child porn *causes* a reduction in molestations. The study essentially notes that the internet made porn widely available starting around 1989, and child molestation has also gone down since 1989. Wylted then assumes a *causal* connection from this. However, first, in most of the countries cited in the study (such as Canada, Germany, and the United States), child pornography is actually *illegal.* Therefore, one could just as easily conclude that when the internet made child porn more available, the police were able to lock up more dangerous pedophiles by catching them viewing child porn. Getting these pedophiles off the street made the molestation rate go down, not the viewing of the child porn itself. Second, correlation is not causation. *All* violent crime rates have been falling since 1989, not just rape and child molestation.



The child molestation rate went down due to *overall* crime trends, which have been influenced by larger police forces, better investigative technology, and harsher penalties for all crimes (e.g. "three strikes" and "truth in sentencing" laws).

(3) Child porn laws are a proxy for catching molesters

Molesters are often hard to catch because children often stay silent about abuse. However, the high correlation between child porn and molestation means that locking up people caught with child porn *also* happens to catch a lot of molesters. In one study containing 115 offenders convicted of *only* possessing child porn, 91 offenders later admitted (in counseling) to having molested a child. [6] Based on this study, up to 79 percent of people convicted only of possessing child porn may *also* be molesters. The Federal Bureau of Prisons issued a report stating that "many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters." Therefore, locking people up for a crime that is relatively easy to detect (downloading child porn) is a proxy for also catching people for a crime that is relatively hard to detect (molestation).

Downloading child porn *is* easier to detect. The FBI has a lot of systems in place for catching people sending or receiving child porn (for example, they have a database that Google uses to scan Gmail accounts to see if any images sent or received match a known image of child porn).

If you vote for Wylted's plan to legalize child porn, you are allowing a lot of child molesters to escape prosecution because the only crime the state could have actually convicted them for was possessing child porn, since their molestations have (as yet) gone undetected.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Pro

(1) Children cannot consent
I think we're all on the same page her but just in case let me repost what I posted in round 1.
"I'm not advocating for the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a minor. It would still be illegal to produce child porn for profit or sell it for profit. It would still be illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor. It would be illegal for an adult to coerce children into having sexual relations with each other."
As I've shown in round 2, Child porn is something created by offending pedophiles to document their crime. If there is a profit motive for this crime it would still remain illegal, however if you film yourself having sex with a child you would only get the charge child molestation. I think with the FBI releasing their extensive database of child porn it would kill any for profit motive that was out there. If it is out there. If you want harsher sentences for people who take advantage of kids sexually than make the penalties stiffer don't tack on this extra charge.
I have defeneded my position on this. My position is that law makers with special interests in mind will use these production of child porn laws in an abusive way, so that 16 year old girls are getting arrested for distributing child porn when they sext. This might seem like a slippery slope fallacy but it isn't. This is history. Special interests have used child porn laws to send a message about sexting or to legislate their own morality.
There would still be the same laws protecting children from sexual abuse. If an aunt, uncle or any other family member showed a video of themselves coercing a child into a sexual act or performing on or with a minor they will be put in prison with the video used as evidence.
The problem with labeling something as pornographic is it's subjective nature. If a person posts a video on Youtube of their 2 year old taking a bath than they can be charged with producing child pornography. What I'm advocating takes a lot of the subjectiveness and throws it out the window. Under what I advocate for you and your kids can go join a nudist colony and take pictures of yourself and post them online without big brother coming in and throwing you and your spouse in jail for something completely innocent. My opponent's plan doesn't protect these innocent people from being abused by the law, by some judge who is trying to prove a point.
Think about this. These pornography laws that prevent people from documenting the rape of a child could actually hurt conviction rates. Right now if I catch somebody in the act of murdering somebody I can videotape it and turn it in to police as evidence, but if I catch somebody raping a kid, I have to think twice on whether I want to hand over the child pornography I just produced. If I turn it in the perp would likely spend close to 4 years in prison according to the stats I provided last round, but me catching the guy and providing the evidence to convict him could get me a production of child porn charge which lands me more time in a prison than the actual bad guy.
We can't depend on the common sense of prosecutors and law men in this either. They've proven that they can't be trusted to use common sense[7] and that's why even my opponent argues for a change in the status quo.<br><br>
(2) Viewing child porn increases the likelihood that the person will molest a child

"As James Wolak explains in American Psychologist, pedophiles who view images of child pornography become more likely to molest children because viewing such images serves to *normalize* their fetishization of children and strengthens their urges."

This quote seems to have nothing to do with the article my opponent cited. The quote sounds like pure conjecture and seems to not go with the theme of the articele. While I don't doubt Wolak said those things I do believe it to be just pure conjecture based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. Here is a few quotes from the article summary to give readers a feel for what the article's publishers is saying it's about.
"The publicity about online "predators" who prey on naive children using trickery and violence is largely inaccurate. Internet sex crimes involving adults and juveniles more often fit a model of statutory rape."

"This is a serious problem, but one that requires approaches different from those in current prevention messages emphasizing parental control and the dangers of divulging personal information"[1]

If the article was specifically about the type of predators who are going to be largely discussed in this debate I'd purchase it for the $12 but it doesn't appear to be so. This is more than likely an offhand remark.
"The studies bear out these conclusions. A longitudinal study of convicted child molesters in the U.S. found that those who consumed more child porn were *more likely to reoffend* after their release."

This study looked at a very small subset of people. First it looked at child molestors not your average child porn watcher. second among child molestors it furthered narrowed it down to high risk child molestors (people already likely to reoffend) and lastly it looked at frequency of watching child porn.[2] This I think for the most part is just common sense. People who have a problem controlling their urges are more likely to obsess over child porn and watch it more. The obsessive porn watching would indicate a lack of willpower in these high risk offendors. It's the same lack of willpower that causes them to reoffend. This is a classic case of correlation and it's a more obvious case of correlation than my study on lower rates of child sexual abuse. I think the study I pulled up is highly suggestive of the ease of access to these types of images correlating to lower incidences of sexual abuse of a child.

My opponent does bring up the infamous Butner study[3] as his main piece of evidence. According to Hernandez the individual involved in 2 of he studies my opponnt brought up;

"Some individuals have misused the results of Hernandez (2000) and Bourke and Hernan- dez (2009) to fuel the argument that the majority of child pornography offenders are in- deed contact sexual offenders and, therefore, dangerous predators. This simply is not supported by the scientific evidence.
The incidence of contact sexual crimes among [child pornography] offenders, as we re- ported in our studies, is important and worthy of considerable empirical examination. However, it is not a conclusive finding that can be generalized to all child pornography offenders."[4]

This isn't the only problem with the Butner study. The Butner program is as stated by Judge Robert Pratt and the supreme court determined.

"the Butner Study is not credible. The Butner Study's sample population consisted of incarcerated individuals participating in a sexual offender treatment program at a federal correctional institution.....the program is "highly coercive." .....Unless offenders continue to admit to further sexual crimes, whether or not they actually committed those crimes, the offenders are discharged from the program. Id. Consequently, the subjects in this Study had an incentive to lie..........that the Study's "whole approach" is rejected by the treatment and scientific community. Id, Complicating this bias is the fact that the Butner Study did not report on the nearly 23% (46/201) of individuals in the treatment program who left due to "voluntary withdrawal"......." [5]

The study refused to show it's methodologies or explain any of it's apparent deficiencies. The study is crap. On top of that the evidence besides me showing a reduction in sexual assault of minors all points to the fact that legalizing child porn reduces child molestation and is the lesser of 2 evils.

A meta analysis was done of 21 studies and 4500 child porn watchers showed that there was only a 2.1% chance of them reoffending with a sexual contact charge.[6]

Conclusion


I skipped making rebuttals for my opponent's 3rd category because it uses the same Butner study for it's data. Some rebuttals were touched on by my opponents in the previous round and I will address those on my next turn. I wish my opponents good luck and look forward to their rebuttals.
source

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] Andres E. Hernandez, Psychological and Behavior Characteristics of Child Pornography Offenders in Treatment, presented at the Global Symposium on Examining the Relationship Between Online and Offline Offenses and Pre- venting the Sexual Exploitation of Children, at The Injury Prevention Research Center, the University of North Car- olina, Chapel Hill, April 5-7, 2009, at 5, available at http://www.iprc.unc.edu...
[6] Public Hearing Before the U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION on Federal Child Pornography Crimes 3 (February 15, 2012) (written testimony of Michael C. Seto, Royal Ottawa Health Care Group) available at http://www.ussc.gov...-
[7] 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252, 2252A, 1466A (2011). 16 Radley Balko, You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them, REASON (Feb. 28, 2011), available at http://reason.com...
bluesteel

Con

== Rebuttal ==

General responses:

Plan flaw: state vs. federal

The topic says the U.S. Federal Government should legalize child porn, so Wylted's plan would only legalize child porn at the national level. However, child porn is also illegal at the state level. Every single state (except Alabama) separately criminalizes child porn. [1] This takes out 98.5% of Wylted's solvency because child porn would still be illegal for 98.5% of the U.S. population, who could not view child porn without being subject to prosecution on the state-level.

There are two implications to this argument. (1) Wylted should lose the debate because he fails to uphold his burden to prove solvency. As a policymaker, if you offer a proposal to solve a problem, you have the burden to show that your plan actually solves that problem. Legislatures should not waste time debating and passing proposals that do *nothing* (because of limited legislative resources). Any political capital spent passing Wylted's proposal would be wasted and would be better spent on other things (like dealing with our nation's ballooning student loan debt). (2) Legalization at the federal level misleads people into thinking child porn is "legal" and leads otherwise law-abiding citizens to mistakenly break state law. Wylted himself (in Round 1) says that child porn should be placed on the *FBI"s homepage* for easy access. Yet anyone who accesses said child porn in any state except Alabama would be breaking *state* law and would be subject to criminal prosecution (plus a lifetime on a sex offender registry). You could see how even an ordinary citizen might click on the child porn on the *FBI"s homepage* merely out of curiosity (and due the novelty of the federal government seemingly *endorsing* child porn), but this person could wind up in jail for doing so under state law. Thus, there is a huge disadvantage that stems from this plan flaw.

Disadvantage 2: Active endorsement

Furthermore, putting child porn on the FBI website is a bad idea because it looks like an active endorsement or even encouragement of child porn by the federal government. It's one thing to legalize something and another to endorse it. Some countries have legalized -- or at least decriminalized -- drugs, but that doesn"t mean those countries hand out free drugs in their capitol buildings. Likewise, the federal government should not hand out free child porn on the FBI website. You should vote Wylted down for this proposal alone. Endorsement by the government would "normalize" child porn. The social stigma against viewing child porn is *good* because it motivates some pedophiles to seek help for their urges.

Counterplan: decriminalize, don't legalize

Based on the drug law context, the difference between a "decriminalization" and a "legalization" regime is that decriminalization would still keep the law on the books that makes child porn "unlawful," but it would eliminate the criminal sanctions for *possession* (specifically jail time). Instead, violation of the law would result in a "civil" penalty, such as mandated therapy. This is how drug-decriminalization regimes operate. [2] Decriminalization would make it more permissible for pedophiles to admit to viewing child porn (because they are no longer admitting to a "crime"), thus making it easier for them to seek treatment and to be candid with therapists. In contrast, legalization makes the viewing of child porn *completely* legal and eliminates some of the stigma related to having the urge to f*ck children. As already mentioned, this stigma is good because it motivates some pedophiles to seek treatment. The counterplan thus captures much of the net benefits of Wylted's plan, without the major disadvantages stemming from having the federal government endorse and normalize child porn.

Mikal and I are allowed to make this argument because under "negation theory," we only need to prove that we should *not* legalize child porn. It doesn't matter how we do so. If we win that there are better options *or* we win that it should remain illegal, we prove that legalization is "bad policy."

== Resolutional Analysis ==

Wylted claims that production of child porn would remain illegal in his regime (since children cannot consent). However, this isn"t "legalizing" child porn. It is more akin to "decriminalizing" it. If we "legalized" drugs, for example, both production and possession would be legal. In contrast, "decriminalization" of drugs only affects possession (not production). Therefore, Wylted is really only arguing for decriminalization [a Neg position] unless he argues that *production* should be legal.

Disadvantage 3: Incentivizing production

Wylted claims that if child porn were legalized, you still couldn't sell it. I don't see why not. But even if you had to give it away for free, you could still profit from using it to direct traffic to your website (to generate more ad revenue). Therefore, legalization incentives people to produce *more* child porn. There are examples of parents taking naked photos of their children to sell to pedophiles. [2, Rd 2] Wylted's plan thus makes it more likely that people will exploit children to produce child porn.

Line-by-line rebuttal

R1) "Justice"

//A// Wylted"s study (which used data since 1989) was already refuted last round.

//B// Wylted says that it's unfair that child molesters get an average sentence of four years, compared to seven years for child porn. However, this disparity represents problems of *proof.* The prosecution has a hard time proving actual molestation (because children are unpredictable on the witness stand, if they agree to testify at all), so prosecutors are more likely to offer lenient plea bargains in molestation cases to avoid trial. In contrast, child porn charges are easy to prove. If your computer is seized and you have child porn on it, you don"t have much of a defense, so you don't get a good plea deal.

In addition, the high correlation between viewing child porn and molestation means that harsher sentences for viewing child porn are *good* because they keep molesters off the streets.

Under subpoint B, Wlyted also claims that people only produce child porn to "document" their crimes. However, the sources I linked last round (about specific parents producing child porn in order to sell it to pedophiles) proves that people *also* do it for financial reasons.

//C// Wytled discusses under subpoint C that child porn laws result in the children themselves being put in jail. This problem is taken care of by the exceptions Mikal and I provided last round.

R2) Free speech

Wylted claims that producing child porn is a type of free speech that should be protected by the First Amendment. However, speech can be regulated when there is a countervailing government interest, such as protecting people. For example, free speech doesn't protect your right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) because doing so would endanger people. Likewise, hate speech is prohibited because it is likely to incite a violent response. Child porn can be regulated because the government has an interest in protecting children (as the Supreme Court explained in New York v. Ferber). And the Supreme Court's word on the Constitution is final. Child porn laws are not a First Amendment violation.

R3) Wasted resources

First of all, you can never vote for this contention because Wylted does not quantify how many police resources are "wasted" on prosecuting child porn offenses. For all we know, it takes relatively few resources to police this crime. A lot of the child porn cases you will read in law school involve someone's wife or girlfriend finding child porn on his computer and turning him in. This takes few resources.

Second, to the extent that there is a very high correlation between viewing child porn and actual molestation, spending resources on prosecuting child porn offenders is *good* because it gets a lot of actual molesters off the streets.

Third, prosecutorial discretion solves better. Prosecutors get to choose which cases to bring, and *most* prosecutors exercise good judgment. If some random lonely fat guy just happened to accidentally download one image of a 17-year old, you'd be hard pressed to find a prosecutor that would be willing to bring that case. Because prosecutors won't take silly cases, police generally don't pursue them. I challenge Wylted to show, for example, that it is common for nudists to be prosecuted for posting pictures of their nudist children on Facebook.

== Rebuttal to Round 3 ==

We'll save most of our rebuttals here for next round, but let's address the "studies debate." Wylted questions the methodology of the Butner study by saying that child porn offenders were expelled from the treatment program if they refused to enumerate victims. However, this simply isn't true, but rather is a highly publicized myth (that seems to have convinced one judge). But not a single person was expelled from the program for refusing to list victims. [3] In fact, 15 percent of the study sample completed the treatment program and never listed any victims at all. [3]

In addition, the Butner study is not the only one to find such a high correlation. Here"s another study that found that, based on their scores on an "antisocial behavior scale," internet porn viewers had between a 27 percent and 84 percent chance of also being a molester. [4]

Wylted cites a meta-study saying that only 2.1 percent of child porn viewers sexually recidivate. However, this is extremely misleading because it is a "three year" recidivism rate, meaning it only follows offenders for three years after release. People convicted of *child molestation* have a comparably low three-year recidivism rate of 3.3 percent. [5] However, the *lifetime* recidivism rate for child molesters is 52 percent. [6] If you looked at the *lifetime* recidivism rate for child porn viewers, the rate would also be much higher. The reason most people don"t re-offend so soon after release is because they are on *supervised* release (parole), so it is hard to get away with anything.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Pro

State Vs Federal

I'm continually learning more about crafting the type of resolution needed to get the debate I want. I intended to advocate for a general legalization of child porn. Bluesteel knows that's the debate I wanted.

Despite him having this overwhelming advantage of taking a position that more than 99% of the general public agrees with him on he still feels the need to Weasel out of debating the resolution by taking a semi pro child porn stance as well as attempting to win on some sort of technicality.

Bluesteel, you're already almost certain to win by merely just putting up a strong showing. Why don't you stop trying to Weasel out of debating and take a stance?

I'd ask the voters to consider how confident my opponent feels in his own arguments if he's trying to avoid debating this. Seriously you're con on child porn and receiving help from the highest rated debater on the site. What other advantage do you need, in order to feel even with me?

Besides that the state vs federal argument is silly anyway. If the state legalizes child porn it would still be illegal on a federal level. Not to mention it's the FBI that handles going after all these child porn cases. Without them barely anybody would be prosecuted for the crime.

Focusing on the federal government legalizing child Porn actually strengthens my case, because states can at least have the freedom and flexibility to work out any kinks with the newly legalized porn that fits each jurisdiction uniquely.

My opponent also points out that an ordinary person could click on child porn for the novelty or out of curiosity and be subject to prosecution when he really doesn't even deserve it.

This is my case folks. It's fat pervs that are eating Cheetos watching this child porn out of curiosity. It's not child molesters and my stats including the meta study I presented in the previous round prove this.

As far as trying to paint people who watch child porn as child molesters it's absurd. Anybody who has watched midget porn, or gang bang videos (which in our society is almost everyone), can tell you that watching porn does't equal going out and doing what you see on those videos.

I urge every voter who has watched a midget or other fetish porn and not banged a midget to consider their experience in judging this debate.

I do have hard numbers for a lot of things, but what my case does that my opponent's does not is appeal to common sense.

We all have fantasies that we'll never ever engage in, but my opponent expects you to believe people with those fantasies are different.

There's a reason why every other porno we watch has a girl with a shaved vagina, and pig tails. There is a reason why the school girl and baby sitter theme is so prominent in many of the porns we watch. The reason is because we all have these fantasies even if subconsciously.

Your not a bad person for it and neither are the people who watch child porn. They're just engaging in the fantasy and would never really hurt a child. My stats and your experience confirm this to be true.

Active Endorsement

Actually the government does hand out drugs. That's what Methadone clinics are.

My stats show that less children would be harmed with easier access to child porn. Honestly who cares if it appears the government is endorsing child porn. I think their priority should be keeping children safe and the FBI making their extensive database available for public viewing would due to extra access keep kids safer as numerous studies have shown, but besides that it deincentivizes the production of child porn for profit.

Any child pornography producers would go out of business, when the world's largest database of child porn is just a click away. Not to mention how many cold cases would get solved by people just happening to see somebody they recognize in one of the videos.

If the FBI releases their database of child porn it will literally get offending pedophiles off the street and keep our kids safer. I think it's way better to make kids safer than to worry about the FBI receiving a little negative publicity.

Decriminalize

This is just sad. Bluesteel/Mikal are literally arguing the most popular position available to argue in any debate and instead of just debating against the position I propose they offer a plan that is almost identical.

It would be like if I accepted a debate where somebody was pro gay marriage and I offered a counter plan that not only legalized gay marriage but also gave every gay man in America $20.00.

Guy's, you're con child porn. The easiest position to take ever in a debate and despite that you're still trying to take the pro position. Why didn't you guys just instigate a pro child porn debate?

Their plan is inferior anyway, because not everybody who views child porn is a pedophile. In fact it's the vast minority of people who view it that are. Also decriminalizing it does nothing to stop unfair government censorship and these treatment programs will be hella expensive while my plan actually saves the tax payers money.

These attempts to escape debating, especially when considering how popular their position is as well as their skill level are such gross conduct violations that I urge the voters to award me the win strictly for conduct reasons. These ways to weasel out of actually debating this topic especially since it's 2 on 1 plus they are con child porn and could almost literally forfeit every round and still win (based on protest votes of my rape battle), are just odd and disturbing.

Resolution Analysis

I made my position very clear in round 1. In the comments I asked my opponents to review what I wrote before accepting to make sure we were both arguing a fair position. I knew the way I was using the term full legalization was a bit unusual, so I further elaborated on what I said in round 1. If my opponents didn't like it I was more than willing to compromise with them on the resolution. However they happily accepted the debate.

Mikal/Bluesteel some of the debaters who do policy debates and are used to some of the silliness in formal debates at the academic level might respond well to you guys trying to weasel out of debating this by being shifty, but I think most voters are going to see this nonsense as several Hail Marie's put in place because your arguments were defeated.

If you guys feel like your arguments are too weak to win, just concede. Don't attempt to weasel out of debating this by interpreting the resolution in a dishonest way or switching so you're oddly pro child porn as well but in a different way.

Production of Child porn

All these objections my opponent raises here are offset by the FBI releasing their ever expanding database. No producer of child porn can compete with the largest database of child porn on the planet.

Justice

My study wasn't debunked a direct correlation was shown between access to child porn and a reduction of children getting raped. Most countries in the study had strong child pornography laws but the countries who loosened their laws showed a sharp decline in child rape cases immediately following the legalization of child porn.

The ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in Japan and Denmark in 1989 and a sharp decrease in sex crimes took place. This is beyond coincidence that immediately following the ban their was a Sharp decrease in rape cases. Every single study on pornography and sex crimes shows this exact same correlation. It's beyond coincidence.

Freedom

Contrary to my opponents beliefs the Supreme Court ruling on freedom of speech isn't final. The constitution of the United States is final regardless of whether activist judges intentionally misinterpret it to pursue their own agenda

The pornography laws are very wishy washy and can quite honestly be interpreted however people feel like interpreting it. They are way to subjective and the proposals I make are the only ones that throw subjectivity completely out the window. Pornography laws have been and will continue to be used to suppress freedom of speech.

Wasted Resources

The FBI keeps it's budget secret or atleast hard to find. I don't know how much the spend on utilities or coffee machines or anything for that matter. The miners don't need quantifying if you can reasonably determine that the FBI spends a ton of money chasing people who view child porn.

Common sense tells us that with the biggest database of child porn on the planet and being really the only government organization that makes it there business to go after random dudes who get curious about the wrong thing, they spend millions probably tens of millions hunting down people who view child porn. The makers of child pornography (aka the real bad guys) really are rarely prosecuted or discovered.

This money could be better spent preventing the next major terrorist attack.

Conclusion

My opponent's are saving the full counter rebuttals to the stats next round, which is where I'll also address those things. Vote Pro.
bluesteel

Con

== Rebuttal ==

*Note: I'm going to switch to saying "I" since Mikal has not really been involved in this debate.

Negation Theory

Wylted complains multiple times in Round 4 that I am being cheap because I've argued a "state versus federal" plan flaw and for decriminalization. However, the resolution permits me to argue these things. If legalization of child porn by the U.S. federal government doesn't solve or there are better alternatives, then we shouldn't legalize federally. If the U.S. federal government shouldn't legalize, you vote Con.

Wylted can't have it both ways. He says that he gets to draft the resolution, so he doesn't have to argue for legalization of child porn produced "for profit" because he said Round 1 that this wasn't included. So when his topic drafting *benefits* him, he wants the judges to give him the full benefits. But when he made a *major* mistake in topic drafting (by limiting it to federal and *not* limiting out decriminalization), he wants the judges *not* to penalize him. So he wants all of the benefits of good topic drafting but none of the punishment for *poor* topic drafting. That's unfair. He got to draft the topic: he's stuck with the one he drafted. It's additionally unfair because I've already spent *a lot* of character space advancing these two arguments. They shouldn't get thrown out when they are *permissible* arguments under the resolution. Voting Wylted down on either the plan flaw or decriminalization is good because it helps make him a better policymaker and gets him to consider more nuanced policy-making (e.g. recognizing the distinction between decriminalization and legalization).

Furthermore, Wylted suggests that I argue for decriminalization because I think I'm losing the argument that we should maintain the status quo (with a few exceptions for selfies, etc). However, debate is a game, and the Negative side gets to test the Affirmative in multiple ways. I really don't think I'm losing that child porn should remain illegal. I just wanted to throw out a few more arguments to see how Wylted handled them. And he mishandled them by mostly complaining instead of simply responding. I know I have the easier side on this topic, but that doesn't mean Wylted can't also lose due to flawed policy-making.

A) Production of child porn

I'll allow Wylted to stipulate that producing child porn *for profit* should remain illegal under his regime. But merely by saying this, Wylted is conceding that under his regime, you *can* produce child porn as long as you don't intend to profit. And Wylted himself said in Round 2 that most people who produce child porn do *not* do it for profit. Wylted's plan therefore still allows children to be exploited by adults (in producing child porn).

Wylted says it would still be illegal in his regime to have sex with a minor, which is true (due to statutory rape laws). However, Wylted is *wrong* when he says that you wouldn't be allowed to film two children having sex if child porn were "legalized" because in most states, if both minors are close in age, it's not statutory rape for them to have sex. Only child porn laws prevent you from filming two children having sex with each other. You could try to argue that this would be "normal" rape because consent wasn't fully voluntary since the children were encouraged to have sex, but similar problems are raised in the adult film industry (and that's not considered rape). Additionally, Wylted never contests that under his regime, people would be allowed to produce "softcore" child porn. All of my (unanswered) arguments about how *exploitative* the production of child porn is would still apply. We should keep child porn illegal to prevent children from being exploited by adults in the production of child porn.

Wylted claims that because the FBI database would be available, no one would produce new child porn. However, the *adult* porn market is already saturated with free porn, yet tons of people still produce additional pornography.

B) The battle of the "studies"

My argument here is that the high correlation between child molestation and internet porn viewing means that it's a *good idea* to put people in prison for possessing child porn because we also happen to be getting a lot of molesters off the streets by doing so. This argument wins me the debate as long as I prove a *correlation* between child porn viewing and molestation. In contrast, Wylted has the much higher burden to prove *causation.* His argument is that watching child porn *causes* someone to become less likely to molest children. Not only is causation much harder to prove than correlation, but I am the only one in this debate offering actual testimony from pedophiles showing that causation works in the opposite direction: child porn merely *strengthened* their urges. In addition to the testimony in Round 2 from the Canadian pedophile and from John Carr (who works with pedophiles), the radio series "This American Life" did an episode about pedophiles who have never molested anyone, and these pedophiles say that getting "clean" (from viewing child porn) was a key step. [1] The radio series also interviewed a psychiatrist who said that most pedophiles are "non-exclusive" pedophiles (i.e. have *some* attraction to people their own age), and these pedophiles are capable of strengthening their more age-appropriate urges (e.g. by watching only age-appropriate pornography). [1] Ninety-three percent of pedophiles are "nonexclusive," so it's very important that they strengthen their normal urges *rather than* strengthening their urge to f*ck children (by watching child porn). [2]

Wylted also drops my defense of the Butner study and the other study I provided showing a high correlation between child porn viewing and molestation. Also, there's a third study that found that 33 percent of people convicted of possessing child porn were also molesters. [4] Wylted tries to defend his *own* study by saying that Japan and Denmark legalized *all* porn in 1989 and saw a decrease in total *rapes.* However, normal porn is different from child porn and rape is different from child molestation. Pedophilia is a disorder and it is *fueled* by images of child porn. Furthermore, this is not even true: rapes were *increasing* in Denmark during the 1990's. [3] And note that child porn is *illegal* in both countries. [6]

C) State vs. federal plan flaw

Wylted argues that federal legalization is good because it allows the states to experiment. However, legalization of child porn is an extremely unpopular position. It's never going to happen on the state level. Spending Congressional resources to get Wylted's proposal to pass is a complete waste. And it would be a hard-fought battle in Congress. Let's spend our political capital on better things.

In response to my argument that people will be misled into thinking it's legal, Wylted said that's the point: that's what happens now. However, my argument was specific to placing child porn on the *FBI website,* which would mislead people to think it's legal (since the federal government seems to be endorsing it). I don't think anyone seriously believes that child porn is legal right now. Also, Wylted's portrayal of most child porn viewers as normal, fat, Cheeto-eaters is not correct. A very substantial portion of them are pedophiles. "Normal" people don't try to download videos entitled "Nine-year-olds f*cking." In addition, prosecutorial discretion usually means that only people with large collections of child porn are prosecuted, and these collectors are more likely to be dangerous pedophiles than normal, fat, Cheeto-eaters.

D) Decriminalization

Contrary to what Wylted says, decriminalization is not legalization. Decriminalization makes child porn "unlawful," but attaches only a civil penalty (e.g. a fine or mandated treatment). The advantage is that the government doesn't have to look like it is endorsing child porn. Wylted never answers the argument that the stigma from child porn is good because it causes some pedophiles to seek treatment. "This American Life" also said that there is a very real debate within the pedophile community about whether having sex with children is immoral. [1] If the U.S. government started giving away child porn for free on the FBI website, it would strengthen the position of those within the pedophile community who say that sex with children is okay and "normal." "See!" they would say, "the government is supporting our fetish!"

Wylted says that it's worth "endorsing" child porn if it keeps kids safe, but it doesn't keep kids safe if it helps pedophiles justify their urges to themselves as being normal and permissible to act upon. Wylted claims that the civil remedy of mandated treatment would be too expensive, but (1) it's cheaper than jail, so the government saves money compared to the status quo, and (2) treatment actually reduces child molestation among pedophiles, so it's a good intervention. [5]

E) Free speech

Note that Wylted is arguing that *producing* child porn is a form of protected expression. Merely "viewing" something is not "expression" within the meaning of the First Amendment. The government"s interest in protecting children from exploitation outweighs any claim of a First Amendment right to use children to produce porn.

F) Wasted resources

Wylted has to win the "studies debate" to win this argument. He has to show there is no correlation between child porn viewership and molestation to prove that the FBI wastes resources. Otherwise, if there is a correlation, locking up child porn viewers also happens to catch molesters. Furthermore, locking up child porn viewers is important because it reduces demand for child porn, which decreases supply [i.e. *production*] (which is very exploitative).

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Wylted

Pro

Bluesteel is being cheap with some of his arguments and it's because he knows his other arguments fail. If his other arguments didn't fail he wouldn't be attempting to dodge debating this issue. He'd just forward his arguments instead of trying to weassel out of this. He doesn't reaally need to do this. He is already going to get a ton of votes from people not even reading this debate plus everybody from the G+ crowd. Him switching arguments like that is a concession that his arguments aren't strong enough to win. His arguments don't have to be strong or even better than mine to win. In fact he merely has to show up.

I'm the underdog. No matter how strong my arguments are I still lose, and yet my opponent still feels the need to gain some unfair advantages. His arguments failed so hard that he now attempts to get on the same side of the fence as me and be pro child porn. When your arguments are so weak that you also start arguing pro child porn, you should lose. Him jumping from that side of the fence but barely touching on the other arguments, to appear as if he didn't abandon them is as good as a concession and if you're a voter it's okay to vote for me for those reasons, or if you consider his arguments unfair enough to warrant a conduct violation you can vote me the win for those reasons as well.

HARD EVIDENCE VS CUTE STORIES

I've provided hard evidence supporting my side throughout this debate. My opponent has provided a story about a child molester who is basically saying; "Child porn made me do it". Your isolated incident even if true doesn't trump hard evidence. The child molester clearly benefits if he can make people believe that he isn't responsible for his behaviors and that child porn is. The psychologist and his ad hoc arguments derived from personal experience doesn't trump hard evidence.

Bluesteel has had to provide the ad hoc arguments and the isolated incident from a convict who gains to blame somebody or something else. He's had to do this because the evidence doesn't support his side. If the evidence was on his side he would just argue using the numbers and not some cute personal stories from a child molester or psychologist.

The use of personal stories as opposed to hard evidence such as I've presented can be considered a partial concession as well. I just ask the voters to come to the same realization that Bluesteel already has. The realization that the evidence is in my favor. If Bluesteel knew the massive bias against me I have a feeling he wouldn't have thrown the incredible amount of hail Mary's he has, but he doesn't realize all he has to do is to show up to win.

THE BUTNER STUDY

My opponent's whole case depends on this study. The Butner study is crap. Not only were it's methods and questionnaires kept secret so nobody could review them but it wasn't representative of people who viewed child porn as a whole. Bluesteel never gave a full rebuttal like he said he would in the previous round so a lot of my criticisms of the Butner study still stand.

23% of the people weren't booted out but they "asked to leave", or were coerced or who knows what because the study wasn't scientific and wasn't made available for peer review. The people conducting the study even admit that the data was being used inappropriately and that the study was exploratory and the data not meant to be taken as fact. http://www.iprc.unc.edu...

http://law.justia.com...

This study is inconclusive while my studies showing a direct link between a reduction in child molestations and an increased access to child porn are connected. and nobody is asking for more of an increase in the access to child porn than I am.

recidivism

"internet porn viewers had between a 27 percent and 84 percent chance of also being a molester."

Between 27% and 84% really?

These numbers are clearly unreliable with that much variable where in contrast the meta study I showed stated that first time viewers of child porn with no prior convictions are highly unlikely to ever molest a child.

(note) citation 6 in round 3 as sent to my opponent in the comments as requested, and citation for previous sentence. http://www.ussc.gov...

The first time viewers with no criminal history really are just average dudes who got curious. Anybody can accidently click on a popup that sends them to a page with child porn on it and even if they got there intentionally. Just like watching midget porn doesn't mean you'll start raping midgets watching child porn doesn't mean you'll start raping children.

Conclusion

My opponent knows that the police unfairly prosecute people by abusing the child pornography laws and it's why he posted the amendments he did. The only way to make sure the laws aren't being used unfairly by prosecutors is to eliminate the laws.

The only way to stop the unfair sentences with people viewing child porn receiving 20 year sentences while child molesters receive 3 years in prison is to legalize child porn.

The only way to completely protect freedom of speech is making sure it applies to everything. The best way to prevent more molestations and to possibly solve some cold cases is to have the FBI release it's database.

Let's save some lives. Let's legalize child porn
bluesteel

Con

== Negation Theory ==

I feel like first I need to (briefly) address Wylted's complaints about my "plan flaw" and "decriminalization" arguments. Wylted keeps saying that I only ran these arguments because I think I'm losing, but that's really not the case. Anyone who did Policy Debate knows that you negate your opponent's plan on as many levels as possible. That's all I was doing. Wytled *never responds* to my argument that these are *permissible* arguments under the resolution because decriminalization is *not* legalization (since decriminalization keeps *production* illegal and merely changes the penalties for *possession* to being civil -- rather than criminal). If these arguments are *permitted* under the resolution, then you as judges can vote on them.

== Round Overview ==

There are four *independent* ways that I win this debate.

1) Vote Neg on Solvency as a Policymaker Judge.

Wylted got to craft a plan, and he has to prove the plan *solves* the problem he outlined. If he were arguing this proposal before Congress and could not *prove* that the plan would solve, then Congress wouldn't pass it. You have to pretend that you are a member of Congress considering Wylted's proposal. Because child porn would still be illegal in 49 states, you should not risk taking the *political fallout* from legalizing child porn at the federal level, when it will still remain illegal for most people. Spend your time legislating on more important issues.

2) Vote Neg on the "Misleading" Disadvantage.

Part of Wylted's "plan" is to put child porn on the FBI website. I ran a disadvantage to this in Round 3 explaining that many people (like Wylted himself) will not realize that just because something is legal at the federal level does not mean it is legal at the state level. Clicking the child porn links on the FBI website will get people thrown in jail (by state authorities). Wylted claims (in his last round) that a lot of people who get prosecuted for child porn simply clicked the wrong link. Although this is *completely untrue*, if it were true, Wylted's plan just exacerbates this problem because it's really misleading for child porn to be *illegal,* but for the federal government to place free child porn on the FBI website and announce to the nation, "hey guys, this is legal now (as far as we're concerned)." This plan flaw is a sufficient reason to vote Neg under *Wylted's own arguments* (because even more people will be misled).

3) Vote Con because Child Porn Should Remain Illegal, with the Exceptions I Outlined in Round 2.

Under the "studies debate," as long as I prove that there is a *correlation* between viewing child porn and molestation, I win that it should remain illegal because if we lock people up for child porn, we also happen to catch a lot of molesters whose crimes have gone undetected. I'll address the studies debate in a second, but remember that Wylted needs to prove *causation* (that watching child porn causes people to become less likely to molest) whereas I only need to prove *correlation* (that people who watch child porn are likely to also be molesters).

4) Vote Con on the Decriminalization Counterplan.

In the alternative -- if for *some* reason you don't buy that child porn should remain completely illegal -- decriminalize it, don't legalize it. Wylted *never contests* that *production* should be illegal, so he automatically loses on that point, and thus decriminalization (which keeps production illegal) will always be a superior solution (compared to Wylted's plan). In addition, civil penalties are better than both criminal penalties and *no* penalties because it funnels pedophiles towards treatment, which empirically makes them less likely to molest (as I proved with a study).

=== The Line-By-Line Debate ==

1) The "study debate"

I've offered *three* studies here: the Butner study [76 percent of child porn viewers were also molesters], the anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) study [among the group with the most anti-social personalities, 84 percent of child porn viewers were also molesters, but even in the least anti-social group, 27 percent of child porn viewers were also molesters], and a third study I brought up in Round 4 [33 percent of child porn viewers were also molesters].

First, Wylted *drops* the third study entirely, meaning he concedes there is a high degree of correlation between child porn viewing and molestation. The Butner study is *not* the only study to find that the correlation is high, but rather is the only one to find it is *that* high. Yet, even 33% is pretty bad. If one in three child porn viewers is an undetected molester, it's worth locking them up to keep children safe.

Second, Wylted continues to question the Butner study, but his criticism is misplaced. His main criticism in Round 4 is that 23 percent of participants were forced out of the study, yet in Round 3, he said they *voluntarily* withdrew (which is what the source actually says). You have to question how "coercive" the study is if 23 percent of participants were allowed to leave. In addition, look at my source for this from Round 2: it actually cited the Butner Study Redux (the second of the Butner studies), which was meant to shore up the methodology so it would withstand criticism (such as Wylted's). Wylted is wrong to say that no conclusions can be drawn from it.

Third, Wylted says the ASPD study is unreliable because it has a wide-ranging estimate [between 27 percent and 84 percent of child porn viewers were also molesters]. But the study has this wide range because of the *nature* of the study: it was ranking *different groups* of child porn viewers, based on their scores on an anti-social behavior test. The most anti-social group was the most likely to be molesters, but even the least anti-social group had a very high chance of a being a molester.

Wylted keeps saying that his statistics win out here, but he *never responds* to my refutations. Wylted had two statistics. First, his "1989" study merely notices that child molestations have gone down since 1989, and *asserts* (without any support) that this is due to wider availability of child porn. However, I showed that *all* violent crimes have been falling dramatically since 1989, so the reduction in molestations has more to do with overall crime trends. Second, Wylted says that only 2.1 percent of child porn viewers re-offend, but this is a *three year* recidivism rate (which captures only the period when they are on *supervised* release). If you look over their lifetimes, you"d expect about 50 percent of them to commit another sex crime (based on comparable lifetime recidivism rates for child molesters).

So, Wylted fails to meet the high burden of proving *causation,* whereas I succeed in proving *correlation.*

Furthermore, I provided *multiple* sources (psychiatrists, behavioral psychologists, and molesters themselves) that showed that *causation works in reverse*: pedophiles who watch child porn merely strengthen their urges. Wylted criticizes my sources as merely anecdotal, but he has the BOP and he doesn"t provide a *single* anecdotal source from a child molester or psychiatrist who says that masturbating to child porn *helped* them or their patients avoid molesting. In addition, Wylted drops my evidence from an expert in psychiatry who says that 93 percent of pedophiles are *nonexclusive,* so they can strengthen their attraction to adults and lessen their attraction to children by watching *normal* porn instead of child porn. Remember, neurons that fire together, wire together. If you masturbate to child porn regularly, you strengthen the connections in your brain between "attraction" and "children." This is *devastating* to Wylted"s argument because it means that child porn should remain illegal because discouraging nonexclusive pedophiles from watching child porn helps them to control their urges.

2) The myth of the lonely fat Cheeto eater

I made a devastating critique last round of Wylted's viewpoint that having curiosity about midget porn is the same as having curiosity about child porn. Most people know that child porn is illegal, and most people are not attracted to pre-pubescent children. I doubt your average porn viewer would download a video entitled, "Nine year olds having sex." Because of my critique, Wylted changed this argument (in the last round) to being that the lonely fat guy accidentally clicks a link that contains child porn and gets prosecuted. I was *waiting* for Wylted to make this argument the entire debate, but he never did. If you look back to Round 2, I included a provision in my proposed law that required that the person act *knowingly,* and I defined "knowingly" to mean that the person *knew* that the image or video contained a minor. So under my proposal, people who accidentally click on links would not be prosecuted. [You can't penalize me for only pointing this out now, since Wylted never made the "accidental click" argument until the last round.]

Furthermore, prosecutorial discretion answers all these arguments. I have had the chance to interact with a fair deal of prosecutors, and *most* prosecutors are good people who have excellent discretion. There are a few bad apples. But repealing an important law because of a few bad apples would be the same as abolishing the police force because of a few bad apples among the police.

Furthermore, Wylted *never* provides examples of his nightmare scenarios. He never shows nudists being prosecuted for posting pictures of their kids on Facebook. He never shows someone getting arrested for accidentally clicking one link. Most people who are prosecuted have hundreds or even thousands of images and videos on their computers, and usually they contain *very young* children, not 16-year-olds. It"s ironic that Wylted accuses me of relying too much on anecdote, when his *whole case* is built on a few anecdotes of misguided prosecutions.

For all these reasons, I believe that *production* of child porn (which is *very* abusive of children) should remain illegal, and that *possession* should also remain illegal, but at worst, should only be decriminalized.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
228 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
About 28. She is a super Christian she always wears skirts and her hair in a bun. She is extremely involved in the church. She makes GCL look like the devil in comparison.

I can't stand her, lol.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
I like gingers.... How old is your sister? :P
Posted by FantumHeist 2 years ago
FantumHeist
IF I ever rule a country not even my family will be safe from the law even if they're punishment is death
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I definitely understand the interest, It's exotic. I like exotic women of all types Asian, punk rock looking, south American women etc, I also like tall pale skinned skinny blondes.

Some exotic things just disgust me like Gingers ( my sister is a ginger).
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
By selling their souls I mean not being true to themselves. It's a snap judgement but I think she'd prefer a good looking guy closer to her age more on her level. I think he'd be happier with somebody he had more in common with instead of just chasing a good looking young girl.

It seems they are making the easy decisions to get what they want as opposed to evaluating what they truly want and doing the hard thing to get it.

Hope is what hurts you in the present. Hope is about the future and they'd both be happier if they discard hope. It sounds dreadful but it's really not.

I'm not sure if I'm conveying my message with clarity but I'm attempting to.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
Selling their souls? Don't really understand. The filmmaker just wanted to understand the fetish better, since she has to put up with men lusting after her just because she's Asian. I doubt she planned to make millions of this; few documentary filmmakers do, besides Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock. He's just kinda this super loney guy after his divorce. It's hard to hate him.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
The origin of his Asian fetish is never really explained. He just talks about how he's had it for a long time and it has something to do with their eyelid folds. The documentary then tries to explain generally why so many men in the US have an Asian fetish, e.g. their women seem exotic.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
People have no problem selling their souls, both her and him.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I just watched the trailor. What's wrong with that dude? I kinda wanna see it now.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
*Asian woman

*culture clash
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Wyltedbluesteel
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Wylted comes into this debate claiming that legalizing child pornography will reduce the incidences of child molestation. Ridiculous argument. He also argues that since child porn is so widespread, we should consider legalizing it because it's a problem we really can't control, like Marijuana. Well, I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana and regulating it. Legalizing marijuana without regulations and restraints isn't beneficial and I actually believe few "legalization" advocates support that stance. I simply do not perceive child pornography in the same light. Con easily won this debate in my view.
Vote Placed by BombDebaterLeeroyTheBird 2 years ago
BombDebaterLeeroyTheBird
Wyltedbluesteel
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Wylted is my friend, but he scares me.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 2 years ago
Greyparrot
Wyltedbluesteel
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate!
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Wyltedbluesteel
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: It feels like con's counterplan was never fully managed to be rebutted by pro. Good try though, Wylted.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Wyltedbluesteel
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
Wyltedbluesteel
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments crumbled for R3 & 4, and I noticed what Pro was pointing out - that Con is dodging arguments. Regarding changing laws, arguing using other laws is a very poor argument. Wylted showed there is a corelation between the amount of child molesters to readily accessible child pornography. He also made great points that people who view child porn recieve a longer sentence than actual child molesters. Legalizing child porn will not only stop locking away people for harmlessly viewing sexual activities, but it will allow the FBI etc to focus on actions that actually harm someone. Bluesteel/Mikal bring up pretty good arguments in R2, however, they don't seem to completely disagree, considering they basically said "It should be illegal, but here's some reasons it could be legal..." And like I said before, "well this state says it's illegal, so legalizing it is pointless" is a horrible argument. The rest of the debate was back and forth regarding Bluesteel "weaseling" out of this.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
Wyltedbluesteel
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not tossing official points on this , because im in the title. Granted I did nothing in this debate at all. If this debate stays like this ill toss my vote at the end as it will not affect the outcome. Non bias decision as well, but a clear win for con. Mainly because the arguments and counter plan he gave via the resolution, just shot down any chance pro had at winning. It was noticeable when even pro was upset that con took that route. It was a pretty clear victory for blue based on the criteria under the resolution. Wylted had some amazing arguments and contentions, but the counter plan blue threw up was just to much as to what was allotted under the res
Vote Placed by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
Wyltedbluesteel
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: feel free to ask questions or make comments on my rfd. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cxelCLPnR_4NkwSWdYbt0J7xtmsnTQJGc-rT9zGVx8I/edit
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
Wyltedbluesteel
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
Wyltedbluesteel
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Wylted isn't going to like this RFD given his reaction in the debate, but I negate on the counterplans and the plan flaw. Wylted only gets 2.5% of the solvency he claims to have and bluesteel turned the plan, showing that it would lead to confusion about the law. The argument that this is unfair fails to persuade me because it's a permissible argument under the resolution and, with a few assumptions, I think Wylted could've been able to come back from this. When given a solid counterplan that actually solves, I vote Con.