The Instigator
Karlore
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
CircularLogic
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

We should change our child pornography laws

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 355 times Debate No: 84497
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Karlore

Pro

So, the legal definition of child pornography is defined as a depiction of a minor, or one appearing to be a minor, engaging in sexual conduct. Now my first problem is within the first sentence, "one appearing to be a minor." What does a minor look like? Or better yet, what is an 18 year old adult supposed to look like? While I do agree with the actual sexual depiction of minors being illegal, since 18 was the age we set it, considering the age of consent in most states is 18 and that's what we all agreed on, however that statement being in the books also could incriminate people who are not guilty of looking at actual child porn.

There is this thing in the gay adult film industry called "twinks." Twinks are defined as men in their late teens to early twenties, with little to no body or facial hair, have a slim to average build, and appear younger than their chronological age. I've seen PLENTY of twinks who look 13, except for their height and them being endowed. If its an adult, then why call it child pornography, even if the adult looks just like somebody who is under that age? Isn't 18 the age we all agreed with on here?

And also, why can lolicon/shotacon get you arrested? They're just cartoons, and just like what I was talking about in the above text, its a victimless crime. I don't even care if its a pornographic cartoon depiction portraying a baby, if there's no child being harmed, then it shouldn't be considered a crime. Let me give you an example: there was a man who was arrested somewhere in the states after the police found that he had TONS of Simpsons porn on his computer. It's only a matter of time until we hear instead of "SAVE THE CHILDREN" we'll be hearing "SAVE THE CARTOON CHARACTERS!"

Now, I can understand if it's a realistic sketch of a child in a sexual, suggestive manner, it should be illegal. But the reason I think artistic sketches should be illegal instead of cartoons, is because sometimes sketches can be too realistic and possibly inseparable from actual child pornography. The same applies for CG simulated child porn and digital editing of a child's face on an adults body in a sexually suggestive or lascivious sort of way, or a child's body on an adults body, or any weird stuff of that sort.

And while I'm not saying pedophilia should be endorsed, however pedophilia is simply the very thought that a child is sexually attractive. And as we all know, a thought alone is not a crime. Now, while I'm raising the issue for another topic, but what I'm basically trying to say here is that pedophiles should be allowed to have porn that meets their needs just like anybody else as long as it isn't involving of any actual children being harmed. If zoophiles can look at furry porn and express their sexuality, then I think pedophiles should too, as long as they don't hurt any children.

Does anyone agree?
CircularLogic

Con

First off, I ask simply why it would be necessary by any means to condone this sort of repulsive behavior. Being a pedophile is not something someone should have the freedom to be, whether or not they themselves are a danger to children. While privately thinking children are sexually attractive is, I suppose, harmless in theory, it is actually quite dangerous in reality.
Lust is without a doubt the strongest urge in most people's lives. This causes major implications in society. 30 percent of all Internet data is porn (Huffington Post). Our T.V. shows and movies are all riddled with sex and sexual innuendos. Most important to this argument however, is that rape is the 6th most common crime in the united states and prostitution is 4th. Now think of this in terms of a pedophile. While some would quietly live their lives in submission, others would not, putting children's lives and minds at stake.
It is true that softening porn limitations would give pedophiles an outlet to their thoughts, but that doesn't quite work with lust. Treating a pedophile's lust should be no different than treating a normal person's lust in terms of what they will do with it with one exception. For any normal sexual orientation a person has two options, find a partner or don't. People who don't find a partner are obviously the one's most likely to commit sexual crimes, so removing the possibility of finding a partner via respectable means, such as in the case of a pedophile, leaves them more likely to commit sexual crimes. The difference between a pedophile and a normal virgin, however, is that most normal virgins still have hope they will still find a partner, whereas pedophiles have absolutely no chance without doing something illegal. this is why porn is not an acceptable outlet for pedophiles. They can't use it as a means of a quick fix, short term solution as they wait for a long term one, because there isn't one.
Now moving on to why it would help to stop advances on children. if pedophiles are never exposed to child pornography, then they are far more likely to recognize their thoughts as being socially unacceptable, and will think the idea strange. people are far less likely to act on a belief or urge if they believe no one else shares their thoughts on the matter. Therefore, removing all possible outlets for a pedophile is the most effective course of action to remove such dangerous thoughts from the minds of the population, and keep them locked up in the minds of the individual.
Debate Round No. 1
Karlore

Pro

Karlore forfeited this round.
CircularLogic

Con

My opponent has failed to respond in time, and I have no further arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Karlore

Pro

Karlore forfeited this round.
CircularLogic

Con

CircularLogic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ppsreejith 1 year ago
ppsreejith
The pedophiles who harm children will do it regardless of whether child pornography exists or not. The question is, will allowing child pornography (even animated) reduce instances of this crime? Moreover, does the existence of 'harmful' porn increase incidents of such acts? The data on the correlation between rape fantasy porn and actual incidents of sexual violence exists today and it's negatively correlated although this does not imply causation.
Posted by IndianaFrank 1 year ago
IndianaFrank
You need to get your facts straight. First off MOST states allow the age of consent for girls at age 16. And boys at 18 because of the difference in maturity levels.....
No votes have been placed for this debate.