The Instigator
induced
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dinimuetter
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

it should be against the law for women to be topless in public

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
dinimuetter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,927 times Debate No: 30223
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

induced

Con

i dont see any good reason to ban it. since PRO supports a law banning it, PRO will have the burden of proof, so give your arguments in the first round, and i will explain why they arent good enough reasons.
dinimuetter

Pro

First, I would like to propose that we leave breast feeding out of this as it is pretty much a necessity and, as always, necessities are basic civil liberties and aren't covered by laws.

Modern (Western) society has come to widely accept that putting female breasts on public display is a taboo. It is less so than the sight of a vagina or penis but none-the-less, it is a taboo. Whenever we turn on a family filter or safe search, regardless of device, breasts will be blocked out.

I would also like to argue that everything put on display in public should be suitable for all audiences, from the two sources provided below we can clearly see that nudity, however brief, is reserved for audiences older than thirteen.
(Source: http://www.xbox.com...)
(Source: http://www.mpaa.org...)

Sources:
http://www.google.com...
http://www.bing.com...
http://www.dailymotion.com...
http://www.youtube.com... (Both Dailymotion and Youtube have videos containing female breasts and require both logging in and age confirmation but I do not wish to link them directly for obvious reasons.)

It is evident that society has classified female. breasts as mature/offensive content and that it should required of entities to restrict access said content to people of certain age. Therefore, since it is only fair for everyone to view everything in public, female breasts shouldn't be shown.
Debate Round No. 1
induced

Con

PROs only argument so far is an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy. just because many or most people support a law, doesnt mean that they are right. just because most people might be against children seeing boobs, doesnt mean that children shouldnt see boobs. if most people found hugging in public to be taboo, should we arrest people for hugging? in much of the middle east, women are required to wear full body coverings - do you support that too? just because society makes laws, doest mean they should have made those laws. "most people" can be wrong.
dinimuetter

Pro

My opponent seems to agree, as thus party has yet to refute, with the argument that I made in round 1 which is: 'Society has classified female breasts as mature/offensive content' and I shall take the liberty of using it as a truth.

In the second round, my opponent has only argued that simply because the majority supports something doesn't mean that it is morally correct.

However, it is important to remember that the debate topic revolves around a law; something that was put in place in the best interest of the people whilst allowing the population of all human rights. As for human rights, I shall use the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights which has been ratified by 167 countries worldwide and currently stands as the basic standard for human rights.
(Source: http://treaties.un.org...)
(Source: http://www2.ohchr.org...)

As the freedom to expose female breasts is not covered in said document, the banning of such would not infringe on anything that one might consider a basic right. In other words, banning the exposure of female breasts isn't wrong.

Since the banning of such act isn't considered wrong by any reasoned or widely endorsed standard, it should lie solely on the preferences of the people as to whether it shall be allowed or not. And as I have proven in the first round, society still sees it as mature/offensive content. Therefore, lawmakers shouldn't go about trying to legalize the exposure of female breasts in public realms.
Debate Round No. 2
induced

Con

it appears that our point of disagreement comes down to your view that "we should do what the majority wants if it doesnt infringe on basic rights". other things you've said i may concede to, but i disagree with this premise of yours. first of all, you havent proven that to be true and 2nd, with your view in practice, you would have many of these kinds of scenarios:
1. X doesnt hurt anyone and banning X does not noticeably improve anyones life.
2. a majority of society has irrational prejudices against X, so X is banned.
3. because it is banned, people are harmed (jailed) for doing something that isnt harmful. it also causes harm by wasting tax dollars from law enforcement, trials, and jails. this money could be put to good use where it actually helps society.

why should we have a law that causes harm and doesnt even help in any way?
dinimuetter

Pro

I will first address my opponent's 3 scenarios put into perspective with the subject at hand (female upper body nudity):
1. I would argue that the freedom for women to be topless in public doesn't noticeably improve anyone"s life (discounting young boys).
2. As I have stated my argument in round one (against which my opponent has made no rebuttal), female breasts are widely considered sexual/pornographic in nature. There are of course many people, especially parents of young children, who do not wish those things to be on public display. It is a whole other subject as to whether or not sexual content are harmful towards certain parts of the population but since it is universally prohibited for children under a certain age, one can safely assume that it has some sort of negative effect.

A quick search produces these articles published by State Universities (which often have high degrees of creditability) :

Effects of Pornography on Relationships(Utah State University):
http://extension.usu.edu...
Excerpt: "Pornography can have negative consequences for
both the user and his or her intimate partner."

The Social Costs of Pornography (prepared by the Director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at University of Pennsylvania, ranked number 8 top Universities in the US by USNews (this is what the overwhelming majority of high school seniors use in the college search))
http://www.winst.org...

"Today's consumption of internet pornography can harm children in particular."
"Today's consumption of internet pornography can harm women in particular."
"The consumption of internet pornography can harm its consumers."
"The fact that not everyone is harmed by pornography does not entail that
pornography should not be regulated."

Note that pornography contains both softcore and hardcore porn, the former often contains numerous contents that only feature the female breasts.

3. This is assuming that viewing exposed breasts (sexual in nature, pornographic to a low degree) harms absolutely nobody, which I have proven to be false. Also this would only be the case if indecent exposure results in jail time and extensive trials which is obviously not the case. Indecent exposures often mean a nice fine sent to your mailbox, ending in a surplus for the police department.

I would also like to remind the opposing party that the government, especially law makers, are put in place as a projection of the people"s will and should always act in society"s best interest. Were there any demand to allow female toplessness there would already have been a Whitehouse petition; in which case it would likely pass the signature threshold almost instantaneously and went up into congress.

In conclusion, my opponents argues that viewing female breasts not only not harm anybody but would in fact be beneficial; both of which I have proven to be false assumptions. Thus party also proposes that laws should be based upon some unclear arbitrary standard (unwritten) as opposed to my view which is to serve the will of the people whilst still allowing all them of all civil and political liberties.

The evidence I have put forward heavily suggests that public female toplessness is against popular moral conduct, potentially if not fully harmful towards certain demographics and unwanted by many. Therefore, it should not be made legal.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Con: "No new arguments in the final round" cuts both ways. Either we disregard your harm argument and his evidence against it, or we accept both your harm argument and his evidence against it. Either way, it's too bad you didn't support your argument with evidence/sources.
Posted by dinimuetter 4 years ago
dinimuetter
Utah State University is a reliable source since it is just that: A government funded institution, it is an accredited and very much respectable institution.
Though Witherspoon is indeed a conservative thinktank, the authors are nonetheless very respectable and are employed by top notch institutions. There is an even larger fault in the fact that my opponent simply pushed a source aside simply because of its name; wouldn't it be logical for someone who wants to prove something to conduct surveys and experiments in order to give concrete evidence for their claim? In fact, that's the whole premise of academia: You have a claim, you go out and find evidence to back it up.

I would also like to remind my opponent that he's taking the liberty of criticizing my sources despite not giving a single one himself. Furthermore, my opponent also created those 3 situations in the last round before asking a question which I assume was not meant to be rhetorical in nature. Regardless, he did not close his own argument but also created new ones and yet he is criticizing me for answering the new questions that he placed in the last round.
Posted by induced 4 years ago
induced
dinimuetter waited until the last round to give evidence that it causes harm, so i couldnt respond to that. and his sources were Utah State University and Witherspoon Institute. both institutions are highly biased conservative non-secular sources. they are hardly reliable or impartial.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by zgb1997 4 years ago
zgb1997
induceddinimuetterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro managed to demonstrate the connection between laws and popular opinion, rejecting the accusation of argumentum ad populum made by con. While con's arguments generally wanted to say: "Why should we not?", pro constantly kept offering sources and substantiated arguments as to why, exactly, women shouldn't be topless in public, and in the end, he managed to show that there is a good reason that laws prohibiting said behavior exist. I also give sources to pro because he was the only one to present sources.
Vote Placed by t-man 4 years ago
t-man
induceddinimuetterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were more developed. He also had more sources
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
induceddinimuetterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented a reasonable case for why women should not be allowed to topless in public. 1. Most people do not want women topless in public, 2. Laws are made by the people and for the people, 3. Therefore it should be illegal for women to be topless in public. Con tried to invoke the argument ad populum fallacy, but that fails, as Pro was not using majority opinion to say being topless was inherently right or wrong, but rather citing the fact that there is a majority opinion since laws are, again, made by the people and for the people. Con did not argue for a plausible alternative to the by the people / for the people system of law. I'm also granting sources to Pro as he presented the only sources and it's a key reason his position was more persuasive.