pornography ought to be illegal
My position is pretty obvious. I will prove that pornography is immoral for unobvious reasons.( atleast i think there unobvious reasons....lol) and should be illegal and that the bad outweighs the good. I hope to have a great debate.
I will be defending the fact that pornography shouldn't be legal do to some fundamental facts. I will use logic and studies to prove my case.
Pornography- is the depiction of sexual behavior that is intended to arouse sexual excitement in its audience.
prostitute- a person who receives payment for sexual intercourse or other sexual acts, generally as a regular occupation.
porn industry-consists of businesses which either directly or indirectly provide sex-related products and services or adult entertainment. The porn industry includes adult sex-related products and services such as prostitution in all its forms.
pornographic actors/porn star- Most notably these performers are not paid directly by their sexual partners for the sex, but both are paid through a studio or Talent Management Agency.
I will explain that pornography is detrimental,allows children to illegally view pornography due to an inadequate age confirmation system. Pornographic actors is the same as prostitution,
Also pornography includes all of its branches. Witch means my opponent will need to defend child porn,animal porn etc.....
1.Pornography is detrimental to society
Daily "child pornography" requests---- 116,000
Websites offering illegal child pornography----- 100,000
Adults admitting to Internet sexual addiction----10%
KEY FINDINGS ON THE EFFECTS OF PORNOGRAPHY
THE FAMILY AND PORNOGRAPHY
• Married men who are involved in pornography feel less satisfied with their conjugal relations and less emotionally attached to their wives. Wives notice and are upset by the difference.
• Pornography use is a pathway to infidelity and divorce, and is frequently a major factor in these family disasters.
• Among couples affected by one spouse’s addiction, two-thirds experience a loss of interest in sexual intercourse.
• Both spouses perceive pornography viewing as tantamount to infidelity.
THE INDIVIDUAL AND PORNOGRAPHY
• Pornography is addictive,
• Users tend to become desensitized to the type of pornography they use, become bored with it, and then seek more perverse forms of pornography.
• Men who view pornography regularly have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexuality, including rape, sexual aggression, and sexual promiscuity.
Pornography, distorts an individual’s concept of sexual relations by objectifying them, which, in turn, alters both sexual attitudes and behavior. It is a major threat to marriage, to family, to children, and to individual happiness.
Social scientists, clinical psychologists, and biologists concur.
Effect on the mind: Pornography is very addictive.
Some effects of porn addiction are:
Pornography affects people’s emotional lives. Married men who are involved in pornography feel less satisfied with their marital sexual relations and less emotionally attached to their wives. Women married to men with a pornography addiction report feelings of betrayal, mistrust, and anger. Pornographic use may lead to infidelity and even divorce. Adolescents who view pornography feel shame, diminished self-confidence, and sexual uncertainty.
Pornography hurts adults, children, couples, families, and society. Either by promoting overly aggressive,child pornography,Pornography has significant effects during all stages of family life. For a child exposed to pornography within a family setting, pornography causes stress and increases the risk for developing negative attitudes about the nature and purpose of human sexuality. For adolescents who view pornography, their attitudes toward their own and others’ sexuality change, and their sexual expectations and behavior are shaped accordingly. For adults, pornography has harmful and even destructive effects on marriage. Pornography is more detrimental then beneficial thus should not be practiced.
2.allows children to illegally veiw pornography due to an inadequate age confirmation system.
Porn sites don't do much to prevent children from viewing. There required by law to ask if your 18 or 21 in some states. On most if not all porn sites you just have to press a button. Yes or no. There's no birthday check or anything like that witch could single children out to disallow access. Porn is very much available to children.
Access to pornography is available from early on. The average age of a child’s first exposure to pornography is 11. A total of 90 percent of children ages 8-16 have viewed pornography online. Pornographers use many character names that appeal to children such as “Pokémon.”.........http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com...
According to The Kaiser Family Foundation report (found at www.kff.org), 70% of teenagers (ages 15-17 "have accidentally come across pornography on the Web.".......
According to one study, early exposure (under fourteen years of age) to pornography is related to greater involvement in deviant sexual practice, particularly rape. Slightly more than one-third of the child molesters and rapists in this study claimed to have at least occasionally been incited to commit an offense by exposure to pornography. Among the child molesters incited, the study reported that 53 percent of them deliberately used the stimuli of pornography as they prepared to offend...........http://www.protectkids.com...
W. L. Marshall, "The Use of Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters, ," The Journal of Sex Research 25, no.2 (May 1988): 267-88.
3.porn actors same as prostitutes.
If you look at the definitions there very similar. If you think about it morally they provide the same services for a fee. Since the porn industry advertises these porn stars,(just as pimps advertise prostitutes)and since the workers are offering sex for money,( just like prostitutes). it ought to be illegal as well. Morally atleast. Also this could be under obscenity witch is not protected in anyway morally. the only difference with porn stars is that there under the camera, have a director,its legal,they sign a contract. This is just legal prostitution. Another point I want to make is that pornography includes all branches of pornography. That means child porn, animal porn, etc.......my opponent needs to defend it.
So in my case I have effectively proven,That pornography is more detrimental than good, Allows children to illegally veiw porn due to inadequate age confirmation systems, and lastly that porn actors are the same as prostitutes thus should be treated the same as prostitutes and thus pornography should be illegal.
BOP- My opponent has it as she advocates a chance in the status quo, is an instigator, and is PRO. As she has not specified otherwise I say he has the BOP.
My opponents C1:
The basis of my opponents argument is it hurts family, and mainly kids through addiction. The argument on who watches the type of video is irrelevant, as if I refute the premise below, then the argument is defeated.
The majority of my opponents argument after showing kids watch this stuff (irrelevant), she shows things like it is detrimental to the marriage institution. My opponents only links the cons on a marriage, but does not show the pros and the intermediates. Many people who are really holy holy marriage people may, you know, become curious. But they may think look at this slu*, she does not enjoy her husband. Some people say pornography is good for the sexual imagination, and moderate usage may enhance sex life. Some less committed woman may actually approve of the watching of pornography, as she may be the type that respects the husbands views. Also, porn only hurts the wife if she has a poor self image. If she thinks she has a good one, it should not really effect her. 
My opponent then contends it is addictive, causes rape, and they may become desensitized. I will first refute the addiction part of it. There is actually a controversy on whether it is addictive or not, whether it is the porn or some other aspect in life. Many contend it is outside arguments, and things that make it hard to even have a sex life that lead the to this hole. So the problem may not be the porn, rather a non sexual spouse. Others say if you treat them like addicts it may be detrimental to the viewer.  The basis of my opponents argument is flawed as there is a high controversy on the issue. He then claims they become desensitized. My question is so what? They get bored they can not watch it, or watch worse why does it effect you or the country? Why is it the governments job to intervene? Also, a reason people watch porn is because they may be bored in the first place, not why it exists. So the best way to control it may be handing out free books :P. My opponent then claims it causes rape. I refer you to my arguments in C1.
My opponents final argument is it changes the concept of the human brain, yet forgets any porn watching is not sex watching or a sex addiction. Sex requires two individuals procreating, or two individuals just doing their thing. Porn would unlikely effect sex life with education programs showing porn =/= sex. Education, not banning, may be a better way to control the vile insidious substance.
---> Sex life
---> masturbation addiction
kinda gross, but this does not hold up unless you show its bad.
cool. So making it illegal and if they watch it (hard to censor the internet) and throwing them in jail is better for the problem? No, legal porn and throwing them in education programs is better.
My opponents C2:
The basis of my opponents full argument is the filters are not good enough. Well my opponent may have just conceded the argument right there. He said the filters, not the porn is the problem. Instead of taking away some creepy dudes fun away, mandate a filter, make current filters stronger. This here would fix all of the problems you listed, without abashment. Abloishment is not needed as you added in the words filter.
He then says it makes kids rapist. See my C1.
My opponents C3:
My opponents argument is faulty even if it is correct, as porn stars CHOOSE to get into the job they are in. He also has to prove it is bad, as when you legalize prostitution it gets safer for them.  So making it legal not only helps the people, but makes it safer. And again, they CHOOSE to be there, not the governments business.
C1: Porn reduces crime
This argument is logically sound either way, as they spend more times watching this crap then grabbing people into alleys.
"The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access [Porn], less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes." 
"Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. In addition, the study found that the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible -- a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan."
Didn't my opponent say it rose rape and moles rapes, yet I just proved it doesn't without using bsse sources? (my opponent used frc). As I am low on space I must continue.
"The statistics are truly staggering. According to compiled numbers from respected news and research organizations, every second $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography." 
Imagine it though! Banning it would likely be ineffective, but would still constrict this money supply to our economy. Aboloshment would be detrimental.
Porn is worth 14 billion per year, that is huge.  Banning it woudl likely shrink our economy by 10 billion dollars, and piss off a lot of people.
The economy benefits on porn, and banning it is actually counter productive economically. Also I forgot, we could tax it if it was legal ;).
C3: 1st amendment
the first amdnment-"protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. "
"Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination" 
Internet counts as dissemination.  With this being said, this now makes it IMPOSSIBLE to ban pornogorphy under the constitution. Now, no matter what arguments in this debate happen if this argument stands I get an auto win.
You cannot ban porn, it lowers crime, and it is bneficial to the economy. I think I have proven her arguments wrong or have semi-reufted them. Also to add, my opponent has not fufilled the BOP. Vote CON.
First I may have the burden of proof but my opponent still needs to prove his case and back it up, and show proof of his claims.
opponents first refutation.
The roots of my argument is not what he claims. The basis of my position is that pornographic actors are the same as prostitutes. Since prostitution is illegal, and since porn stars are just legal prostitutes. Then pornography(legal prostitution rings) should be illegal. Also Pornography includes child porn witch my opponent never even tackled. Also porn sites easily allow children to break the law and veiw porn. witch is illegal. lastly that pornography Is detrimental. In my case I am not saying that pornography is a direct cause of rape, But that pornography is a major contributing factor, influence,and promotes rape....etc.....
he says showing kids watch this stuff is irrelevant......Not true children viewing pornography is illegal. Since were talking about legality this is obviously relevant. Also I don't need to show why pornography should be legal. Thats my opponents job. Also my opponent no where in this entire debate explained why pornography should be legal. He attempted to tackle my case but forgot to validate his own.
Also if people in a marriage are curious about sex then get under the covers with your partner. Get in the boat and make some waves. Don't look at porn when you have a perfectly good partner whom your married to and can have sex with. Why fantasise about sex rather than having sex????
" as she may be the type that respects the husbands views. Also, porn only hurts the wife if she has a poor self image."
Untrue no wife respects the fact that the husband feels he has to look at porn rather than having sex with him. Because the husband chooses to look at other women this causes the wife to feel unwanted. So viewing porn actually hurts the spouses self esteem........Pornography could make it difficult for your spouse to see sex as a loving form of communication. As a result, pornography can decrease sexual satisfaction within your marriage.
my opponents second rebuttal
first let m prove that pornography is addictive............http://en.wikipedia.org...
If you feel that not enough look at the sources cited within my source. So pornography is obviously the cause of porn addiction( just think of the wording). Also if the problem is not enough sex with the spouse. then either divorce them and go find sex or cheat. Don't veiw pornography because its detrimental. especially while married. My opponent says..." a reason people watch porn is because they may be bored in the first place, not why it exists. Please lets emphasize on the word A. Yes it is one cause but there is one universal reason people veiw porn. to see legal prostitutes have sex or masturbate. Here's evidence that masturbation decreases penile sensitivity........http://www.medhelp.org.........look at the first couple of comments ..........here's a better source............http://www.articledashboard.com...
It affects our country because we have a legal prostitution industry. If porn actors are legal , then prostitution should be legalized. But since its not, and since were a count, based on fairness since prostitution is illegal then pornography should be illegal because porn actors are just prostitutes. Lastly pornography doesnt cause rape but promotes it. Due to the fact that after viewing you of coarse want to have sex. Some cant get a partner. After a while some may get too frustrated and just decide to rape someone because there so backed up.....lol...( my opponent never effectively commented on this).
Sex isnt the only thing that porn shows. It shows pictures, masturbation, bondage,masturbation,children,and bestiality. Educating people about sex wont prevent rape. Nor will it change any probability of how porn effects the brain.( just to point this out my opponent calls porn a vile insidious substance, witch supports my case)
Lastly if porn is illegal and no one had access to it then people wont have to worry about jail because they couldn't get there hands on it. If I was wrong and they could . Then since its illegal then obviously some legal punishment needs to occur. Are you suggesting that the legal system do nothing if it was illegal???
MY opponents counter to my second argument:
My argument is not faulty my opponents counter is faulty though......So since prostitution is illegal and since the person chooses to do it then its not illegal????? This is what my opponent is trying to convince the voter of. Faulty logic.
He also says he wants to legalize prostitution. If we legalize prostitution, People who get kidnapped and forced into it may never be found. Since there's no police involvement how will these kidnappies be rescued???? Also in prostitution were to be legalised, we all know there is alot of drugs and gang bang rape. The prostitute may think its just a normal have sex with the john and then go. But behind that dark alley or hotel room door there may be 10 men waiting to rape them. If it was legal then these instances would increase dramatically. Since there would be no police hounding here activity.
My opponent says porn reduces crime
not true. His source for his statistics are invalid. To test this hypothesis we would need to know whos going to commit crime before hand. We would also need to find out if these criminals are veiwing porn before they commit crime. The after we know theve been caught and done the crime then we could possibly make a conclusion.....since this experiment is impossible since we don't know who's going to commit a crime before hand this is not valid. In my case I have proven that rape promotes rape or is a contributing factor psychologically. therefore this point shouldn't even be considered.
Also about his fifth source a conclusion cannot be made unless we know at what year this study was conducted. Thus not valid.
Also I never said that pornography causes rape crimes. My point is that pornography may promote rape and is a contributing factor. Since my opponent cannot successfully rebuttal this, it still is valid.
If the porn industry was abolished that money could be spent else where to stimulate our economy. Or atleast keep some extra money in our pockets. Also Not all porn has a cost. Most people look at free porn. Lastly we don't have a porn tax
about the first amendment
porn is dissemination. But so is terrorist activity on the web. So in my opponents logic we should allow terrorists to share info of terror via the Internet.........
The limit on dissemination is if there is threat or if it contradicts the law. Since prostitution is against the law and since prostitution is the same as porn actors then this contradicts the law.
freedom of expression from government interference.........if this is the case then why does the government tax us.
Lastly the constitution does not protect porn. Freedom of speech and freedom of action are two different things....prostitution is not freedom of speech it is a obscene act unacceptable in our society and is a action.
Also porn is considered obscene and obscenity is not protected by the constitution................http://www.covenanteyes.com...
( im out of characters, Please look at my case)
Yes, you have the BOP, and I have fulfilled it already, you have not.
My opponent mixed the order, but ok. The argument here is they are prostitutes, therefore it should be illegal. My opponent now opens up a huge new debate on the sex laws. Now, the resolution states ought to be illegal, this means this argument too considers the "ought" factor. So, my opponent first must prove pornography, and in this argument prostitution should be illegal. Also the majority of his case says this is bad for women. The funny thing is, prostitutes, when legalized, have lower AIDS rates then when it is legal.  Now, when we make things illegal it becomes less clean, as we see from the drug war, and it is STILL used. And it would be extremely hard to censor it. The current porn industry has many scans for STD's, one check every 30 days.  Now that is illegal, (assume your side prevails in the laws) then the industry WILL form a black market, and make it less safe. My opponents cause now stands defeated here, as the ought in the resolution acts in my favor.
My opponent essentially conceded that children watching porn is illegal, which proves my point. It is impossible to ban this stuff, and a ban would to little to lower users, etc. In pakistan, they have a ban on this vile stuff, yet the amount of people watching it within the country is still high.  The basis of my opponents argument fails because even if we ban it it just enters a black market making it LESS SAFE, and the same problems with the porn industry live, and get worse (STD's). My opponent then bolds the statement I have not justified my arguments below, which is false. I have explained the benefits of legal porn: Economic and crime wise, then I proved it was impossible to ban via 1st amendment. My opponent must have really not read me saying CASE, which is arguments for porn staying legal. Her bolded statement is false. I think ANY reader can see where my justification is.
My opponents next argument is if your interested in intercourse, why not have intercourse. There are many reasons, nagging wives, a refusing wife, you do not want to risk pregnancy again or ever. There are many reasons to have fantasies then procreate with your wive.
My opponent also only refutes one of the arguments I presented with the marriage thing. As stated, porn means some things to people, different things to other.  So some marriages it will not effect. It also teaches new techniques, discovers your sexuality with your wife, and helps find ways it "turns you on", therefore helping you and your spouse.  My opponent ONLY refuted ONE of the benefits presented, the it will not effect you if you have a good self image. This is a fact, as if you have confidence you will prevail. His case here is no woman would like a man watching a porn star, the funny thing is some marriages watch it together!!  Like:
"With the availability of porn at your fingertips couples using it together is a new phenomenon in many relationships. More and more couples are using pornography to help stimulate their sex life. " 
These couples have no problem with this, and my opponents case forgets the upsides to porn in a relationship.
My opponents argumet here is porn is addictive, "look as the sources", and I urge the same. There is actually evidence in that wikipedia article disagreeing with her, and states pornography addiction may not exist. Addiction is a usage of a drug or substance that changes mood, and has adverse effects on the body and mind.  Now my opponent has not proven it changes mood at all, just cites an FRC article saying it causes rape. It may not be the porn they are addicted too, but social life and moods make them visit these sites, which implies it is social life, not porn that is causing the so called addiction. 
My opponents next comparison, again, opens up the debate to prostitution. As I am devils advocating this whole debate, let me argue for that statement too. Prostitution = more things to tax hence more revenues. Also it opens up a new economic market, and as stated lowers AIDS rates from prostitutes, from when they operate illegally, which they DO. My opponent has not proven prostitution "ought" to be banned. As this is the case, I win this argument too.
My opponent then talks about it shows bestiality, yet he has no facts to prove any of his assertions. Her argument is education and rehab will not prevent rape, although porn already reduces rape numbers, my opponent ha snot proved how rehabilitation and education would not do anything. We can compare this to Portugal, they legalized drugs and rehab the people, it has worked great, and these people are addicted. No reason rehab would fail.
My opponents argument then goes people would not have access. I refer to above. Abolishment would not work.
God prostitution is all over this debate. My opponent then claims people would be kidnapped, like they are now. This is funny. Making it illegal causes the kidnaps as they need to get people to do it and convince them the police wont get them. In Nevada, where is is legal in certain areas, this never happens. My opponents argument is a fallacy, when t is sometimes the laws, not the practice that makes the problems. And remember the benefits of prostitution legalization above.
My opponent claims my source is faulty, but this is funny as well. It looked at trends, needing to foresee the future is not needed in this case, this means your biased christian source [FRC] is false too as it does not foresee the future. needing to know who rapes is irrelevant, but the overall statistic is needed. We see once porn becomes legal, RAPE RATES DECREASE.
"the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults ."
"An academic has claimed to RAW STORY that a decline in reported rape of 85% in the past 25 years can be tied to an increase in pornography consumption. " 
"When compared to Disaster Center's figures for forcible rape for the years 1980 and 2000, the four states with the lowest Internet access showed a 53% aggregate per capita increase in rape, while the four states with the highest Internet access showed a 27% decrease in incidence of rape."
My opponents argument it will be spent elsewhere. That's not how an economy works, you take away an industry the economy collapses. Extend argument.
First, we can only deprive this right if it infringes life liberty or pursuit of happiness. It actually increases all 3. Also the only time they can regulate speech is commerce, if they feel a compelling interest in nuetral speech, or regulation based on the way the message is sent.  the argument only works if it hurts people, it does not.
My opponent then asks why does the government tax us. This shows little understanding of law. If the state has an interest to do something, as long as its compelling, they are allowed to do anything. There is no interest to break the 1t amendment for porn.
My opponent then says it protects speech, not porn. Porn is an expression, 1st amendment protects expression,  it is unconstitutional to ban it.
My opponents last argument is it is obscene, does it infringe life liberty or pursuit of happiness? No. No effect on life. Increases liberty, freedom of choice. And no effect on happiness, if it is ugly dont watch it. It is protected by the first amendment.
1. pro has not met the BOP
2. Porns benefits outweigh the false negatives presented by pro
3. VOTE PRO
arguments - con, BOP not met by pro, and I refuted her arguments
everything else tied or you choose.
I enjoyed this debate, literally our of room.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|