The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points


Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 898 times Debate No: 60634
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Pro is going to argue in favor of legal pornography

Con should read the following before accepting

1. General guidelines:

Burden of Proof: shared 50/50

2. What this debate is and is not:

This debate is a debate only about being pro or con concerning legal pornography in the U.S.

Automatic forfeiture for arguments that refer to illegal pornography or illegal actions. Specifically this means Con (as well as Pro) cannot argue against Pro (as well as Con) if that argument includes rape, the use of children in pornographic material or other illegal behavior.

Here is my reason for excluding the above-mentioned: Pro finds such behavior abhorrent. Pro does not endorse or believe in supporting such disgusting acts. Therefore, Pro wants to center the argument only on legal pornography.



Pornography overall, is an unsafe profession for both producers (the actors) and viewers . This is especially true for a women that is a porn actress. They are consensually abused daily in their line of work. Although it may be technically consensual , the women actresses are pushed to consent either by a large amount of money or threats. This may not seem okay as long as the woman agrees to it but it is as if they have no other choice. A previous career in pornography will not help get her a job, in fact it will keep her from having many jobs.

Furthermore, pornography is a huge pool of STD infected people. Although in most places they are screened monthly, this may not be enough because one infected person could spread a disease to hundreds In the matter of a few days.

Pornography is essentially filmed prostitution. One or more parties are paid to have sex with another consenting person.

I will cover the effects on viewers in the next rounds,
Debate Round No. 1


I will make my own claims before rebutting those made by Con. [But first] I want to make a point based on Con’s opening statement.

Some clarity on the vast array of desires, fetishes, and fantasies depicted and enacted in the porn industry:

Con’s opening response would lead people to believe that pornography is simple some kind arrangement where males and females have consensual sex. There is an obvious though not overt sense of women being dominated and coerced into terrible situations. While certainly cases exist of this kind, Con still needs to expand into the plethora of possibilities in the porn industry. No one has the time to document all the various arrangements and roleplaying situations but I will be brief (again, keeping with females because this seems to be the area of primarily concern for Con): girl performing solo, two lesbians, lesbian group sex, Femdom (where a female dominates a male), variants include Femdom S&M (female has male in restraints and often uses wipes, dildos, gauges to bring about male ejaculation or in some instances denial known as “edging;” Femdom humiliation or Femdom CFNM humiliation (humiliation includes ridiculing the male insufficient endowment or due the male being caught engaged in self-pleasure of some kind and CFNM aka clothed female(s) nude male tends to emphasize and incorporate humiliation aspect but often broaches into some very creative leaps of imagination—of the David Lynch caliber. Suffice to say, the industry’s options likely surpass the number of stars in the known universe. Thought that tangent was warranted in the event Con attempts to argue some kind of hostile male(s) penetrating females type scenarios. Now to a few my own thought about the benefits of pornography.

Employment, individual opportunity, viable payment plan for college or a case for the benefits of economic opportunity for the individual:

First, being an actor or actress (I will emphasize actress because Con did in the opening) is a choice and also an opportunity. I would agree this type of employment is not likely to be lucrative for most women but it can be very lucrative for a select handful of people (they are virtually all women).[1] It is unlikely they will become millionaires (like the 20 to 40 something in the list) but they are every few jobs in the US churn out millionaires. Professor Mireille Miller-Young, a noted feminists academic teaching in University of California, Santa Barbara recently wrote in New York Times op-ed, women enter the industry for myriad reasons, “[f]or some performers, pornography is a path to college and out of poverty. For others, it is a chance to make a statement about female pleasure.”[2]

Porn industry = job creation [AND] Boost US Gross Domestic Product

So how much money does the porn industry generate? According to ABC NEWS:

“Pornography has grown into a $10 billion business — bigger than the NFL, the NBA and Major League Baseball combined — and some of the nation's best-known corporations are quietly sharing the profits.”[3]

Even more salient, the article from ABC News highlights Con’s concerns about sexually transmitted diseases. What is the reason that there is less regulation or enhanced precautionary measures in the industry? As the article points out, the porn industry is not just profitable in its own right but it also generates a billion dollars for its corporate partners. What corporate partners, you ask? Again from ABC News:

“General Motors, through its subsidiary DirecTV, delivers hard- and soft-core porn to homes via satellite. Communications giant Comcast supplies various kinds of porn to homes via pay-per-view. And AOL Time Warner owns a cable company that offers erotic programming from Playboy and other outlets, including hard-core.”

[Free Market and Porn continue in the next paragraph]

“It is hard to estimate how much money these corporations derive from porn because they do not publicize it in their portfolios or anywhere else. Their financial statements do not mention profits from adult movies. However, one industry analyst estimated that the combination of cable and satellite outlets makes about $1 billion a year from the adult-movie market.”

[Someone objects, well I hate General Motors, DirecTV, Comcast and AOL Time Warner. But what about]…

“Many of the major hotel chains, including Marriott, Hilton and Westin, also derive revenue from adult films without mentioning it in their company reports. Adult titles are available as in-room movies in around 40 percent of all hotel rooms in the United States. The hotels share the revenue with the in-room entertainment companies that provide the TVs and the content.”

Therefore, whatever lax conditions exist in the industry, then it would appear Con needs to repudiate the complicity from big business and denounce that veritable American value of the free market. Or Con could purpose a viable solution to this problem rather than make a claim without expanding on what should or could be done.

Rebuttal to general presentation of Con’s case thus far:

Pro worries about inauthentic consent and subtle forms of intimidation in the porn industry, worrying that women are submit to the will of men, though they do not want too. First, this is a very paternalistic view of women. They are incapable of making decisions for themselves, are too timid, and submit to male dominance. This perspective is incredibly deeming to women, undermining their very nature. However, perhaps that was not what Con meant so I will leave that particular issue there for the time being. If an actress is employed by business that produces pornography and wants to quit there is legal restriction that would prevent her from quitting. If she found the employment unreasonable or disliked her involvement with the company, she would not be obliged to remain.

Even if we entertain this idea for a moment, isn’t this the case for a comparable profession, say employed as an NFL team member? Athletes are paid to sacrifice their bodies, put at jeopardy their short term as well as long-term health for their sport. Players in the NFL get concessions, suffer from terrible injuries, and their told what “suck it up, keep going, the team needs you.”

Question for Con to address or elaborate:

If one of your concerns or objections is a hostile work environment or coercing employees into situations that potential risk or jeopardize their short or long term health, what about people in the military? Suppose a solider does not want to engage in a situation that might endanger their life or engage civilians’ targets as order, should that receive the same scrutiny as employers in the porn industry? What about nurses and doctors and employees working at places where they are likely to contract life threatening diseases, perhaps with AIDs patients or where they frequently interact with needles and people who use drugs intravenously?

If Con answers in the affirmative that more regulation in all domains is warranted, then we are talking about a vast new role for government intervention into people’s personal lives, and it would set a precedent in law, specifically “liberty of contract” doctrines upheld with vehemently in the past and even more so by the Roberts Supreme Court.

If not, then why select the porn industry, for personal reasoning or moral convictions? And if for personal or moral or religious reasons, is a larger philosophical or even widely accept reason to think so? Because otherwise, Con is going to argue from conjecture without proof or substantial evidence. At least, that appears to be the most likely avenue but again, I could be wrong and don’t make to claims before Con makes a rebuttal.

[1] Brian Warner, “The 20 Richest Porn Stars,” Celebrity

[2] Mireille Miller-Young, “Empowering to the Women on Screen,” The New York Times June 10th 2013

[3] ABC News, “Porn Profits: Corporate America's Secret.” January 28 2014.



Originalname forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


With Con’s forfeiture in Round 2 means Con must rebut the claims, reasons, and evidence provided by Pro in Round 2 and Round 3.

Remember the debate: BOP 50/50.

Let me rebut some of the claims made by Con, although claims unsupported with reasons or evidence.

In Round 1, Con fails to dismiss pornography categorically. Where do we see this though? In the first paragraph of Round 1 Con [“CLAIMS” but does not provide “EVIDENCE”] that women generally face many problems, among them “consensual abuse.” According to Con, “consensual abuse” means paying a women to perform a job she agrees. First, “consensual abuse” is not abuse. And to remind Con we are not debate illegal behavior. Moreover, this is not an argument against pornography actual; it is an argument about labor and contractual arrangements. This actual might be a good argument that all pornographic actors and actresses should form and join a union. However, it is not an argument against all pornography, just the contract entered into by two parties.

Last claim to rebut from Con’s side:

“…pornography is a huge pool of STD infected people. Although in most places they are screened monthly, this may not be enough because one infected person could spread a disease to hundreds In the matter of a few days.”

First Con concede that the “they are screened monthly,” meaning that measures are in place to prevent the spread of STDs. Then adds “this may not be enough” which is not an argument against pornography but rather an argument for more regulation of the industry to prevent STDs from spreading. This would be an argument for more screening and not an argument against everything considered pornography. Last, Con gives a reasons why STDs potentially pose and external risk to the rest of society, “because one infected person could spread a disease to hundreds in the matter of days.” Could is very different from has. There is not a single instance I have been able to find that suggest this has actually happened, however I am open to new evidence if Con can provide it along with a proper citation. The problem with a “could statement” is that it is only theoretical and only be true hypothetical. For example, I could say we should ban all sharp objects. Then my reasons could be: because a person with a sharp object can kill a hundred people in their sleep. So, this hypothetical “could” actual occur but it has not occurred and therefore should not be a convincing reason to ban all sharp objects.

Defense of Pornography from a civil liberties point of view:

"Pornography exists everywhere, of course, but when it comes into societies in which it’s difficult for young men and women to get together and do what young men and women often like doing, it satisfies a more general need.... While doing so, it sometimes becomes a kind of standard-bearer for freedom, even civilization."[1]

This statement comes from Salman Rushdie. Larry Flynt and owner of pornography industries have made similar comments but I wanted to use an respected international intellectual instead. What I believe is convincing from Rushdie’s perspective as well as that of Flynt and others is that while we [society] may disagree with the content of pornography, if one believe in a free society and free speech not as an idea but in reality, then it must include what might be considered the most reviled speech, otherwise we don't actual believe in free speech and a free democratic society but something else entirely.

Final statement supporting pornography from a civil liberties perspective:

So the Supreme Court has ruled and many including myself believe the internet should have legal pornography on the internet.[2] Justice Paul Stevens, writing for the Court, declared that "notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge District Court that the statute abridges the 'freedom of speech' protected by the First Amendment."[3] This statement aligns with the understanding of Pro and a belief that pornography at its essence is a about first speech and the court along with Pro do not believe in restricting free speech.

Defense of Pornography by feminists

A profusion of defenses in favor of pornography exists, specifically from the male perspective. However, to avoid accusations of male chauvinism let me focus on the two major feminist defenses of pornography. Examining feminist philosophies reveals much more than a novel philosophy but rather accentuates how pornography in fact upholds the values of civil liberties in a free society as well as counters the conventional notion of pornography as a wholly exploitive industry.

One major argument comes from a liberal or libertarian perspective of pornography. Distilled to its essence, combines a respect for free speech with the principle “a woman’s body, a woman’s right.”[4] This philosophy translates along the lines of “I don’t approve of it, but everyone has the right to consume or produce words, images, and videos in a free society.” Free speech and self-autonomy this theory as well as pro are only valuable if they protect the marginal and reviled industries and individuals in any society.

A second philosophy labeled as “pro-sex” by detractors is a true defense of pornography. By that, I mean it takes the position that women benefit from pornography.[5] While I will note this view has supporters in halls of academia, more importantly, it has supporters among noted porn-stars like Nina Hartley.

[1] Baxter, Sarah; Brooks, Richard (8 August 2004). "Porn is vital to freedom, says Rushdie". Times Online (London: Times Newspapers). Retrieved 22 August 2014.

[2] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union
521 U.S. 844 (1997)

[3] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union

521 U.S. 844 (1997)

[4] Wendy McElroy, “A Feminist Defense of Pornography,” Free Inquiry Magazine Volume 17, Number 4.

[5] Wendy McElroy, “A Feminist Defense of Pornography,” Free Inquiry Magazine Volume 17, Number 4.



Originalname forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RobertMcclureSmith 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF of Con in Round 2 and Round 3