Child porn should be illegal

Exposing a young child to sex has many negative physical and emotional effects on the child.

The first and most obvious one is the child being exposed to STIs. At such a young age, The child will not likely survive the infection.

Secondly, The child would be treated as a sexual object which may, At times, Physically hurt them. The child is also unable to prevent any of these injuries because they are forced into these acts.

All of these combined will lead the child into a state of depression and will leave them with no choice but to either attempt to escape, Or even suicide.

They are all reasons why we lock people up for these criminal acts. It is nothing but harmful to the child.

None of what you said has anything to do with child porn. You are making arguments against child rape, Not child porn. I don't know why make a debate if you can't stick to the topic.

Child porn and child rape is the same topic. A child is raped when the video is recorded. I provided an explanation as to how a child is negatively impacted during, And after someone has raped them for the purpose of child pornography.

A child cannot consent to sex. They most likely cannot even pronounce the word consent, Let alone give it. So every time someone records child pornography, They are recording child rape. They are the same topic. You can not deny that fact.

"Child porn and child rape is the same topic. "
It's not the same topic.

"A child is raped when the video is recorded. "
But not because the video is recorded, And recording a video does not cause or contribute to child rape.

"I provided an explanation as to how a child is negatively impacted during, And after someone has raped"
Off topic again. The topic is child porn, Not child rape. Also explanation isn't proving.

"someone has raped them for the purpose of child pornography"
Another thing you can't prove. You are saying that child porn is the reason children get raped. You have to provide actual proof on that, And not assumptions like you have done so far.

"A child cannot consent to sex. "
I am not going to argue something irrelevant to the topic.

"So every time someone records child pornography, They are recording child rape. "
This doesn't explain why child porn is bad. You can argue that child rape is bad. But child porn is not child rape. Child porn is the video of child rape. You have to prove why videos of child rape should be illegal, And so far you only used circular logic.
Videos of child rape should be illegal because they show child rape. Circular logic all over again.

I don't know why you challenged me to a debate if you can't stick to the very topic which you have set.

Child pornography and child rape is definitely the same topic. A video of a child being raped is still a child being raped. If child pornography is legalised, Then the legal age for sex is reduced, Possibly even removed. And I have already provided some points as to why sex with children I bad.

If the legal age is reduced or removed, Then child rape would increase because people would take advantage of the situation and rape children with little to no consequences. So legalising child porn would also mean legalising child rape. That is why they are the same topic.

When I said that a child cannot consent to sex, You said "I am not going to argue something irrelevant to the topic. " Of course it"s relevant. A child cannot consent to having sex for the purpose of child pornography.

All you have said is that my statements are irrelevant. Which they are not. Recording the rape of a child is someone raping a child. End of story.

"Child pornography and child rape is definitely the same topic. "
Repeating things doesn't make them true.

"A video of a child being raped is still a child being raped. "
No. A video of a child being raped is only a video of a child being raped. Not child rape itself. Just like when I click on videos of murder, I am not murdering anyone.

"If child pornography is legalised, Then the legal age for sex is reduced, Possibly even removed. "
Slippery slope fallacy.

"So legalising child porn would also mean legalising child rape. That is why they are the same topic. "
Slippery slope fallacy. You use an assumption that legalization of child porn leads to legalization of child rape, To prove the assumption that child porn is bad. Using assumptions to prove assumptions is a fallacy, Because assumptions can't prove assumptions.

"Of course it"s relevant. A child cannot consent to having sex for the purpose of child pornography. "
You are again assuming that child is being raped because of child porn. You are just repeating assumptions, Not proving them. Further, You are saying that child cannot consent to sex and that's why child porn is bad. That does not make child porn bad in any way, Because child porn is not sex, It is a recording of sex. Just like videos of murder are not murder, But recordings of murder. And we make murder illegal and recordings of murder legal.

Using your slippery slope fallacy: "If child pornography is legalised, Then the legal age for sex is reduced, Possibly even removed. " You are basically saying, If we legalize child porn, Child rape will be legalized too.
Videos of murder are already legal and murder is not legal. By your logic, Murder should have been legal by now, Because videos of murder are legal.

"Recording the rape of a child is someone raping a child. "
By your logic, When someone records a murder, He committed a murder?
Recording rape is not the same as committing rape. Recording rape does not contribute to rape itself, The same way videos of murder do not make victims any more murdered than they already are. Also, Recording rape does not cause rape. You are somehow trying to argue that child porn is "second rape" of a child. It's not. Child porn is not rape. Video of rape isn't rape. It's a video of rape. The fact that you can't understand the difference between an act and a video of an act is amusing. But no matter how many times you repeat the same thing, It doesn't make it true. Because you aren't proving anything. Just repeating. And I can repeat too. I will still keep saying that child porn is not rape, And until you prove that it is, I will consider by position as accurate.

What you are saying is that the video of the child being raped should be legally uploaded to the internet? Please explain to me why that is a good idea. Explain to me why allowing a video of a 5 year old being raped should be legally viewed by anyone other than a lawyer using the video as evidence to send a child rapist to jail.

"What you are saying is that the video of the child being raped should be legally uploaded to the internet? "
Yep.

"Please explain to me why that is a good idea. "
if I have child porn to share, I won't have to molest children, Or I will be too busy with child porn. Do you want me to molest children? I mean, You might say that I will sooner or later get tired of child porn and go out and molest children. But what if there is no child porn at all? I will get tired immediately and go to rape children right away, Where child porn would held me back and potentially save some children from being molested.

"a video of a 5 year old being raped"
You just turned me on.

You"re simply a pedo, It turns you on (we don"t care)
You haven"t stated anything on why it"s good at all other than tell me to claim my arguments and then your whole last statement is purely based on an assumption. Child porn is illegal and should stay illegal

"You haven"t stated anything on why it"s good"
You haven't stated anything on why it's bad. Also, Off topic. The topic is "Child porn should be illegal", Not "Child porn is bad".
And I already said why it should be legal, Because there is no reason to keep it illegal.

"your whole last statement is purely based on an assumption"
It's based on personal witnessing. You can call it an assumption, But then, In order not to be a hypocrite, You would also need to call all the child porn victim's testimonies assumptions. They say they were violated? That's just their assumption! They say it hurts them? Assumption until proven otherwise! All assumptions!