The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Facebook and Instagram Should Allow Pornography

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2017 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,075 times Debate No: 102285
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Freedom of expression encourages freedom to post pornography on Facebook and Instagram. The First Amendment to the United States' Constitution may require pornography to be legal. While all constitutional laws may not directly apply to the businesses of private organizations such as Facebook and Instagram, Facebook's and Instagram's rules can be thought of as extensions of these laws and thus it seems virtuous for Facebook and Instagram to have all of their rules agree with as many constitutional laws as possible.

Twitter allows pornography. Vine once allowed pornography.

I do not understand how a person can be offended by pornography on Facebook or Instagram.

If a person is offended by pornography on Facebook or Instagram, then he or she has options to cope with the pornography that respect the pornography poster's rights and liberties. A person offended by pornography on Facebook or Instagram can unfollow, unfriend, block, or message a poster of pornography, among other options.


(This is my first debate so forgive me if I'm not the best, but I'll still try)
The use of any amendment is so that people have freedoms while also keeping everyone safe. You have the freedom of actions of course, but that doesn't mean you can murder someone. The point of not having pornography is so that you can feel safe, as some people feel uncomfortable around that sort of thing. As for twitter allowing pornography, it does. I have been on the site before but it exclusively has a NSFW section to keep young viewers away from that kind of thing. Pornography is very sensitive subject and a crude thing to see. There are some people trying to get rid of their masturbation and seeing porn pushes them over. Some people just don't won't to be turned on. As well as that, porn is one of the top searches, most likely these sites would drown in the porn and make it pretty much impossible for children to go on anymore. Even with the blocking system, it wouldn't end well.
Debate Round No. 1


I do not fully understand how pornography would make some people feel unsafe or uncomfortable. Many people value and enjoy viewing peoples' genitals, breasts, and anuses, especially if those sensitive parts belong to somebody they know. Society's happiness and productivity could increase, perhaps largely. Perhaps less people would be depressed and would want or need mental health treatment.

Pornography displays some of our truest human nature and character. It seems instinctual that people would want to be depicted in pornography and show it off to other people for the benefit of all involved.

Over more than 10 years, I have viewed much pornography on the Internet. Pornography is not a "crude" thing to see.

People could be turned on by things that follow Facebook's and Instagram's rules as well. If people don't want to be turned on by pornography or whatever, that shouldn't be my problem.

Children viewing pornography shouldn't be a problem. They could benefit from it.


I understand where you are coming from but the argument 'porn makes people happy' is not actually true. Porn has not shown to make anymore more or less happy. Pornography is also not exclusively natural, some of it is things like dog pornography or child pornography which is considered unnatural which is why it's called bestiality and pedophilia as opposed to calling it a sexuality. As well as that, there is a place for pornography. Pornhub allows things like that, but if some sites were just to allow pornography suddenly it would destroy a large demographic that wants a normal social media platform as opposed to seeing porn everywhere they go. Some people don't want to see other people naked or having sex. The problem that social medias do have with children viewing porn is, once again, it could be against their religion and be considered a sin. If we just recklessly destroy censoring then many people could get angry and uncomfortable. It's not your problem, it's the website's.
Debate Round No. 2


You seem to have claimed pornography hasn't been shown to make anyone more or less happy. I'm unsure what evidence there is to support that claim. Even if that's true, then it seems there should be no problem allowing pornography on Facebook and Instagram, as it has not been shown pornography makes anyone less happy.

Pornographic and non-pornographic content should be able to coexist on social media. Any "large demographic" that does not want pornography on their main social media sites is ignorant. United States' values have prevailed for over 240 years, and they are only getting stronger. Those demographics and those social media sites that do not embody U.S.' values will see themselves overrun by those demographics and those social media sites that do embody those values.

Here in the U.S., we already have a system of laws and criminal justice that regulates. It's a bad idea for Facebook and Instagram to further regulate the private behavior and private content of their users.


This is the information in which I found relating back to pornography not helping with depression:

As for your other argument, you're either being vague or off topic. First you call people who don't want porn ignorant than you go on to compliment the US, unfortunately I'm not in the US. The problem with you relating Facebook and Instagram back to the US system is the fact that Facebook and Instagram are not restricted to the US, therefore the US cannot act on those situations. People who want to watch porn can go on any website that allows porn, it is unnecessary to do it on social media. They can go on Pornhub or just do it over a platform like Skype. Some platforms want to cater towards children, it's not in our place to tell them what they should or shouldn't be marketing.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jc1996 2 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: There has been a lot of opinion about this, but I can't give points to both of them, since both made claims and counterclaims. However, social media is one example of speech, and you can't deprive that right. In my country, pornography is bad, but in some countries in the Western world, it is fully or partially legal. In my opinion, Facebook and Instagram should partially or fully allow pornography, depending on the region. With that, Con may have won based on just spelling and grammar, but overall, Pro won the debate.
Vote Placed by Coveny 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: There was a lot of opinion in this debate with no supporting information. I can't give Con a point for reliable sources because Con's argument was that did not make you any more happy or sad, but the source indicated that porn increased your chance of depression which wasn't con's position. I feel like Con's argument that porn would cause a loss in revenue was the strongest argument in the debate. I would have liked to see sources supporting that, and that point covered in more depth though. I also felt like Con's point that there were other options for porn was a good argument as well. Between those two I felt like Con presented a more convincing argument.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.