Instigator / Pro
Points: 7

The FBI should make it's database of child porn viewable to the public.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 8 votes the winner is ...
oromagi
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1510
Contender / Con
Points: 56
Description
Please message me before accepting this debate. I want to debate somebody who doesn't have any sort of mental disabilities.
Round 1
Published:
Thank you Oromagi for being willing to debate this incredibly important topic, that is often overlooked. I do want to back up the content I have available on Debate.org, so this will look similar to the debate I had with Bluesteel. The difference is that now the resolution is more appropriate and more inline with what I originally wanted to debate, but failed to do because I wanted to squeeze the maximum amount of shock value possible from the debate title. 
I want to take this opportunity to address the voters before I launch into my arguments. I understand I'm arguing a very controversial position, but  the question voters need to ask themselves is; Will the FBI making it’s collection of child porn available online save even 1 child from being sexually abused? If what I'm proposing saves just 1 child from losing their innocence, I'd say it's worth legalizing. When you factor in the life saving implications as well as the increased freedom and the savings in federal spending, you can see the FBI releasing their child porn database is the lesser of 2 evils. 

Now obviously the children in these videos need to be protected. If a child is already known in one of the videos and is no longer in danger, than I would propose that the child’s face and other easily identifiable traits be blurred or otherwise hidden in some way. 
To make this more clear

"I'm not advocating for the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a minor. It would still be illegal to produce child porn for profit or sell it for profit. It would still be illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor. It would be illegal for an adult to coerce children into having sexual relations with each other."
 
What is a Pedophile

I define a pedophile as somebody whose sexual orientation makes them sexually attracted to children. [10] They can no more control their attraction to children than I can control my attraction to women or than my opponent can control his attraction for men. Being a pedophile does not mean you have had sex with children anymore than being heterosexual means you had sex with somebody of the opposite gender. 
Many pedophiles have never had sex with children and never will. Some are staunchly opposed to sexual abuse of children.[11] Even ones who have committed these crimes before stand a chance of being rehabilitated. Even if you think the rehabilitated ones should be strung up by their balls, than you shouldn’t hold those same feelings towards the non offenders. Thought crimes should not be illegal. 
I’m going to come right out and say it. There is no harm in being sexually attracted to 6 year old little girls. The harm is in acting on those attractions. In the next section you will learn that by not allowing these people easy access to porn that suits their tastes, we are making them more likely to offend. 
Our own disgust of pedophiles, is exactly what is preventing us from having good policies that can prevent a lot of harm from coming to innocent children. When we make them more likely to offend, they themselves are harmed obviously, but more importantly our children are more likely to be irreparably harmed. 

JUSTICE

A. A 2010 study carried out by Milton Diamond and his team at the University of Hawaii and published in the archives of sexual behavior show a sharp decline in child sex abuse since 1989 when access to child pornography became easier in Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA. This trend has also been seen in Denmark and Japan.[1]

The fact is that easier access to child porn will and already has significantly lowered the sexual abuse of children. As much as child pornography sucks it exists. It always has existed in one form or another and it always will. We can't eliminate it, but what we can do is use it in a way that helps at risk offenders get their rocks off in the privacy of their own home as opposed to going out and seeking children to harm.

Just to make this clear I'm not saying let's have a kid take one for the team so the rates of sexual abuse go down. The F.B.I. already has the largest database of child porn on the planet. making this available to freely view for the public (discretion used to disguise the faces of known victims), would do a lot to curb actually harming the underground child porn industry saving countless children. When you take in account that this being publicly viewable will help to solve some cold cases by pervs just by happenstance running into an image of somebody they know. The upside to making this database public could be incredible.

B. Contrary to popular bellief viewing or posessing child porn doesn't make you anymore likely to rape a child than anybody else.[2]Yet the people actually viewing child porn often times recieve tougher sentences than those who actually abuse children. People caught possessing child porn on average receive 7 years in prison. [3] Compare this 7 years with an average of 4 years that people who actually sexually abuse children get. [4]

Making the FBI’s database of child porn like the one I advocate for would reverse this injustice. Under what I'm proposing if you rape a kid, you get a longer prison sentence than if you happen to come across some child porn on the internet but would not otherwise ever actually harm a child.

My opponents might argue that watching child porn actually helps support the child porn industry and keep it alive. However this is completely untrue.[5] It appears that people don't create child porn for commercial purposes but instead to document their crimes. Plus with me advocating for the FBI to make their database available to the public it actually offsets the vast, vast minority of child porn that may be for commercial reasons if that even exists.

C. As long as these child porn laws exist in the way they exist, there will be lawmakers and courts expanding and interpreting these laws in whatever way they feel like to legislate their own morality and put innocent people in prison. Here is a list of things that you can do as a result of child porn laws that can land you in prison sometimes up to 20 years or more.

"


  • A high-school boy over age 18 who engages in “sexting” photos of his naked, underage girlfriend to others via his cell phone (child pornography production and distribution)

  • An 18 year-old high school senior who has consensual sex with his 14 year-old freshman girlfriend (this is sometimes defined as a rape, based on their age difference)

  • A 22 year-old man who makes a home video of consensual sex with his 17 year-old girlfriend and downloads it to his computer, with his girlfriend’s knowledge and with no intent to share the video with others (child pornography production)[6]

A 16 year old girl sexting photos to her boyfriend can receive a really lengthy prison sentence. Under my plan these types of miscarriages of justice would never ever happen. As long as child pornography laws are on the books these are the types of things that will continue to happen. While making the FBI database of child porn publicly viewable may not totally fix this reactionary attitude of judges, perhaps more of a normalization with-in the legal context will help to reverse this trend just a little bit. 

'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."

A. This is also a freedom of speech issue. Congress isn't allowed to make any laws restricting the freedom of speech, neither is any other branch of the government. The judicial branch of the government has pretty much ruled that anything the general public views as obscene can be restricted.[7]

The whole point of the first amendment is to protect material that is viewed as obscene by the majority of the population. If the majority of people and the government agreed with the material to start with the first amendment wouldn't even be necessary.

"If the First Amendment means anything," Justice Thurgood Marshall said in the 1969 majority decision, "it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."[8]

I just wish Thurgood Marshall would've added something about child porn at the end of that to make my case easier. I’m sure Justice Thurgood Marshall would be supportive of a law to allow the FBI to release their vast collection of child porn as well as well as make it legal to view this collection of porn. 
And if I may add. Some of this child porn is produced very well, like several of the movies in the FBI archives that Tracey Lords starred in ;)

If we're going to take freedom of speech seriously we need to protect it in the instances where the material offends us the most. The things that offend us most should be the first things we stand up to defend. The battle for our freedom of speech starts and ends with child porn If we fight and win on this front than we win the freedom of speech battle on every front.

Legalizing child porn to the extent I propose (which is limited and safe) saves a bunch of kids from being sexually abused but even if it didn't. Even if it saved zero and was null in that area than it would still be worth fighting for based on freedom of speech principals.

Wasted Resources

The FBI is experiencing some severe cuts on their budget which is actually getting in the way of a lot of their counter-terrorism work as well as their pursuit of real criminals.[9] It's really hard to get ahold of exactly how the FBI spends their money but suffice it to say that they spent countless millions in pursuit of lonely fat dudes spanking their monkey to little girls. They spend countless millions pursuing people that are in fact causing no harm to anybody. All these people are doing is engaging in some voyeurism and some fantasy. They aren't at risk of raping anybody or engaging in sex with a kid. If the FBI could just redirect this countless millions away from lonely fat guys and redirect it towards counter terrorism or some other vital operation that actually saves lives. (like stopping pot heads from smoking)

Reduced Exploitation

By taking away the profit motive of child porn than less people will be able to produce child porn. If this saves just one child from being exploited than the resolution is affirmed and we should legalize child porn. 


Conclusion

Legalizing child porn in this capacity not only saves children from being raped it actually could prevent another 9/11 when you consider the FBI focusing on more important counter terrorism measures. Legalizing child porn goes a long way towards protecting our freedom of speech and goes even further in preventing disproportionate prison sentences. There is no reason that some fat dude spanking his monkey to child porn should get a longer prison sentence than somebody raping a child. There is no reason to arrest some 17 year old kid for distributing child porn because he sent a penis picture to his girl friend. We have to do something to stop these injustices, and the FBI releasing it’s database of child porn would definitely be a step in the right direction.

Vote for freedom of speech. Vote to reduce the victimization of children. Vote to counter terrorism. Vote for child porn. Vote pro.

sources

[1] http://www.springer.com...

[2] http://www.theaustralian.com.au...

[3] http://online.wsj.com...

[4] http://www.examiner.com...

[5] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, The Globalization of Crime: A Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment 214 (2010); Letter from David Debold, Chair and Eric A. Tirschwell, Vice Chair, Practitioners Advisory Group, to Honorable Patti B. Saris, Chair, United States Sentencing Commission 8 (February 13, 2012), available at http://www.ussc.gov...- 16/Testimony_15_PAG.pdf.

[6] http://famm.org...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[8] http://abcnews.go.com...

[9] http://www.washingtonpost.com…
[10] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophilia
[11] https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/av39jz/i-spent-a-year-with-non-offending-paedophiles

[12]

Published:
Thanks, Wylted, for instigating this debate.

RESOLVED: The FBI should make its database of child porn viewable to the public.

CON interprets this resolution to mean that, as a matter of public policy,  the Federal Bureau of Investigation should host a pornographic video sharing and pornography site on the Internet using an established FBI database of videographic evidence of sexual crimes involving prepubescent children.

OBJECTION re: DATABASE: PRO’s resolution depends on the viewability (and therefore, the existence) of some specific FBI-controlled database.  The name, nature,and ownership of that database is not described by PRO and is not made obvious to CON by CON’s research.  

  • Most references to a Federal child porn database point to the National Child Victim Identification Program (NCVIP). [1] This database was assembled in 2003 and merged with the non-profit National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) in 2005. [2] The relevant section of the Dept. of Justice, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, seems to have stopped updating its website with new reports, internship opportunities, etc. after 2016. [3] The last reference to this database I can find dates from 2010. In any case, this database appears to be managed by the NCMEC & DOJ, not the FBI.

  • CON finds a couple of different iterations of news stories wherein the FBI impounds servers hosting child porn and extends the website services for a week or two while documenting and hacking into user identities.  None of these stories identify an FBI database of images employed in such hacks. [4] [5]

  • The FBI aggressively maintains secrecy surrounding its forensic technology, to the extent of dropping child porn charges when judges rule those techniques valid targets for discovery. [6]

It seems possible that the database(s) to which our resolution refers:

  • Were reserved for the FBI’s use but never under the FBI’s oversight (in which case, PRO’s resolution is impossible to fulfill), or

  • Were once overseen by the FBI but are not anymore (and again, the resolution must fail), or

  • Are still overseen by the FBI but the name and nature of the database are so kept secret that we ordinary citizens are unable to verify (and again, the resolution can’t be proved).

Whichever the case, PRO has the responsibility to establish the viability of the resolution.  PRO must show that at least one such database exists, describe that database’s name and nature, and show that the FBI is the ultimate gatekeeper for releasing that database’s contents.  

If PRO can’t establish that at least one child porn database is overseen by the FBI by R2, then CON respectfully suggests that PRO concede this debate as unprovable.  CON’s research suggests that such evidence may be scarce or unavailable.

###############

DEFINITIONS:

PEDOPHILE:  PRO offered a definition of pedophile and cited Mirriam-Webster but oddly PRO’s definition does not match the citation.  Therefore, let’s toss out PRO’s personalized definition:

Please EXCLUDE: “I define a pedophile as somebody whose sexual orientation makes them sexually attracted to children.”

And instead INCLUDE the Mirriam-Webster definition as cited by PRO but not used:

PEDOPHILIA is a sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child. [7]

Furthermore, I think we can address a number of PRO’s concerns by including some refinement from Wikipedia:

Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.  This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors.  Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, because although some people who commit child sexual abuse are pedophiles, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and some pedophiles do not molest children.” [8]

Let’s agree that both PRO & CON are focused here on prevention of prepubescent child sexual abuse and we will leave the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of psychiatric disorders to the health professionals.

The FEDERAL BUREAU of INVESTIGATION (FBI) is the domestic intelligence and security service of the United States, which simultaneously serves as its primary federal law enforcement organization. [9]

VIEWABLE is (in this context) able to be rendered correctly by a particular browser. [10]

###########
PRO’s CASE

JUSTICE

A.

Let’s assume that PRO is able to prove the existence of an FBI database and proceed to PRO’s primary contention.

P1: Access  to child porn will significantly lower the sexual abuse of children.
P2: The FBI can increase access by making its database of child porn available to the public
C1: Therefore, the FBI should make it's database of child porn viewable to the public to decrease child sex abuse.

P1:

PRO contends:

“The fact is that easier access to child porn will and already has significantly lowered the sexual abuse of children, “ but fails to establish this statement as a fact to a sufficient degree."

  • To support this statement, PRO offers only one study, Diamond, et. al. 2010, which PRO misrepresents significantly. [11]
    • Diamond, et. al. 2010 does not “ show a sharp decline in child sex abuse since 1989 when access to child pornography became easier in Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA…. and Japan.” 
      • In fact, Diamond only refers to general agreement with data studied in Japan and Denmark (Denmark was also Diamond’s work).  The other eight nations are never mentioned by Diamond and are only referred to by the anthologizer as examples of porn vs crime studies generally and these examples do not examine crimes against children specifically.  CON will argue subsequently that child porn differs significantly from ordinary adult porn in that the subjects of all child porn are definitonally the victims of crime.
    • For Diamond et. al. 2010,  “only the pre and post [1989] separation population and crime data pertinent to the Czech Republic are used.”

      • The accuracy of pre-revolutionary data generated by a corrupt police state was not challenged or considered.

      • The accuracy of data generated during the chaos of an emerging democracy is not challenged or considered.

      • Changes in police priorities are not noted but significant increases in murder, assault, and robbery are reported.  The possibility that more visible and prevalant crimes like murder eclipsed the priorities for an all new police system are not examined.

      • The well-observed problems of sex-crime reporting and particularly child sex-crime reporting are not considered.

      • Crime data from similarly emerging European democracies (Slovakia, East Germany, Poland, etc)  are not examined.

    • Crucially, the scientists responsible for PRO’s single piece of evidence explicitly disapprove of PRO’s plan within the text of that report:

“We do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography but artificially produced materials might serve.” [11]

  • Given the potential consequences of a mass release of criminal evidence, particularly the traumatization and re-traumatization of innocent victims, CON demands far more data and data particular to the habits and history of US child porn consumption vs. US crime against children specifically before accepting PRO’s characterization of the relationship between child porn and child rape in the US.

  • Until more evidence of a more specific quality is submitted, PRO’s P1 remains unproven.

P2:

PRO suggests that, “the F.B.I. already has the largest database of child porn on the planet." 

  • PRO offers no evidence to support this claim.  

  • SEE => OBJECTION re: DATABASE above.

C1:

PRO concludes “The upside to making this database public could be incredible,” however

  • P1 is insufficiently documented to justify PRO’s  recommendation.

  • P2 has not yet been proven true.

  • Even if P1 is substantiated and P2 shown true, C1 remains non-sequitur since PRO has failed to balance the potential upsides against potential downsides.
#####
B.

PRO asserts without evidence that viewing or possessing child porn does not increase any subject’s propensity to rape children.  This argument is not supported by Diamond, et al. which only examined overall reported crimes and does not observe individual cases or refute such a link. [11] 

The National District Attorneys Association of America, on the other hand, unequivocally draws that link:

“According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, at least 80% of purchasers of child pornography are active abusers and nearly 40% of the child pornographers investigated over the past several years have sexually molested children in the past.  From January 1997 through March 2004, 1,807 child pornographers were arrested and 620 of these individuals were confirmed child molesters. Therefore, between 34-36% of these child pornographers were actual child molesters, defined as someone who had confessed to acts of molestation, someone who had a record for molestation, or someone who was involved in an overt act in order to procure children for sexual purposes. The 620 confirmed child molesters led to 839 child victims who were identified and rescued.
In a 2000 study issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 76% of offenders convicted of internet-related crimes against children admitted to contact sex crimes with children previously undetected by law enforcement and had an average of 30.5 child sex victims each. Furthermore, reports by state-based Internet Crimes against Children (ICAC) task forces confirm the positive correlation between the possession of child pornography and the commission of crimes against children, through its law enforcement and fieldwork.  For instance, the Pennsylvania-based ICAC task force reported that 51% of individuals arrested for pornography-related offenses were also determined to be actively molesting children or to have molested in the past. In Dallas, the ICAC task force found that 32% of offenders arrested over the course of one year for child pornography offenses were also molesting children or had molested in the past. In light of the documented link between individuals who view child pornography and individuals who actually molest children, each child pornography case should be viewed as a red flag to the possibility of actual child molestation.” [12]
 
 
Also, a 2008 study of 341 US convicted child rapists found that child porn use correlated significantly with convicts’ rate of sexually re-offending. [13]

Furthermore, an investigation by the Mayo Clinic reported in 2007   found that 76% of men who were arrested for child porn had molested a child. [14]

In the absence of any supporting evidence and the presence of volumes of evidence refuting PRO’s claim, the assertion that viewing or possessing child porn does not increase any child rape stands disproved.

#####
C.

PRO irrelevantly argues against existing child pornography laws in direct contradiction to earlier statements: 

“It would still be illegal to produce child porn for profit or sell it for profit. It would still be illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor. It would be illegal for an adult to coerce children into having sexual relations with each other.”

If PRO wishes to strike down or otherwise modify existing child pornography law, then the question of releasing FBI child porn is subsumed into the larger policy. If child porn should not be illegal then why are we wasting our time talking about one database?

PRO irrelevantly cites examples of non-child minors suffering penalties for conduct that at least superficially reads as less egregious than child pornography.  Importantly, all of PRO’s examples cite teen aged victims and don’t reflect on our discussion here of child (prepubescent) pornography.

This argument may be safely ignored as irrelevant to thesis.

##############

FREE SPEECH:

PRO argues that FBI distribution of child porn is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  

  • Again, PRO seems to be arguing against existing child porn laws in contradiction to earlier claims.  If child porn were protected by the First Amendment (it is not), then the question of FBI distribution would be irrelevant to the larger infringement of civil rights.

  • The US Constitution quite clearly only recognizes the rights of US citizens and grants no rights to government as established by Congress.  The First Amendment can only restrain FBI action.  It  does not empower the FBI or grant that office any right. Therefore,  neither the FBI nor PRO have no grounds on which to make an appeal for freedom of speech in respect to publishing evidence. [15]

Justice Marshall did recognize that some state interests might justify prohibiting the public distribution of obscene material. In particular, he mentioned two of the concerns that had been noted in Redrup: the protection of children83 and the protection of the sensibilities of "captive" viewers.”  [17]

Even Marshall would not find that a consumer’s right to porn takes precedence over child protection.

PRO’s appeal to the First Amendment badly mistakes the purposes of the Bill of Rights and the case law surrounding those rights.

####################

WASTED RESOURCES

PRO again irrelevantly argues against FBI investigations into child pornography.  Again, PRO contradicts earlier assurances that existing child pornography laws were not being challenged.  Either PRO is arguing against existing child porn laws (in which case PRO’s resolution and primary argument are presumed) or PRO is arguing for a one-off distribution of a particular database, (in which case, all these anti-legislation arguments carry no weight).

REDUCED EXPLOITATION

PRO’s argument for making child porn less profitable is entirely refuted by PRO’s own earlier assertions in JUSTICE:(B:)

“ people don't create child porn for commercial purposes but instead to document their crimes. Plus with me advocating for the FBI to make their database available to the public it actually offsets the vast, vast minority of child porn that may be for commercial reasons if that even exists.”

PRO can’t argue that reduced profit is one advantage of PRO’s plan while also assuring readers that child pornographers are not motivated by profit.

PRO’s argument is self-refuted.

##########

CON’s CASE

Having demonstrated the falsehood of PRO’s assertion,”“The upside to making this database public could be incredible,” let’s also point out that  PRO glosses over or fails to consider a number of potential downsides.


  • The arguments favoring general availability of porn as a countermeasure to sex abuse do not translate well for child porn, because the subjects of general porn are (to an overwhelming degree, at least) willing participants who are compensated for their actions with money, attention, sexual stimulation or some combination of these.  The subjects of child porn are always victims of a felony by definition. Truly the only reason child porn is not immediately destroyed out of respect for the victims is that such documents are used as evidence in the conviction of past crimes and/or the prevention of future crime. Publicity is always unwelcome in the case of child porn and even the threat or general knowledge of such publication represents a real harm to these victims.

  • PRO acknowledges the potential for increased or additional harm caused by the distribution of child porn but PRO’s plan for mitigation falls well short of a solution.  Merely blurring the victims’ faces is hardly a robust protection from the trauma of public identification. Victims can be identified by clothing or birthmarks, locations can often be extrapolated from background images, perpetrators can be identified and their victims’ identities extrapolated.  Making a child porn database public means a major increase in all kinds of risks to all kinds of people. Say somebody recognizes a house involved in some video and decides to threaten or harm the residents unaware that the perpetrator has long since moved on or been arrested. Say somebody has suppressed the traumatic memory entirely until suddenly confronted with proof of their abuse without benefit of counseling.  What new acts of violence or self-harm might the government unintentionally induce by such publication? We could blur every aspect of the image with the potential for identification but that would almost certainly render the images useless for the purpose of sexual stimulation.

  • Let’s also consider the harm to FBI agents and associated law enforcement officers.  PRO plans to keep child rape illegal but make law enforcement de facto purveyors and distributers of pornography exploiting those rapes for sexual gratification.  Responsible law enforcement would almost certainly object and rebel at the prospect of exploiting past abuses as a means of preventing future abuse. Police are necessarily expert at justifying means by satisfaction with results but only the most corrupt moral code might  justify child rape as a useful prophylactic. Worse, use of Federal tax dollars in the pursuit of such exploitation taints every American citizen by association.

  • Further, Federal distribution of any media content represents Federal endorsement of that distribution certainly and at least perceived Federal endorsement of content.  PRO plans to keep child rape against the law while also requiring the enforcers of that law to hypocritcally benefit from prior acts of abuse. Such a plan is manifestly unsustainable in a democracy and weakens the effectiveness of both law enforcement and the law.

#############

CONCLUSION

CON has established that PRO’s plan is not just unworkable, it seems to increase harm to every stakeholder except the consumers of child porn.  CON says he doesn’t want to modify or strike down existing US prohibitions regarding child pornography but most of PRO’s argument and all of PRO’s recommended plan can only be seen as effective in the context of eroding or weakening existing child pornography law.  If PRO and CON agree that the major consideration of this debate is the lessening of the appalling harms of child sexual abuse, then PRO must agree with CON that PRO’s plan for FBI child porn distribution offers no potential for relief and significant potential for increased harm.  Even if PRO can establish that there is an FBI child porn database, we are forced to conclude that any publication of that database does far more harm than good.


#################

NOTE re: SOURCES

Readers will note that in R1, of the 11 citation provided by PRO, only six were viewable.  3 citations were broken links and 2 citations were behind paywall which this debater could not view.  CON expects significant improvement in source in future rounds.


Thanks again to Wylted for instigating this debate.  I look forward to R2 arguments.





Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
PRO is unavailable for reason unrelated to this debate.  There is lots of time built into this debate so CON will simply extend arguments to make sure PRO has an opportunity to respond.
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Many thanks to Wylted for these leisurely forfeits, which I enjoy like a summer bayou.

extends my arguments and let's ride with a bit of Nabokov, shall we?

“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita. Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, an initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea. Oh when? About as many years before Lolita was born as my age was that summer. You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns.” 

― Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita

Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
extend arguments & Shakespeare:

PARIS

Of honourable reckoning are you both;
And pity 'tis you lived at odds so long.
But now, my lord, what say you to my suit?

CAPULET

But saying o'er what I have said before:
My child is yet a stranger in the world;
She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.

PARIS

Younger than she are happy mothers made.

CAPULET

And too soon marr'd are those so early made.

Romeo and Juliet


Round 5
Published:
Me and Con in a PM agreed that this should end a tied debate. Please do not vote and if somebody votes in either of our favors, do the right thing and counter vote bomb it
Published:
Thanks, Wylted, for expediting the concluding round.

OBJECTION: Bad Faith Conduct

PRO concludes

"Me and Con in a PM agreed that this should end a tied debate. Please do not vote and if somebody votes in either of our favors, do the right thing and counter vote bomb it"
This is false.  Wylted and I have never communicated via PM (I double-checked just now).  CON fully expects to win this debate for the following several reasons:

ARGUMENTS TO CON:

PRO has forfeited 3 rounds, 4 if you count the dirty trick at the end. Although I generally refrain from including any intra-DART postings as evidence in a debate, I will now quote Wylted's own statements of Aug 2nd regarding the progress of our debate as an act of [restrained] retribution:



Added: 08.02.19 09:14PM
--> @oromagi
Low which I feel guilty for. I came to the realization that spending several hours researching and writing this stuff is holding me back from my dreams. I research debates after I start them and can spend upwards of 20 hours in a 3 day period on research and writing the arguments when I do my best. I also spend hours reading my opponents arguments repeatedly and researching every last detail.  I am sorry but it really is holding me back from my dreams which I have made a lot of progress on just this week by o ly using an occasional spare minute spread through the day to be on this site. The debate against st you is also the o ly one that is impossible for me to win right now as well. You had a great rebuttal round and though I have not independently confirmed your arguments they seem impossible to beat. I think your weak points are thinking I can't  prove a database and overestimating recidivism rates among perverts. I think you had an absurd stat in there like 75% of child porn watchers are molesters. But despite those weaknesses, I still think even with my best effort you would win.
PRO falsely claims today that we agreed that this debate should end in a tie when the truth is that PRO & CON both concluded that CON had won this debate after the first round was finished many, many weeks ago.

CON's argument is strong enough to merit the win but if VOTERS would prefer to skip, PRO's forfeit and intramural concession should serve sufficiently.

SOURCES TO CON:

In R1, CON noted "of the 11 citation provided by PRO, only six were viewable.  3 citations were broken links and 2 citations were behind paywall which this debater could not view.  CON expects significant improvement in source in future rounds."  I don't think this was a deliberate attempt to deceive, rather PRO was cut and pasting a five year old argument authored by PRO on DDO.


I assume PRO failed to check whether all links were still valid.  The sources that CON could verify seemed sufficientl but considering that PRO never availed the offered opportunity to improve on R1 sloppiness, CON should be awarded source points here.

CONDUCT TO CON:

CON asks VOTERS to consider 3 points:

1.  Multiple forfeits resulting in an uncontested debate.
2.  Maximum waits of two weeks for 3 rounds of forfeits while active elsewhere on site.
3.  Bad faith deception in the final round appealing for a tied verdict.

CON feels that a conduct point is well merited in light of these tactics.

Thanks again to Wylted for instigating this debate.

Thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration.

Please vote CON.
Added:
its even wrong to suggest such a thing,there have to be limits!
#47
Added:
--> @oromagi
I mean, I remember reading that they were so inseparable there was a school rumor that they had a sexual relationship. But I've never seen any evidence to make me think that rumor was true.
Eric Harris wrote in his journal:
"Gays.... well all gays, ALL gays, should be killed. Mit keine fragen. Lesbians are fun to watch if they are hot but still, its not human. It’s a fucking disease."
It's hard to imagine him engaging in a homosexual relationship with Dylan.
They were definitely extremely close and absorbed with each other, their personalities synergizing on a deep -- and disastrous -- level. "Soulmates" would not be an invalid description. But I don't think it was sexual. I think that would probably have gone against their violent macho tough-guy psychology.
And no, I haven't seen it. It's a... fictional reenactment of Columbine? Seems like a weird subject for a film. Why did the filmmaker make it?
#46
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
I think it shook people so much because there was no satisfying explanation. Even when I put all the ingredients in your list together it still just doesn't add up to me. Motive aside, where did their sheer resolve and follow-through come from? I would have expected a couple of kids to get cold feet, to have second thoughts as the date approached, to be afraid of dying even if they hated life.
As for your optimism that they felt regret... well, I guess they did leave goodbye videos for their families saying they were sorry. That always seemed weird to me. Sorry for what? What they were about to do? They definitely weren't sorry about that. Maybe they were just acknowledging the impact their actions would have on their families -- but that still doesn't count as showing remorse for their victims. I wouldn't hold my breath.
#45
Added:
--> @Castin, @Pinkfreud08
Have u seen Gus Van Sant’s “Elephant?” I recommend it. A sort of fictional retelling of Columbine. There’s a scene where the shooters quietly make out in the shower just before arming themselves. I think if the two were in love - each trying to impress the other by cold disaffection- they make a kind of perverse sense. I was in love like that at about their age in about the same time and place. We weren’t inspired by violence, but I certainly did many foolish and illegal things only to impress him. I certainly understand the allure of some rite or event that says, “its you and me alone and fuck all else fuck even death so long as u r there “
The Smiths have that line
If a double decker bus crashes into us
To die by your side
Is such a wonderful way to die
And if a ten ton truck
Kills the both of us
To die by your side
Well the pleasure the privilege is mine
Contender
#44
Added:
--> @Castin
I've studied the Columbine incident for a while and to be completely honest I am still pondering about what made them so far gone.
It's hard to point towards one concrete reason why as there were hundreds of reasons. Bullying, mental illness, loneliness ETC.
I like to believe the last thing that went through their minds other than bullets was a feeling of regret for their actions and realizing how truly indistinguishable they were from their past selves.
Although that may be a little bit too optimistic on my part.
#43
Added:
--> @Wylted, @Pinkfreud08
Whoops, forgot about this. Now I'm necro-bumping a dead debate.
Thanks. Sounds like my doubts were correct (should be my epitaph). And there is footage of Dylan and Eric in I think the cafeteria? It does show one of the boys shooting, but at one of their propane tanks, not at people. Turns out they weren't the slick bomb builders they thought they were, were they. But they still got their wish. They went down in infamy and became the focus of widespread attention and fascination.
Strangely, one of the hardest things for me to understand about this was how unaffected they seemed by survival instinct or animal self-preservation.
#42
Added:
ew just ew, if you want to watch kids being raped you should be put in a special rape cell in prison for the other pervs to go after
#41
Added:
--> @Castin
There is no real footage of the shooting taking place. The closest we have is some muffled audio taking place in the library. The footage you're referring to in question is from a movie called " Zero Day"
#40
Added:
--> @Castin
The one I just watched with audio, the volume seems too clear and from what little I gathered I think the footage is from an independent movie called "zero day" . I am sure there is footage in the public domain I have not seen. That appears to be fake though.
Instigator
#39
Added:
--> @Castin
I watched beheadings and killed a man, I think I will be fine. Then again. 2 guys one hammer I actually had to turn off and couldn't watch
Instigator
#38
Added:
--> @Wylted
Check the video out, it's on Liveleak (google liveleak+columbine). Let me know if the footage looks fabricated to you, like the others you've seen.
But I really, really need to warn you: it's *extremely* graphic, even if fake. I'm serious. The first time I watched it I had to stop it pretty soon into the recording. Too intense, too much reality.
#37
Added:
--> @Castin
I have seen a few things like that come out that seem fake. That probably is as well. The o ly real leak I have heard of is one of the victims parents who saw the tapes made a secret recording in front of police without them noticing and then he played the clio in church I believe. I know that regardless of what ORO thinks the FBI has copies. It is still co sided an ongoing investigation and that judge has no authority to make them destroy their copy which they will neither confirm. Or deny they have. There is the common sense angle that the FBI would have copies or originals of the same evidence the local cops had since they were also conducting their own investigation, but there is evidence that multiple copies of each tape were made
Instigator
#36
Added:
--> @billbatard
You don't know what you are talking about LOL. First of all, all studies show correlation. Causation is something that is pretty much unprovable, but correlation does suggest causation many times. I think the whole causation does not equal correlation argument I the face of good evidence is just a technique to try and wave the evidence away without critically examining it. You are also wrong about sociopaths. People can be born without much capacity for empathy. In fact that is pretty much 100% of babies. All babies are sociopaths. So to say you can't be born one is silly. Not all sociopaths have antisocial conduct nor do all psychopaths though all people with antisocial personality disorder are pretty much at the least low level sociopaths. The DSM5 has left out the word sociopath but I am not talking about aspd like the term seems conflated with lately. I am referring to people who lack the ability to have empathy like normal humans do.
Instigator
#35
Added:
--> @Wylted
sociopaths ar emade and if you treat them right they wont grow up to be sociopaths psycopaths are born but even with them there can be a trigger a proper upbrinign will prevent anti social conduct often
#34
Added:
first of all ew just ew and second i think this is hard to quantify since child porn is illegal everywhere, and should be and may i please say loudly and clearly CORELATION IS NOT CAUSATION YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVE A CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN EASY ACCESS to child porn and lower sex assault levels a third variable most certainly must be in play, i say we just hunt down and kill al pedophiles and be done with it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
#33
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro pretty much lied about Con's concession for a tied debate, which is extremely poor conduct.
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro's final round statement was not topical, leaving this as a full forfeit (every round, or every round after the first). Plus lying about objective reality is a huge pet peeve of mine (had a creeper obsessed with me back on DDO, he made up a bunch of statements I was supposed to have made, and then cried about how unfair objective reality was for discriminating against him via not warping to what he wants to have happened...).
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
FF:
Free
(Votes)
For
(Me)
:)
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Disclaimer:
This vote will contain some of my personal beliefs, this is however almost irrelevant as my vote still is objective regardless. Now onto my vote.
A very sad turn of events when one side tries to cheat and lie. Wylted blatantly lied about orogami's supposed " PM " which detailed that they both " agreed " the debate should be a tie.
I must say I am rather disappointed in Wylted as I expected much more from him in terms of debate conduct.
Take your loss with dignity and the fact you have to resort to forging lies only highlights that in the end you have no sense of honor and upon examining an earlier lie in one of his previous debates, you be ashamed of yourself for trying to character assassinate bsh1 which could have ended with him getting his mod status removed or possibly banned.
Ultimately I MUST award all points to Con as he didn't resort to making up lies and didn't FF the majority of the rounds.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro's lie is certainly not surprising since he is known to have lied before in his debate with bsh. That being said, lying to sway voters is absolutely abhorrent and is conduct that I feel is worthy of a 7-point merit loss.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct-
Reason 1:Wylted attempted to trick voters into thinking Oromagi agreed to a tie, he fails to prove this and Oro denies it. I can only believe Wylted lied.
Reason 2:Wylted forfeits many rounds, and when he didn't in Round 5, he lied to try to manipulate voters.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro forfeited. Plus apparently Pro attempted to sway the voters. Votes go to Con. Love the debate topic, though
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
shady tactics,bad no no