Instigator / Pro
21
1300
rating
221
debates
44.8%
won
Topic
#3633

Should children have the right to watch porn?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
0

After 3 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

Best.Korea
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
9
1553
rating
9
debates
72.22%
won
Description

I wonder if activists for childrens rights should include this right in their currently poor list of rights.
Well, the topic is clear enough and I dont think I have to add anything in description.

Round 1
Pro
#1
I wont write much in round one.
My basic stance is:
1) children like to watch porn
2) most of the children have touched themselves 
3) most of the children have sexual feelings
4) porn doesnt cause too much harm
5) some children will watch porn anyway even if they are punished for watching it
6) adults are allowed to watch porn, so I dont see why children dont have the same right
Con
#2
Their Case

1) children like to watch porn
Serial killers like to kill people, but it does not mean they have the right to do so. I do not want to crush my hand with a hammer, but I have the right to do this as well. Wants have nothing to do with what we consider a right, and the fact that someone likes something is completely irrelevant. 

2) most of the children have touched themselves 
3) most of the children have sexual feelings
Again, I see no relevance to rights here.

4) porn doesnt cause too much harm
But it does cause harm, so I will take this as conceded for now. Also this is irrelevant. Stealing a penny is going to do little to no harm, but I do not have the right to do this.

5) some children will watch porn anyway even if they are punished for watching it
What relevance does this have? Serial killers still commit murder even when the death penalty exists, but this does not mean that we should give a right to murder because even if punishment is not 100% effective murder is still bad.

My opponent simply has not met the burden of proof because nothing that has been said talks to what and what should not be considered a right. 

My case
Porn often leads to addiction [1], and in the end this does not give someone freedom it takes it away. "Today, pornograhy is being watched by younger (and more impressionable) citizens than ever. Too many risk becoming addicted later in their lives. Those who do will have chosen licentiousness over the true liberty that would allow them to experience the full palette of civic freedoms. Is there anything else more worth living for? After all, the goal of education ought to be to help our youth make sense of the truly valuable freedoms that are their birthright and to teach them to orient their liberty toward justice." [2] 

There is a difference between a legal affordance, and a right. You are theoretically allowed to do anything as long as there is no law against it, but this does not mean that all of those things are rights. Rights are the liberties which should not be taken away under any circumstances by a higher power. 

"Liberty is the freedom to do only good; licentiousness is the freedom to do what is evil. That is why we have laws lest we become a lawless society. Our Constitution wasn’t written to guarantee licentiousness, but liberty. Free speech wasn’t written to guarantee freedom to use all manner of profanity, vulgarity or violence. It was written to guarantee freedom for people to voice their opinion." [3]


Round 2
Pro
#3
"Serial killers like to kill people, but it does not mean they have the right to do so."
Cars kill people. You dont ban cars. Smoking kills people. You dont ban smoking. Electricity kills people. You dont ban electricity. So basically, why do you imply that killing is bad while at the same time giving support to things that kill people?

"I do not want to crush my hand with a hammer, but I have the right to do this as well."
If you have the right to hurt yourself and others, surely children can have the right to watch porn.

"Wants have nothing to do with what we consider a right, and the fact that someone likes something is completely irrelevant."
Then surely you could explain to us what is relevant then? Only those rights that you desire? 

And you dont see childs desires to be relevant to their rights? But you see yours! In the same way you discard childs desires, I discard yours.


"But it does cause harm, so I will take this as conceded for now."
Cars cause harm. Meat causes harm. Internet causes harm. If you think you can ban things because they cause harm, then either ban everything either change your inconsistent logic.

"Also this is irrelevant. Stealing a penny is going to do little to no harm, but I do not have the right to do this."
And why not? Why dont you have the right to steal it if it causes little harm? Cars cause much more harm, yet people are allowed to drive cars.

"What relevance does this have? Serial killers still commit murder even when the death penalty exists, but this does not mean that we should give a right to murder because even if punishment is not 100% effective murder is still bad."
Except that you dont think murder is bad, which is proven in previous arguments.
Of course, you fail to connect the dots. You cant say that one type of harm is bad, but the other type of harm is okay just because you like it.

"nothing that has been said talks to what and what should not be considered a right."
Well, do I need to repeat it a 100 times? 
Children like it and it doesnt cause too much harm. This was the basis for all other rights in history. 

"Porn often leads to addiction [1], and in the end this does not give someone freedom it takes it away." 
Everything can cause addiction. Many things destroy freedom. Cars destroy freedom when they kill people. Internet causes addiction. Smoking destroys freedom and causes addiction. Electricity destroys freedom for all those killed by it. Meat destroys freedom and causes addiction.
Maybe work on your logic so its actually applicable and not inconsistent. 

"true liberty that would allow them to experience the full palette of civic freedoms."
Liberty that allows to experience freedom? Are you even reading what you write?
Also, we have already proven that these freedoms are destroyed in every society and the only way for you to apply freedom would be to ban everything that destroys it which would limit your society to a tribe without cars or electricity. 

"truly valuable freedoms that are their birthright and to teach them to orient their liberty toward justice." There is no justice in your society. You dont want justice. I dont see why are you lying. You allow one type of harm, but ban the other. That is not justice. Unless your definition of justice is "only those things I like".

"Rights are the liberties which should not be taken away under any circumstances by a higher power."
By this, nobody has any rights. Rights are taken away every day in every country. So maybe think of some other definition that doesnt exclude entire human race.


"Liberty is the freedom to do only good"
Yeah, then turn off your electricity. Its harmful.

"That is why we have laws lest we become a lawless society."
Nice circular reasoning. So we should have porn otherwise we become a pornless society.
See? I can make those circles too.

"Our Constitution wasn’t written to guarantee licentiousness, but liberty."
Sorry, what constitution is that? USA? Did you just assume that I am from USA? Well, I have never been so insulted in my life.
Also, your constitution doesnt guarantee liberty. This is proven by 30000 deaths from cars alone. You destroy liberty. So maybe work on that.

"Free speech wasn’t written to guarantee freedom to use all manner of profanity, vulgarity or violence.
It was written to guarantee freedom for people to voice their opinion."
If you sext a 10 year old girl, you go to prison. If you just say to an 8 year old girl that you would like to see her naked and masturbating, you go to prison. Where is this freedom of speech you are talking about? 




















Con
#4
Cars kill people. You dont ban cars. Smoking kills people. You dont ban smoking. Electricity kills people. You dont ban electricity. So basically, why do you imply that killing is bad while at the same time giving support to things that kill people?
No, bad drivers kill people which is why we try to implement traffic laws and prosecute drunk drivers.

Smoking might be bad and there is no ban against it, but there is no codified right to smoking either. 

Same point on electricity, but also how many people does electricity actually kill a year? Not that many. 

Killing people is bad and I support things that kill people because I am not an idealist and I understand that without things like electricity far more would actually be harmed, but my ideology is irrelevant to the resolution and this is simply an ad-hominem attack.

If you have the right to hurt yourself and others, surely children can have the right to watch porn.
Conceded - I have no right to hurt myself.


Then surely you could explain to us what is relevant then? Only those rights that you desire? 
And you dont see childs desires to be relevant to their rights? But you see yours! In the same way you discard childs desires, I discard yours.
Refer to my point on civic freedoms.

Cars cause harm. Meat causes harm. Internet causes harm. If you think you can ban things because they cause harm, then either ban everything either change your inconsistent logic.
There is no codified right to these things so yes, we can ban them if we want to. In reality these things a beneficial in a relative sense, but these modern systems protect people far more which is why death rates have gone down dramatically since that dark ages.

And why not? Why dont you have the right to steal it if it causes little harm? Cars cause much more harm, yet people are allowed to drive cars.
I would be interested to see your source that says cars cause more harm than stealing a penny. To me it seems like cars enable an entire economic systems that sustains billions of people and has improved life expectance from thirty to eighty.

Except that you dont think murder is bad, which is proven in previous arguments.
Of course, you fail to connect the dots. You cant say that one type of harm is bad, but the other type of harm is okay just because you like it.

Well, do I need to repeat it a 100 times? 
Children like it and it doesnt cause too much harm. This was the basis for all other rights in history. 
Wrong. John Locke laid out the foundation for our modern day of rights through the lens of civic liberties. Throughout history there was a separation of rights from licentiousness.

Everything can cause addiction. Many things destroy freedom. Cars destroy freedom when they kill people. Internet causes addiction. Smoking destroys freedom and causes addiction. Electricity destroys freedom for all those killed by it. Meat destroys freedom and causes addiction.
Maybe work on your logic so its actually applicable and not inconsistent. 
Cars enable economic systems, as does the internet, electricity, and meat. Again, none of these things are codified rights in the first place. 

Liberty that allows to experience freedom? Are you even reading what you write?
Also, we have already proven that these freedoms are destroyed in every society and the only way for you to apply freedom would be to ban everything that destroys it which would limit your society to a tribe without cars or electricity. 
I do read what I write as a matter of fact, and in fact freedom does not equal liberty. Liberty does not include licentiousness and is ensured by rights, whereas freedom includes whatever you can do and is ensured by nothing. 

I have already responded to the point on cars and electricity. There is no codified right to these things, and they are actually beneficial to society which is why we allow them to exist. 

"Rights are the liberties which should not be taken away under any circumstances by a higher power."
By this, nobody has any rights. Rights are taken away every day in every country. So maybe think of some other definition that doesnt exclude entire human race.
I said should not be taken away, not can not be taken away. 

"Liberty is the freedom to do only good"
Yeah, then turn off your electricity. Its harmful.
AD HOMINEM and electricity is good 

"Liberty is the freedom to do only good; licentiousness is the freedom to do what is evil. That is why we have laws lest we become a lawless society."
Nice circular reasoning. So we should have porn otherwise we become a pornless society.

See? I can make those circles too.
A lawless society is bad, a pornless society is good.  This is not circular logic. Not having laws creates a lawless society by definition. 

"Our Constitution wasn’t written to guarantee licentiousness, but liberty."
Sorry, what constitution is that? USA? Did you just assume that I am from USA? Well, I have never been so insulted in my life.
Also, your constitution doesnt guarantee liberty. This is proven by 30000 deaths from cars alone. You destroy liberty. So maybe work on that.
Our can refer to MY country, but also the USA is the most relevant considering the concept of a right and history.

"Free speech wasn’t written to guarantee freedom to use all manner of profanity, vulgarity or violence.
It was written to guarantee freedom for people to voice their opinion."
If you sext a 10 year old girl, you go to prison. If you just say to an 8 year old girl that you would like to see her naked and masturbating, you go to prison. Where is this freedom of speech you are talking about? 
As I said, not profanity, vulgarity, or violence. Civic opinions. 
Round 3
Pro
#5

No, bad drivers kill people which is why we try to implement traffic laws and prosecute drunk drivers. 
There wouldnt be bad drivers if there were no cars. So your argument falls apart.

"Smoking might be bad and there is no ban against it, but there is no codified right to smoking either."
Well, it seems you dont understand the simple logic I used. If smoking destoys life, it destroys rights too. So the codified rights are violated. If it destroys rights, how can it be allowed and not punished by others? But children are punished when they watch porn? 
Also, you dont seem to understand what rights are. I usually dont like explaining simple things. But the most simple definition that you might be able to understand is "rights are something that a person can do without being punished".
Of course, I already know you wont understand this simple definition. 
But lets assume you understood it. So basically, people have a right to smoke. Even tho its harmful, they are not punished by society.

"Same point on electricity, but also how many people does electricity actually kill a year? Not that many."
Not that many? Did you just say its okay to kill people just because you dont kill too many? 


"Killing people is bad and I support things that kill people"
Yeah, we know that.

"because I am not an idealist and I understand that without things like electricity far more would actually be harmed"
How would you be harmed if you didnt have electrucity in your house? Would you die? No. So your argument fails.

"but my ideology is irrelevant to the resolution and this is simply an ad-hominem attack."
So you are saying just because your logic is inconsistent and full of fallacies, that it should be still accepted by others or otherwise you will feel attacked? Please, tell me more.

"Refer to my point on civic freedoms."
I dont see the point of reading again the point that is proven to be inconsistent.

"There is no codified right to these things so yes, we can ban them(cars) if we want to."
You seem to be confusing the rights written on the paper with those you actually have. "We can" doesnt mean anything. Either you do ban them, either you dont. So far you didnt, and that has violated the rights of millions of people who died because of your fancy cars.

"In reality these things a beneficial in a relative sense, but these modern systems protect people far more which is why death rates have gone down dramatically since that dark ages."
So basically, since today you killed less people than you killed yesterday, you are a good person? Yeah, you are not making any sense at this point.

"I would be interested to see your source that says cars cause more harm than stealing a penny. To me it seems like cars enable an entire economic systems that sustains billions of people and has improved life expectance from thirty to eighty."
Sorry, what do cars enable? Your car only serves you so that you can go to work. You can go to work on a scooter too. There is no difference. In your argument, you assumed that there is no better alternative for cars. So please, tell me, what is the role of your car? And why that role cannot be done by a scooter or a bus or a train on a fenced railway that is thousand times safer? 
If your car doesnt contribute to increase of life expectancy, and doesnt contribute to your work, in a way that cannot be replaced by any safer means, then your car is harmful and to remain consistent in your logic you need to get rid of it along with 99% of all other cars in your country. 
Also, your claim that cars enabled medicine doesnt seem to have any logical support. The delivery of a medicine doesnt require cars. Production of medicine doesnt require cars. Your correlation between cars and medicine doesnt seem to prove any causation of one by the other. Especially since most people dont produce medicine, so their cars play no role in medicine and hence play no positive role in life expectancy. However, when a 5 year old girl gets crushed by a car because people like you think all cars are awesome, and then when you want to come to me to educate me about what is harmful, how can you expect from me to listen to you when you literally justified murder?

"Wrong. John Locke laid out the foundation for our modern day of rights through the lens of civic liberties."
Yeah, he did that on a basis of what he liked and wanted. Maybe I need to explain again? Also, its already proven you dont respect those rights and that those rights are unachivable and contradicting. Maybe actually come up with something better than fairy tales that you yourself fail to belive in.

"Throughout history there was a separation of rights from licentiousness."
No. We just proved that you and your society violate rights of others whenever you like to do that.
I understand that lying might help you in life, but it wont help you much here.

"Cars enable economic systems, as does the internet, electricity, and meat."
Sorry, are you joking? I already explained to you about cars. And no, electricity in your house doesnt enable any enonomic system. Economy would work even if 80% of people didnt have cars or electricity in their homes. Electricity in your house doesnt increase your life expectancy in any way, nor does it make you work better. Just because you confuse scientific development with consumption, that doesnt mean one leads to another. Its not the cars that allowed scientific development. Its the scientific development that allowed cars. Its not electricity in your house that allowed medicine. Science allowed medicine just like science allowed electricity in your house.

So, now I have to explain about the meat too? I thought at least this one you will be able to understand, but no. Meat allows economy and medicine? Meat does exactly the opposite. It harms health, and it harms economy, and it harms the animals. I dont see how could you not know this. Have you ever seen the price of meat and compared it to price of vegetables and fruits? Like, I understand its difficult to be educated if you live in america, but that doesnt mean you shouldnt try.
Again, you violate the rights of others when you see fit, proving my point.

"Again, none of these things are codified rights in the first place."
Again, mistaking codified rights for rights.

"I do read what I write as a matter of fact, and in fact freedom does not equal liberty."
Yeah, apparently you dont understand the difference yourself,

as proven here:
"Liberty does not include licentiousness and is ensured by rights, whereas freedom includes whatever you can do and is ensured by nothing."
Liberty is not ensured in your society. We have already proven that. You violate the rights of others.
Also, liberty does include your personal preference since you violate it every time you like.

"There is no codified right to these things, and they are actually beneficial to society which is why we allow them to exist."
Codified rights dont exist. You either have rights, either dont. It doesnt matter if it says on a piece of paper that you have rights, if you dont actually have them. 
Also, cars kill many people every year. How is that beneficial? I already explained why they are harmful and not needed.


"I said(rights) should not be taken away, not can not be taken away." 
Yes, and that contradicts to you saying that harmful things should be allowed when they violate rights.

"AD HOMINEM and electricity is good"
You didnt explain how is electricity in your house not harmful, as it can literally kill you or children.
Also, you didnt explain how electricity in your house increases anyones life expectancy by even 1 second. So if it doesnt increase life expectancy and could kill you, its harmful. So turn it off.


"A lawless society is bad, a pornless society is good."
Yeah, except that just as you correlated cars to life expectancy, I can correlate porn to  it and say that because of porn people have increased their life expectancy.
Its obvious that using correlations is unreliable. So maybe spend more time educating yourself and use actual logic.

"This is not circular logic. Not having laws creates a lawless society by definition."
If I say that bird is a bird, its circular logic. Its the same thing as saying lawless society has no laws. Its just repeating same thing twice.

"Our can refer to MY country, but also the USA is the most relevant considering the concept of a right and history."
Yeah, I dont know what history and rights are you talking about. Your country killed over 100 million people, imprisoned a good amount of its population, sent children to prisons, forced children to take harmful substances, allowed and encouraged corporal punishment of children, encouraged forced circumcision, imprisoned and raped pedophiles for having consensual sex with children, created hell in prisons, encouraged bullying in schools, allowed harming of children by society and by parents, encouraged lies such as religious ones, killed billions of animals for meat and on the roads, forced children to consume meat, violated the will of many children by telling them what they are not allowed to do with their own bodies, spent billions on propaganda to encourage hate, forced the children to live in terrible conditions that ruined their mental, dental and overall health, forced children to consume harmful food that ruins their teeth and health, promoted the use of force against children...
I would write more, but at this point my hand starts to hurt 

"As I said, not profanity, vulgarity, or violence. Civic opinions"
If a man thinks an 8 year old girl is sexy, thats his opinion. If he has no right to say it to her, he has no freedom of speech.
You cant limit the freedom of speech, because when you limit speech, there is no freedom of speech anymore. So dont pretend that you have freedom. Its not convincing at this point.

Con
#6
Forfeited
Round 4
Pro
#7
Umm you forfeit? Thats not fair...
Con
#8
Forfeited
Round 5
Pro
#9
You are basically saying I am not good enough for you to even talk to me. This is probably because of my muslim origin. I cant seem to get rid of it. Every time I read quran, I find in it the torture methods Allah will use on unbelievers. Its literally in every chapter of Quran. So I fully understand that you dont want to have anything to do with me. In fact, I think its fully justified and I think that you have won this debate. If I could vote, I would vote for you. Personally, I dont like when people vote for me because it makes me feel like I am a dog seeking their attention and approval. 
Con
#10
Forfeited