Instigator / Pro
0
1309
rating
281
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#4621

For and against the loli

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1469
rating
348
debates
41.52%
won
Description

Burden of proof is shared.

Pro argues that loli porn should be legal. Con argues that loli porn shouldnt be legal. Pro wins only if he proves that loli porn should be legal. Con wins only if he proves that loli porn shouldnt be legal.

Loli porn definition:
An animated images or videos that involve sexual scenes with young characters. Those characters look like children, but they are not children. Those characters are not real, and dont represent real persons.

Now, if someone wishes to change the definition to something more suitable, let me know in the comments. Once the debate is accepted, the given definition cannot be changed. Therefore, both Pro and Con will have to use definition as it is, without adding words to it and without taking words from it.

Round 1
Pro
#1
I believe there is a case to be made here.

1. Freedom and happiness

P1) If loli porn makes people happy, then loli porn should be allowed.
P2) Loli porn makes people happy.
C) Loli porn should be allowed.

P1) If loli porn increases freedom, then loli porn should be allowed.
P2) Loli porn increases freedom.
C) Loli porn should be allowed.

2. Satisfaction of urges

P1) If people can satisfy their urges with loli porn, then loli porn should be allowed.
P2) People can satisfy their urges with loli porn.
C) Loli porn should be allowed.

3. Lack of harm

P1) If loli porn causes no harm to anyone, then loli porn should be allowed.
P2) Loli porn causes no harm to anyone.
C) Loli porn should be allowed.

4. Preventing harm

P1) If people have urges, then those urges wont disappear if loli porn is not allowed.
P2) People have urges.
C) Those urges wont disappear if loli porn is not allowed.

P1) If being able to satisfy urges without harm means that a person wont have to use harmful ways to satisfy urges, then being able to satisfy urges without harm causes a person to be less likely to satisfy urges in harmful ways.
P2) Being able to satisfy urges without harm means that a person wont have to use harmful ways to satisfy urges.
C) Being able to satisfy urges without harm causes a person to be less likely to satisfy urges in harmful ways.

P1) If being able to satisfy urges without harm causes a person to be less likely to satisfy urges in harmful ways, then being able to satisfy urges without harm should be allowed.
P2) Being able to satisfy urges without harm causes a person to be less likely to satisfy urges in harmful ways.
C) Being able to satisfy urges without harm should be allowed.

P1) If allowing loli porn means that people will be able to sayisfy urges without harm, then allowing loli porn causes a person to be less likely to satisfy urges in harmful ways.
P2) Allowing loli porn means that people will be able to satisfy urges without harm.
C) Allowing loli porn causes a person to be less likely to satisfy urges in harmful ways.

P1) If allowing loli porn causes a person to be less likely to satisfy urges in harmful ways, then loli porn should be allowed.
P2) Allowing loli porn causes a person to be less likely to satisfy urges in harmful ways.
C) Loli porn should be allowed.

Conclusion
It is true that loli porn:
1) Increases freedom,
2) Makes people happy,
3) Satisfies urges,
4) Causes no harm,
5) Prevents harm.

Therefore, loli porn should be allowed.
Con
#2
With children pornography being illegal, it makes sense and is only consistent that animated child pornography is.

Under federal law I understand, any representations, depictions, images of child sexual matters are categorized as obscene. 

So my position is really why should this obscene matter remain illegal.

Now one question right out of the gate, do you , the opposing side, agree that real person child pornography remain illegal?

If you do, then that's as far as I have to go with it.

"Freedom and happiness

P1) If loli porn makes people happy, then loli porn should be allowed."

Human trafficking makes people happy. Sadistic acts make people happy. Depending on the extent of the damages affects the punishment for the acts.

The punishment doesn't cease because people receive happiness and take the freedom in their hands to do these things. Being that the punishment does not cease, it being illegal doesn't cease. That is why there's a penalty.

"P2) Loli porn increases freedom."

Increases freedom to do what?

"P1) If people can satisfy their urges with loli porn, then loli porn should be allowed.
P2) People can satisfy their urges with loli porn."

What kind of urge that can't be fulfilled else where?

"P1) If loli porn causes no harm to anyone, then loli porn should be allowed.
P2) Loli porn causes no harm to anyone."

Being that according to these statements of "no harm", why is it illegal?

You made many repetitious points about "no harm". I think we comprehend the point.

"Conclusion
It is true that loli porn:
1) Increases freedom,
2) Makes people happy,
3) Satisfies urges,
4) Causes no harm,
5) Prevents harm.

Therefore, loli porn should be allowed."

Some things again to expound on from your side is freedom and urge. 

Freedom to do what? 

What type of urge that can't be cured or rectified?

With those five points listed in the conclusion, pretty straightforward and simple, would you think?

Then why do you think as simple as you laid it out, animated child pornography is illegal as child pornography?

Surely the federal government can comprehend this simplistic outline.








Round 2
Pro
#3
With children pornography being illegal, it makes sense and is only consistent that animated child pornography is.
Child pornography is when someone records a real child doing sexual activity. However, loli is not when someone records a real child doing sexual activity. Loli is not child pornography. Loli porn is just an animation that doesnt require anyone to record children or make children do sexual activities.

Under federal law I understand, any representations, depictions, images of child sexual matters are categorized as obscene. So my position is really why should this obscene matter remain illegal.
Law is not always right.

Now one question right out of the gate, do you , the opposing side, agree that real person child pornography remain illegal?
I would say that it shouldnt be illegal, but is that relevant to this debate?

Human trafficking makes people happy. Sadistic acts make people happy. Depending on the extent of the damages affects the punishment for the acts.
They cause harm to others. Loli porn simply causes no harm, but makes people happy.

The punishment doesn't cease because people receive happiness and take the freedom in their hands to do these things. Being that the punishment does not cease, it being illegal doesn't cease. That is why there's a penalty.
I am arguing that there shouldnt be punishment for loli.

Increases freedom to do what?
Increases freedom to watch and enjoy loli.

What kind of urge that can't be fulfilled else where?
Urge for loli. People cant fullfill it else where, since loli includes characters that look like children. Therefore, loli helps those who have attraction to children, and helps them in a safe way.

Being that according to these statements of "no harm", why is it illegal?
Its not illegal in all countries. But law is irrelevant, since law can make mistakes. Besides, we cannot say "its harmful because its illegal", since the debate is about if it should be legal and what happens if it is legal.

What type of urge that can't be cured or rectified?
I dont think there is a need to cure urges that harm no one, and I dont hold belief that urges can be cured or rectified. Urge for loli will exist even if loli is banned, so what is the point of a ban? Such ban would not reduce harm, but it would reduce happiness.

With those five points listed in the conclusion, pretty straightforward and simple, would you think?
Then why do you think as simple as you laid it out, animated child pornography is illegal as child pornography? Surely the federal government can comprehend this simplistic outline.
The biggest reason governments ban loli is because loli looks like a child.

Why do you think that loli shouldnt be legal? Is it because it looks similar to child pornography?

Does loli hurt anyone?
Con
#4
"I would say that it shouldnt be illegal, but is that relevant to this debate?"

Yes.

So all child pornography should be legal whether depicted by actual persons or animated images.

So because this is the position you're assuming, not only will the authorities keep close watch on you, monitor your media, if you haven't realized by now, you're supporting child exploitation and grounds for abuse. It's on the same level as pedophilia interests. It also would mean supporting images whether they're animated or not, they're still images that feed into pedophile stimulation.

"They cause harm to others. Loli porn simply causes no harm, but makes people happy."

How do you know that animated images are impossible to be used as fuel for a abuser's hand to sexually manipulate a child?

I don't think you understand the visual promotion developing into criminal offense.

You say it makes people happy. I'm not happy with it. My next door neighbor isn't. I'm willing to argue there're many individuals on this site that aren't. I'd imagine there are those in government that aren't.

Just because pedophiles and reprobates are elated and besides themselves, doesn't mean make it legal.

"Increases freedom to watch and enjoy loli."

This point is unsubstantial. People that enjoy child pornography is not substantial to make it legal to possess. Enjoying heroin use does not make it legal to possess. You have to argue for more than the enjoyment of things. If things were simply legalized by nature of enjoyment, so many adverse things would be practiced on account of hedonistic agendas.

"Urge for loli. People cant fullfill it else where, since loli includes characters that look like children. Therefore, loli helps those who have attraction to children, and helps them in a safe way."

I'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle. We don't live in a society where we encourage attraction to children in this manner. This type of urge has to be dismantled and hopefully cured. For the overall protection of children. Even with animated images, it is the gateway , the steam in a coal engine if you will that boils in the lust of hearts from those seeking satisfaction that can't be fulfilled by under developed beings.

"Its not illegal in all countries. But law is irrelevant, since law can make mistakes. Besides, we cannot say "its harmful because its illegal", since the debate is about if it should be legal and what happens if it is legal."

Please answer the question. Being that according to these statements of "no harm", why is it illegal?

Let us not be dense. Why is it illegal WHEREVER it is illegal?

"I dont think there is a need to cure urges that harm no one, and I dont hold belief that urges can be cured or rectified. Urge for loli will exist even if loli is banned, so what is the point of a ban? Such ban would not reduce harm, but it would reduce happiness."

In support of protecting children by not feeding into the lustful, sexually twisted perhaps mentally ill, it's an ailment that would have to be cured. Seeking sexual gratification from an under developed person while being fully developed is a pure disorder.

This is the crux of you and or many others fighting for , championing for child pornography, child animated cartoon pornography. Whether you made it clear already or not, by having this type of material available, accessible, those that clearly have the interest can to some extent satisfy themselves in a transient fashion to prevent exacerbation with actual children. Being that this topic is not on child pornography, children don't actually have to be exploited as soon anyways. The process is slowed down because of animated images but it will not suffice permanently. It's only a matter of time .

The animated images serve like a serum that the marvel's fictional character Blade uses. Holds back the thirst, keeps it at bay, hampers or restrains the want for the real thing. But just as the saying goes with that character, "the thirst always wins". 

"Can Virtual Sex Prevent Pedophiles from Harming Children in Real Life?" This was taken from an article written on vice.com

The article is way too controversial to consider any legality. So because of it, we don't have people that would vote in the legality of such material to serve as outlets. Being that the role of government passes laws based on the society, the government should maintain what is illegal from whatever is driving it to continue to be which would be society, people, governing bodies, elected officials, congress, administrators, etc.

Far too many would vote for a cure, not an outlet. The government just reflects whatever the votes are. The effect should be from what the cause is. The law is the effect that mirrors the image of the people.

Happy 4th of July.

"The biggest reason governments ban loli is because loli looks like a child."

So what? It's got to be more to it than that. Things are not illegal from an appearance of children. So many things like pictures, commercials, ads with children exist. This is not very forthcoming of you. 
 
The questions you presented were pretty much answered into being summarized above. The title of the article I mentioned goes in depth of what I'm talking about.

You can have your "no contact offenses" . You can have your outlets. It still doesn't remove the risk of offense or harm unless the individual with these perverted attractions be not left alone with any child defenseless.






Round 3
Pro
#5
So all child pornography should be legal whether depicted by actual persons or animated images.
This topic is only about loli.

So because this is the position you're assuming, not only will the authorities keep close watch on you, monitor your media, if you haven't realized by now, you're supporting child exploitation and grounds for abuse. It's on the same level as pedophilia interests. It also would mean supporting images whether they're animated or not, they're still images that feed into pedophile stimulation.
Contrary to the popular belief, the urges dont disappear just because person doesnt see loli porn. Person can see children in public and still feel urges.

How do you know that animated images are impossible to be used as fuel for a abuser's hand to sexually manipulate a child?
Regular porn makes people less willing to make relationships with women. There is no reason to think that loli porn wont make people less willing to make relationships with children or to be less willing to abuse children.

I don't think you understand the visual promotion developing into criminal offense.
You cant stop people from seeing children in public and feeling urges, but you can give people loli porn so that their urges can be directed towards loli.

You say it makes people happy. I'm not happy with it. My next door neighbor isn't. I'm willing to argue there're many individuals on this site that aren't. I'd imagine there are those in government that aren't.
It doesnt prevent their happiness, as they arent forced to watch it. However, it does increase happiness of people attracted to loli.

This point is unsubstantial. People that enjoy child pornography is not substantial to make it legal to possess. Enjoying heroin use does not make it legal to possess. You have to argue for more than the enjoyment of things. If things were simply legalized by nature of enjoyment, so many adverse things would be practiced on account of hedonistic agendas.
Loli porn makes people happy, but also doesnt cause any harm.

I'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle. We don't live in a society where we encourage attraction to children in this manner. This type of urge has to be dismantled and hopefully cured. For the overall protection of children. Even with animated images, it is the gateway , the steam in a coal engine if you will that boils in the lust of hearts from those seeking satisfaction that can't be fulfilled by under developed beings.
Loli does not encourage attraction to children. Loli just helps satisfy the urges. Even without loli, people will still see children and be attracted to them.

Please answer the question. Being that according to these statements of "no harm", why is it illegal?
Because people mistakenly assume that it is harmful.

In support of protecting children by not feeding into the lustful, sexually twisted perhaps mentally ill, it's an ailment that would have to be cured. Seeking sexual gratification from an under developed person while being fully developed is a pure disorder.
Well, so far cure hasnt been invented. If there is no cure, then it should be managed. If it should be managed, then loli porn should be allowed as loli porn manages it.

This is the crux of you and or many others fighting for , championing for child pornography, child animated cartoon pornography. Whether you made it clear already or not, by having this type of material available, accessible, those that clearly have the interest can to some extent satisfy themselves in a transient fashion to prevent exacerbation with actual children. Being that this topic is not on child pornography, children don't actually have to be exploited as soon anyways. The process is slowed down because of animated images but it will not suffice permanently. It's only a matter of time.
Delaying and minimizing abuse is still better than not delaying and not minimizing abuse, wouldnt you agree? Besides, we cant really just assume that every person would, after being given the safe option, go after real children. Loli simply doesnt cause any harm, but it would be preventing harm or at least it would reduce harm.

The animated images serve like a serum that the marvel's fictional character Blade uses. Holds back the thirst, keeps it at bay, hampers or restrains the want for the real thing. But just as the saying goes with that character, "the thirst always wins".
It is better to be able to restrain the thirst than not to be able to restrain the thirst.

The article is way too controversial to consider any legality. So because of it, we don't have people that would vote in the legality of such material to serve as outlets. Being that the role of government passes laws based on the society, the government should maintain what is illegal from whatever is driving it to continue to be which would be society, people, governing bodies, elected officials, congress, administrators, etc.
Its legal in Japan, for example. Japan has very low crime rate. Besides, loli simply doesnt hurt anyone.

Far too many would vote for a cure, not an outlet. The government just reflects whatever the votes are. The effect should be from what the cause is. The law is the effect that mirrors the image of the people.
Sadly, there is no cure yet. However, loli is safe as an outlet.

Happy 4th of July.
Happy 4th of July.

So what? It's got to be more to it than that. Things are not illegal from an appearance of children. So many things like pictures, commercials, ads with children exist. This is not very forthcoming of you.
Well, the only reason government hates loli is because loli looks like a child doing sexual activities. They assume it is harmful, but loli is just an animation. She harms no one.

You can have your "no contact offenses" . You can have your outlets. It still doesn't remove the risk of offense or harm unless the individual with these perverted attractions be not left alone with any child defenseless
It reduces the risk. Even regular people who watch regular porn are less likely to seek women.
Con
#6
"Contrary to the popular belief, the urges dont disappear just because person doesnt see loli porn. Person can see children in public and still feel urges."

They don't disappear. That's the issue. The problem you'll have is the risk of more incitement than a deterrent.

"There is no reason to think that loli porn wont make people less willing to make relationships with children or to be less willing to abuse children."

This is a non answer. I'll put it this way using me directly. How do I know without a doubt, no second thoughts, no pause, that I leave a child in the care of someone that views child animated pornography constantly, that someone will not sexually take advantage of the child?

Just be honest, concede, you don't know. You can't read the mind or know futuristic decisions.

"You cant stop people from seeing children in public and feeling urges, but you can give people loli porn so that their urges can be directed towards loli."

Yes you can . All you have to do is put the handcuffs on, lock them up in prison .

"It doesnt prevent their happiness, as they arent forced to watch it. However, it does increase happiness of people attracted to loli."

I'll just continue this opposition trail along with you. It prevents my happiness and law enforcer's happiness when we think of children abused via child pornography whether animated or actual persons and pedophilia. 

"Loli porn makes people happy, but also doesnt cause any harm."

Until you prove that no incitement can incur from it, you're position is invalid. It will indeed reflect why this is classified as obscene and remains illegal. The public hasn't been proven to of this so the votes reflect that which reflects the kind of government we have.

"Loli does not encourage attraction to children. "

Prove it.

"Loli just helps satisfy the urges. "

Prove the satisfaction is sufficient.

"Even without loli, people will still see children and be attracted to them."

This is why this is a problem. Being that you can't prove the other assertions true, the risk is still there outside of suggestive material. The law is not going to permit adding fuel to the fire in the risk of it spiraling out of control .

The law trust me, trust me, will authorize a CURE , not an outlet.

"Because people mistakenly assume that it is harmful."

Why? Let's not beat around the bush. It seems when I get this down to the nitty gritty, you're not forthcoming in getting to the point.

Everything has a reason and point. You just peal back the outer layers not getting to the core.

"Well, so far cure hasnt been invented. If there is no cure, then it should be managed. If it should be managed, then loli porn should be allowed as loli porn manages it."

It's managed through law and government classified under criminality and the managed thereby are sentenced to federal restriction. Now it doesn't appear that you disagree with a cure. Which is a cue that child animated pornography doesn't suffice and you'd be correct.

"Delaying and minimizing abuse is still better than not delaying and not minimizing abuse, wouldnt you agree?"

Depends on what is meant by "better". When I use the term, it would be some type of improvement over something else. For example, delaying my death by dying slowly from something instead of instantly is not an improvement. I'm still headed for my last breath before the day is out.

Also there's a catch 22 you're missing when I said "The process is slowed down because of animated images but it will not suffice permanently. It's only a matter of time."

Overall it will not suffice meaning children will still fall victims. The whole layout is that there are several, perhaps hundreds, thousands of predators that can or will use this sexual material of images until the predators have to go physical to meet their physical urges as nothing compares or suffices that. They don't all go at once or transition from animated images to physical contact at one time. 

So you can say the abuse of children is slowed down for SOME predators because the pacing of events is different for each individual. So while one is just viewing animated images for the first time ever in one area or place of the world or location, another that has already viewed these images, has set out to prey on the children and has . This is not or there is not just one that sets out and has done so but multiple individuals all over the world.

We have both of these events going on so it's a delay and not a delay going on. That's the catch 22 so therefore the law has wind of it and nipped it in the bud.

"Besides, we cant really just assume that every person would, after being given the safe option, go after real children. "

The problem is we don't know. We not knowing is the danger.

"Loli simply doesnt cause any harm, but it would be preventing harm or at least it would reduce harm."

You say it doesn't but then say it reduces harm. If it can't fully eliminate it, it's still part of the problem and not part of the solution. The problem is the harm. The problem is the opening up of incitement and having some persons possibly not affected, not satiated by the images . These images aren't sufficient for some and certainly not an acceptable situation for the law to allow in what's supposed to be a thriving society. The law allows no collateral damage at all in the youth communities.

"It is better to be able to restrain the thirst than not to be able to restrain the thirst."

The problem is again for how long? Second, it's not just one predator. There are multiple predators that will have different reactionary times of attack. Remember the catch 22. Stop imagining a whole group is held up at once. While some are stalled, others are running full force with victimization. With some individuals, these animated child sexual images don't serve any satisfaction and physical contact is imperative.

From your position, it just reads as a sacrifice expendable collateral damage for the sake of so called freedom and enjoyment of predators. That's all society, the ones in their right mind and the government sees . 
The hell with the enjoyment, happiness and freewill of rapists, drug pushers, criminal drivers and thugs.

"Its legal in Japan, for example. Japan has very low crime rate. Besides, loli simply doesnt hurt anyone."

It's legal in one place but not everywhere. HUGE RED FLAGS. Right it doesn't hurt anyone. It just fuels the fire that does hurt somebody.

"Sadly, there is no cure yet. However, loli is safe as an outlet."

Then it would simply be legal. Oh and that's everywhere sorry, no exceptions.

"Well, the only reason government hates loli is because loli looks like a child doing sexual activities. They assume it is harmful, but loli is just an animation. She harms no one."

Is this your opinion?

"It reduces the risk. Even regular people who watch regular porn are less likely to seek women."

Grown women are a false equivalent to children. Reducing risk as you claim is insufficient. That's why the votes aren't there for it that would reflect in the government and the government should reflect what's in its mirror which is the image of "we the people ".

I'll give you this, you are honest that the issue of risk and the risk of the issue exists. Downplaying it is not the goal evidently for a society that criminalizes child pornography and animated child pornography. We want absolutely no risk that we can control and will thwart . We're not comprising, settling for a lesser risk as claimed, not proven but as claimed for the sake of satisfying individuals that the government will just have locked up anyways. Sending them in getting beat up while locked up .

Unless you have any new points, we're just riding on a ferris wheel of arguments.



















Round 4
Pro
#7

They don't disappear. That's the issue. The problem you'll have is the risk of more incitement than a deterrent.
Sexual urges towards children arent created by loli. They exist even without loli. Person who is attracted to children might act on the attraction. However, if he has loli, he can satisfy his desires with loli without acting on the attraction.

There are these options:
1. If person has to satisfy his urges, it is better that he satisfies them with loli than with a child.
2. If a person doesnt have to satisfy urges and can control them, then loli porn wont ruin that control any more than seeing a real child in public would ruin that control.

We know that people exist that have to satisfy their urges. Therefore, it is better to give them loli to prevent them from acting on their urges with a real child.

This is a non answer. I'll put it this way using me directly. How do I know without a doubt, no second thoughts, no pause, that I leave a child in the care of someone that views child animated pornography constantly, that someone will not sexually take advantage of the child?
You should not leave a child in the care of anyone you suspect might take advantage of a child.

But lets look at it in another way. Would you leave a child alone with someone who doesnt watch loli porn, but just says he is sexually attracted to children? You wouldnt. Loli porn makes no difference in the case of if you should leave child alone with the person or not. What makes a difference is person's sexual attraction to children, attraction that exists irrelevant of loli porn.

If you learned that someone watches loli porn, and because of that decided not to leave child with that person, then what would happen if there was no loli porn? You would never learn it, and you would leave the child with that person. That person would still have attraction towards children, even without loli porn.

Just be honest, concede, you don't know. You can't read the mind or know futuristic decisions.
We can go by the options I provided before. 
It is true that there are people who have to act on their urges. You can either give them loli porn, either not give them loli porn. Not giving them loli porn means they will have to act with a real child.

Yes you can . All you have to do is put the handcuffs on, lock them up in prison .
You cant. You dont know who has those urges until they act on it, either with loli either with child.

I'll just continue this opposition trail along with you. It prevents my happiness and law enforcer's happiness when we think of children abused via child pornography whether animated or actual persons and pedophilia.
Well, banning loli will not stop child abuse. So banning loli does not increase your happiness.

Until you prove that no incitement can incur from it, you're position is invalid. It will indeed reflect why this is classified as obscene and remains illegal. The public hasn't been proven to of this so the votes reflect that which reflects the kind of government we have.
I already pointed out arguments about safe outlet and how even regular porn reduces motivation at men to seek women.

Prove it.
If you look at the child, do you feel attraction? No. If you look at loli porn, do you feel attraction? No. Therefore, someone who has no attraction to children wont magically get attracted simply because he sees loli porn. 
Someone who is attracted to children will be attracted to children even if he doesnt see loli porn. However, loli porn allows urges to be satisfied without acting with real child.

Prove the satisfaction is sufficient.
It is sufficient to satisfy urges, as there are people who masturbate to loli porn. 

This is why this is a problem. Being that you can't prove the other assertions true, the risk is still there outside of suggestive material. The law is not going to permit adding fuel to the fire in the risk of it spiraling out of control .
Loli is not adding fuel to the fire. Rather, loli is there so that person doesnt have to act with real child to satisfy urges. There are people who have to satisfy urges. They can satisfy them with either loli either child. Removing loli does not help child at all.

The law trust me, trust me, will authorize a CURE , not an outlet.
There is no cure yet, tho.

Why? Let's not beat around the bush. It seems when I get this down to the nitty gritty, you're not forthcoming in getting to the point.
Everything has a reason and point. You just peal back the outer layers not getting to the core.
As I said, people mistakenly assume that it is harmful. They mistakenly assume, because loli simply doesnt harm anyone.

It's managed through law and government classified under criminality and the managed thereby are sentenced to federal restriction. Now it doesn't appear that you disagree with a cure. Which is a cue that child animated pornography doesn't suffice and you'd be correct
There is no cure yet. Also, managing through punishments is not as effective as managing through punishments but also allowing safe outlets.

Depends on what is meant by "better". When I use the term, it would be some type of improvement over something else. For example, delaying my death by dying slowly from something instead of instantly is not an improvement. I'm still headed for my last breath before the day is out.
But it is better to live for another 30 years than just 5 years. Same way, if loli makes person more unwilling to abuse children, and reduces the amount of children abused by a significant amount, it is better. Person who has loli porn is much less likely to seek children and abuse them. Person without loli porn would be more willing to constantly search for children to abuse.

Also there's a catch 22 you're missing when I said "The process is slowed down because of animated images but it will not suffice permanently. It's only a matter of time."
Well, slowing down is still better than not slowing down. Person only has a limited amount of time on Earth. The more he is delayed, the less he can abuse.

Overall it will not suffice meaning children will still fall victims. The whole layout is that there are several, perhaps hundreds, thousands of predators that can or will use this sexual material of images until the predators have to go physical to meet their physical urges as nothing compares or suffices that. They don't all go at once or transition from animated images to physical contact at one time.
There are these options:

1. People who will be satisfied by loli porn and wont abuse children.

2. People who are delayed by loli porn and the amount of children abused will decrease.

3. People who are unaffected by loli porn.

In all 3 cases, loli causes no harm.

So you can say the abuse of children is slowed down for SOME predators because the pacing of events is different for each individual. So while one is just viewing animated images for the first time ever in one area or place of the world or location, another that has already viewed these images, has set out to prey on the children and has . This is not or there is not just one that sets out and has done so but multiple individuals all over the world.
It was already explained that loli doesnt cause attraction to children. In fact, people in the past who didnt have loli still went around from one child to another because they had urges constantly and only children could satisfy those urges. But with loli, people can satisfy the urge quickly and have no need to actively seek children.

We have both of these events going on so it's a delay and not a delay going on. That's the catch 22 so therefore the law has wind of it and nipped it in the bud.
Wouldnt you agree that delay is better than lack of delay?

The problem is we don't know. We not knowing is the danger.
Banning loli will not make you know who has attraction to children. However, loli is there to satisfy urges, so that real child doesnt have to.

You say it doesn't but then say it reduces harm. If it can't fully eliminate it, it's still part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Its not part of the problem if it reduces harm. It reduces the problem by reducing harm.

The problem is the harm. The problem is the opening up of incitement and having some persons possibly not affected, not satiated by the images . These images aren't sufficient for some and certainly not an acceptable situation for the law to allow in what's supposed to be a thriving society. The law allows no collateral damage at all in the youth communities.
Loli was never proven to cause incitement. I already gave example of Japan, where loli is fully legal.
Loli doesnt cause sexual urges towards children, but just helps satisfy them so that real children dont have to.

The problem is again for how long? Second, it's not just one predator. There are multiple predators that will have different reactionary times of attack. Remember the catch 22. Stop imagining a whole group is held up at once. While some are stalled, others are running full force with victimization. With some individuals, these animated child sexual images don't serve any satisfaction and physical contact is imperative.
It is better to be restrained for some time, than not to be restrained at all. Again, its not the fault of a loli that predators exist. Predators exist even when loli is banned.

From your position, it just reads as a sacrifice expendable collateral damage for the sake of so called freedom and enjoyment of predators. That's all society, the ones in their right mind and the government sees . 
The hell with the enjoyment, happiness and freewill of rapists, drug pushers, criminal drivers and thugs.
It is better to stop someone from committing rape by making him happy, than to not stop him at all. Our society shouldnt focus on revenge, but on reducing harm.

It's legal in one place but not everywhere. HUGE RED FLAGS. Right it doesn't hurt anyone. It just fuels the fire that does hurt somebody.
The topic is about if it should be legal. We cant say: "It shouldnt be legal because its illegal". Thats circular reasoning.

Then it would simply be legal. Oh and that's everywhere sorry, no exceptions.
Why do you assume that law is always right? Law has to be justified.

Grown women are a false equivalent to children. Reducing risk as you claim is insufficient. That's why the votes aren't there for it that would reflect in the government and the government should reflect what's in its mirror which is the image of "we the people ".
I wouldnt say its false equivalent. 
There are persons who are sexually attracted to women and those persons can have sex legally with women and satisfy their urges, but they refuse to do so because of porn. Therefore, there are persons who are sexually attracted to children and those persons can act on their urges, but they refuse to do so because of loli porn.

I'll give you this, you are honest that the issue of risk and the risk of the issue exists. Downplaying it is not the goal evidently for a society that criminalizes child pornography and animated child pornography. We want absolutely no risk that we can control and will thwart . We're not comprising, settling for a lesser risk as claimed, not proven but as claimed for the sake of satisfying individuals that the government will just have locked up anyways. Sending them in getting beat up while locked up .
Unless you have any new points, we're just riding on a ferris wheel of arguments
I have one more point. Most people who act on their urges with real children are never caught. Therefore, law cannot manage it nor reduce it significantly. Loli porn would help manage it. Our society shouldnt focus on blind revenge and hurting others, but on reducing harm to all.
Con
#8
"Sexual urges towards children arent created by loli. They exist even without loli. Person who is attracted to children might act on the attraction. However, if he has loli, he can satisfy his desires with loli without acting on the attraction."

I say again ''The problem you'll have is the risk of more incitement than a deterrent." Didn't say anything about creating. I said incitement.

"There are these options:
1. If person has to satisfy his urges, it is better that he satisfies them with loli than with a child.
2. If a person doesnt have to satisfy urges and can control them, then loli porn wont ruin that control any more than seeing a real child in public would ruin that control.

We know that people exist that have to satisfy their urges. Therefore, it is better to give them loli to prevent them from acting on their urges with a real child."

With these options, you're not addressing the consequences. You're not dealing with the risk of incitement. 

"You should not leave a child in the care of anyone you suspect might take advantage of a child."

Anyone attracted to children in that way falls under being a suspect. So if you agree with the statement you just made , you're on the verge of negating your position altogether.

I take your answer to be I know someone will not take advantage of a child I leave with if they're not a child predator suspect. They're not suspected because it's been proven to me they have no such attractions. So therefore I can take no chances with anyone that does have those attractions regardless of outlets. Taking no chances. 

That's pretty where your logic will have to cave once you face the root of it all.

"Loli porn makes no difference in the case of if you should leave child alone with the person or not. What makes a difference is person's sexual attraction to children, attraction that exists irrelevant of loli porn."

Think of it.  Being that I'm so opposed to leaving a child alone with a pedophile, it would be oxymoronic to not be opposed to material that depicts children in this manner. I'm not going to support images that I don't know or not will incite the pedophile. This is what you have to think about.

"If you learned that someone watches loli porn, and because of that decided not to leave child with that person, then what would happen if there was no loli porn? You would never learn it, and you would leave the child with that person. That person would still have attraction towards children, even without loli porn."

The bottom line is , I don't support pedophilia which is the attraction to children whether it's real children or cartoon. No splitting hairs here.

"We can go by the options I provided before. 
It is true that there are people who have to act on their urges. You can either give them loli porn, either not give them loli porn. Not giving them loli porn means they will have to act with a real child."

You won't concede ok. Well you, nobody is clairvoyant to know what somebody is going to do let alone a predator. So in light of that , animated child pornography cannot be made legal everywhere. In other words we're not in that kind of society to promote pedophilia, so the cure would be on the horizon opposed to approving an outlet. That's just the truth of the reality.

"You cant. You dont know who has those urges until they act on it, either with loli either with child."

I don't have to know. If you're caught with child pornography of any kind, to the slammer you go.

"Well, banning loli will not stop child abuse. So banning loli does not increase your happiness."

It does increase my happiness. I ought to know, it's my happiness isn't it? Any discouragement of pedophilia of any kind increases happiness. The truth in the epicenter is either the support of pedophilia or resistance to it. Once you establish that, you'll fall on either side of this topic.

"I already pointed out arguments about safe outlet and how even regular porn reduces motivation at men to seek women."

Without going in circles to much I raise a question. Do you think if it's proven absolutely no incitement can become of child pornography of any kind, child pornography of any kind will be legalized?

"If you look at the child, do you feel attraction? No. If you look at loli porn, do you feel attraction? No. Therefore, someone who has no attraction to children wont magically get attracted simply because he sees loli porn. "

Who are these questions directed to, people in general or just pedophiles? It's very crucial to get that straight.
I mean common sense wise, I'm not going to direct a question where it's inapplicable. I won't ask a baby do they drive cars . We know there are individuals that exist that in a given situation won't produce harm. It doesn't negate the harm possible by others that also exist or the harm that has occurred and will. So we still have laws and somethings that are banned via road regulation, vehicular regulation, age of consent regulation, regulations regarding what's obscene including children and everything else.

So those questions posed are most likely moot.
Got to look at the whole spectrum, grand scale.

"It is sufficient to satisfy urges, as there are people who masturbate to loli porn. "

Is it ALL PEOPLE with these urges that meet sufficient satisfaction?

Remember that whole spectrum.

"Loli is not adding fuel to the fire. Rather, loli is there so that person doesnt have to act with real child to satisfy urges."

This is what you have not proven. Otherwise it all be illegal. You continue to just highlight pockets and not all cases. 

"There are people who have to satisfy urges. They can satisfy them with either loli either child. Removing loli does not help child at all."

They do not have to. Pedophiles are not entitled to their acts and attractions. This is demonstrated by incarcerating them stripping them of what they thought they were entitled to. So we ban the child pornography of all kinds along with it. That's what helps the child. It gets no better than to rid the disease, the ailment, the mental sickness, the cancer from the midst.

See I believe you want a compromise. There is to be NO compromise, no bargaining at the bargain table. 

As Girard said in the Fugitive , "I don't bargain".

"There is no cure yet, tho"

Well argue for one, that's a start. Take this energy you have for a damaging risky outlet and argue and petition for what a cure could be. Arguments, suggestions, discussions, let us begin with that.

I have read online and you can probably find this as well that a man says he was cured at the Ottawa clinic.

"As I said, people mistakenly assume that it is harmful. They mistakenly assume, because loli simply doesnt harm anyone."

Yet another statement you can't explain why on. Just say you don't know when you don't when asked the question.

"There is no cure yet. Also, managing through punishments is not as effective as managing through punishments but also allowing safe outlets."

The law disagrees with you evidently. Being that the public votes and supports this type of management, the government should adhere as that's the role of government. Just like a car jack should adhere to its function as it has its role to support the weight of the vehicle.

"Same way, if loli makes person more unwilling to abuse children, and reduces the amount of children abused by a significant amount, it is better. Person who has loli porn is much less likely to seek children and abuse them. Person without loli porn would be more willing to constantly search for children to abuse."

It's apparently better to lock up these predators instead of indulging and comprising with them. This behavior is unacceptable. Keep in mind it's not acceptable. From your standpoint, you're going to have to prove that pedophilia is healthy and not obscene to really win the public vote on all child pornography. At that point, if won, all child pornography wouldn't be any kind of controversy because the taboo on adult and child sexual relationships would be purged. There's no taboo on adult sexual relationships so adult entertainment is no issue. 

You really have to start with the taboo. It's not going to work with it in place trying to slide by with inklings of it in printed material.

"Well, slowing down is still better than not slowing down. Person only has a limited amount of time on Earth. The more he is delayed, the less he can abuse."

There's more than ONE HE on earth. You combine that with an insufficient element, you're not solving the problem. Not to mention slowing down the progression of the problem is not solving the problem. Not solving the problem is not an improvement, is not what's better. You're still looking at the situation like one individual at a time off an assembly before they prey. The government is not settling for that. Zero tolerance, the problem has to be solved completely and a risk won't be taken to exacerbate. Remember it can go either way. This outlet can incite and make the abuse come across faster than without it.

"There are these options:

1. People who will be satisfied by loli porn and wont abuse children.

2. People who are delayed by loli porn and the amount of children abused will decrease.

3. People who are unaffected by loli porn.

In all 3 cases, loli causes no harm."

Here are some more cases. 

People who will be satisfied by animated child pornography and will abuse children.

People who are delayed in actually preying on children by being occupied with viewing animated child pornography and still ultimately prey on children.

People who are unaffected by animated child pornography because they require physical child pornography and or physical children to prey on to fulfill their sexual attraction.

See we can just continue to pile up the cases. Now what? What do you say? 

Are you just going to continue to say "Well like I said "this and that? Right you don't know. You don't have  an answer. Nobody can be prepared for all cases.  This "solution" you think exists is just one problem transferred to another or prolonging dragging out the problem.

"It was already explained that loli doesnt cause attraction to children. In fact, people in the past who didnt have loli still went around from one child to another because they had urges constantly and only children could satisfy those urges. But with loli, people can satisfy the urge quickly and have no need to actively seek children."

Well don't explain again. This is going in circles now. You either prove that incitement is not possible or concede.

"Wouldnt you agree that delay is better than lack of delay?"

We're going in circles here. Just re-read the points I made prior, summarize and respond or declare we've exhausted this point. These questions are starting to be repetitious and the points made previously will have the answers in them to this question and moreover.

"Banning loli will not make you know who has attraction to children. However, loli is there to satisfy urges, so that real child doesnt have to."

Prove that incitement is impossible.

"Its not part of the problem if it reduces harm. It reduces the problem by reducing harm."

It is part of it if it can't solve the problem. Reducing and solving a problem are two different things. If my problem can't be solved by something, it's not the solution to it so it has no part to the solution.

I don't know if your position is about solving the issue or compromising so that we still have the issue. Reducing doesn't mean the issue is gone. In this context the reduction may exist in one area of the world or area, there's preying on children in another at full speed at the same time. So in essence, this compromising with feeding into the pedophiles is doing nothing.

It's like slowing down the leak out of one hole in a container while there are several leaks rushing out full speed in other areas simultaneously. So the situation is still a gushing flooded mess.

See the people, the public, the government is looking at the WHOLE crisis on a grand scale. You're still looking at one hole, a niche or a pocket of an area.

You'll have one area or some with some individuals that watch child animated pornography while others keep in mind having already watched it are preying on children at the same time. It's already going on in the midst of using all this material. So the problem will appear slowed down based on one area while it's really not upon assessing the entirety of all the planet. 

On top of that in either party from those that currently or already have viewed the material , the material may delay or exacerbate (speed up) the act which we call incitement.

"Loli was never proven to cause incitement."

It was not disproven either. That works both ways. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
 I hope you answer this question. Is incitement impossible?

"It is better to be restrained for some time, than not to be restrained at all. Again, its not the fault of a loli that predators exist. Predators exist even when loli is banned."

What's better in this context, in this context, in this context means nothing. We the people are not taking a chance at fueling the fire.

"It is better to stop someone from committing rape by making him happy, than to not stop him at all. "

You're not arguing "stop". You arguing "delay". Stopping somebody from something means that something won't happen. Something delayed still means it will happen unfortunately. The public and I won't take the chance with that when it comes to children. 

"The topic is about if it should be legal. We cant say: "It shouldnt be legal because its illegal". Thats circular reasoning."

Well I would say it's insufficient explanation. You can start with that but we have to go in depth which I have in explaining what "should" be and "shouldn't" be. Basic cause and effect, people and government. Yes. 

"Why do you assume that law is always right? Law has to be justified."

There's an assumption made with this question. Where have I indicated anywhere in this debate about right and wrong, let alone it being synonymous with law?

See this is how easily strawmans get built. Is this supposed to be a new counter point of yours trying to attack an ad populum fallacy that isn't even there? Am I going to be charged with this fallacy?

Not guilty. For one thing the word "should" is not synonymous with "right". I guess people tend to use them interchangeably erroneously.

All I've ever gone over here is what should be . Where do we get the basis for what should be objectively? Cause and effect.

Cause and effect is objective.

"There are persons who are sexually attracted to women and those persons can have sex legally with women and satisfy their urges, but they refuse to do so because of porn. Therefore, there are persons who are sexually attracted to children and those persons can act on their urges, but they refuse to do so because of loli porn."

Adults having sex aside from incest is not taboo while pedophilia is. So the two aren't equivalent.

"I have one more point. Most people who act on their urges with real children are never caught. Therefore, law cannot manage it nor reduce it significantly. Loli porn would help manage it. Our society shouldnt focus on blind revenge and hurting others, but on reducing harm to all."

Animated child pornography is not needed to manage pedophiles acting on children. That's what the parents/guardians of those children are for. They are appointed by law to manage ALL affairs of children. By this the children can be protected and we eliminate pedophilia behavior. We strip, we eliminate, purge adult and child contact in this manner preventing harm.

So you see all of this is disrupted just taking the protecting measures of a parent over their child. We don't promote or perpetuate pedophilia and its content including explicit material that relates.

With this being the image of the people, a non promoting pedophilia society, being the government is the mirror, it would and should reflect that in law.



























































Round 5
Pro
#9
In conclusion, I believe I proved that loli porn makes a person less likely to abuse children. Loli porn harms no one. I provided the example of Japan and the example of what regular porn does. I proved that loli makes people happy.
Con
#10
"In conclusion, I believe I proved that loli porn makes a person less likely to abuse children. Loli porn harms no one. I provided the example of Japan and the example of what regular porn does. I proved that loli makes people happy."

Ok no further rebuttals from you. You still didn't prove that incitement is impossible. You avoided that. You couldn't prove that. Instead of conceding that, you evaded it .

Less likely to abuse children, you haven't established why a government should make any child pornography legal based on upon that .

Just because the pedophile is happy with this kind of pornography doesn't suffice to make it legal. There are many things that people enjoy but are illegal. There's way more to it than that. For instance, the majority not being happy with any kind of depiction of child sexual relations, not to mention pedophile enjoyment around it , tied to it or integrated with it . So on account of making someone happy doesn't suffice as the counter objection is made that said act of viewing any kind of child pornography by another that will not be happy with it .

Adult pornography is a false equivalency. You continue to dismiss that. We can leave that there.

We're not worrying about where child animated pornography is already legal if it is. There's a basis and reason why it is illegal where it is. To override that, in all truth, you have to remove the taboo of pedophilia. Which you couldn't demonstrate either .

Once you do that, pedophiles will have similar equal rights to happiness like everyone else. The depiction of abuse would be just about non existent or de-stigmatized or wouldn't be as it is now because pedophiles would be received as non predatory in general and children consenting would be established. Then ALL the depictions including pornography, real persons, cartoons would be acceptable.

Less likely for abuse still leaves the risk of abuse. Not acceptable. But leaving basically no risk equivalent to adult pornography would suffice and pretty much the same basis of legality making it legal just the same . The same basis can be used .

You have failed to suffice the equivalency and it's demonstrated in this last round.