Porn Should Be Banned for Ages 16 and Lower

Good luck too My opponent... <3

Should Porn be banned for anyone under the age of 16? I say that keeping that kind of content away from young people is important due to the fact that it can really impact the way they grow up. When kids are young they should really be focused on learning and having fun with friends. Not being exposed to things they are not yet ready for.

First off, its our duty as a society to protect the young kids from things that could harm them like this. Porno can show unrealistic and unhealthy ideas about how they see sex and relationship which can confuse them and their understanding of what a real intimacy is. If we put a limit on access under 16 it helps keep their innocence while also encouraging healthier attitudes about sex. There's plenty of researh that connects exposure too porn at a young age to depression, anxiety, and low self esteem in teens.

Teens often do not have the emotions or maturity to handle such explicit content which can lead to bad mental health. Banning it for those who are under 16 can help create a safer mental space for kids.

Some people might argue against me saying "restricting access like this goes againt the right to information.  While those rights might be important protecting minors are more important. Setting a age restriction isn't going to be able stopping kid from their own rights about making sure they're safe as there growing up and learning.

In the end putting a ban on pornos for ages 16 and younger is one step towards creating a safer environmen online for kids. We need to work harder on shielding yung people from harmful influences and support thm in making knowledgeable choices while they grow up. 

Thank you for listening <3

 

Thank you for fun topic <3

First, the debate is set at 16 and lower. So all I need to prove is that it should be at 15 and lower.

So my position is: 

Porn shouldnt be banned for 16 year olds.

This is one of opposites of my opponent's position, and if proved true, disproves opponent's position as both cant be true.

How is "should" defined?

Usually, action which gives more benefits than costs. In this case, it could be action which improves health, action which improves intelligence, or action where cost is lower than these benefits it gives. Also, it must be action which is possible to do and which is possible to give results if done. It also must consider wants of all, without excluding wants of 16 year olds.

To prove my position, 3 arguments:

Most of 14 year olds watched porn. The percentage is higher for 15 year olds, and highest for 16 year olds. I need to remind everyone that porn is already banned for those under 18, but the ban clearly doesnt give much effect. Despite ban, about 80% of 16 year olds have seen porn. Anyone who wants to watch it will anyway find way to watch it.

And then we come to a new topic: How do you define porn?

There is sex in many movies and TV shows, there are porn ads everywhere. Many apps on google play store contain some form of porn and porn ads. Then there is porn by AI which is even harder to ban. Then there are many books which contain text porn which would have to be banned too.

So how is ban enforced? Only by mass regulation which would cost a lot of money. (See III.)

Wants of people matter, and if 16 year olds want to watch porn, they are not really harming anyone or preventing others from their wants.

II. 

This one is truism, and II-I and II-II were proved by some studies. People who masturbate a lot are indeed healthier and smarter.

The cost of actually making this ban work is very high. First, there are legal costs to punish those who break it. It must be very large scale, because its enough that one 16 year old has access to porn, and he will show it to many others around him. Thus, success rate in preventing all porn must be over 90% for it to have any significant effect, and that requires plenty of resources. These resources should instead be used for more important things, like improving education itself, which is much better than wasting money on porn prevention. Many schools lack resources, and money is already lacking and cannot be wasted on these less significant goals.

Very good response, but I will try my best to answer <3

The problem is how do you do it to make sure that at least 90% of 16 year olds dont watch porn? Because there are no filters on internet which can detect if someone is a 16 year old or not, and even if some sites had such filters, others would not. Most sites already require users to click on "I am over 18", but the problem is that anyone can pass such filter. Further, a 16 year old can talk some 18 year old into passing filter.

Wants of people matter. If wants of people didnt matter, then there would be no way to determine value of anything, especially not of goalposts in this debate. So what is best must be wanted. Now, just how harmful is porn for a 16 year old? You mentioned it is harmful for children, but clearly, its not equally harmful for all ages. Your studies are about children. What are exactly the numbers comparison for 16 year olds specifically? Because being slightly harmful is usually not a good reason to spend lots of money on a ban. There are plenty of things which are slightly harmful and not banned, like chocolate or fast food. Further, 16 year olds have sexual urges (which is why so many watch porn), and masturbation is much safer than actual sex. You say it harms their relationships, but relationships themselves can be even more harmful. For example, break up of a relationship sometimes causes depression, harmful behavior and even suicidal thoughts, more so in teens.

I could think of an example of a society full of porn, and that is Japan, where porn is sold on streets regularly. Japan also has the highest life expectancy in the world and one of the highest IQ. Porn makes people masturbate much more, and masturbation was proved to be good for many things, IQ and health. There are countries which banned all porn, and they did not see any health benefits of it and dont even rank high in health.