Instigator / Pro

1

1500

rating

1

debates

100.0%

won

Topic

Porn Should Be Banned for Ages 16 and Lower

Status

Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

00

DD

:

00

HH

:

00

MM

:

00

SS

Parameters

Publication date: 04.29.2025 02:09PM
Last updated date: 05.02.2025 05:44PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 30,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

1

1500

rating

4

debates

12.5%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Mieky

04.29.2025 07:26PM

Pro

#1

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

04.29.2025 08:22PM

Con

#2

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:

I. Most wont wait until age 17
I-I. It is their wish
II. Porn encourages masturbation
II-I. Its actually healthy to masturbate. It increases life expectancy.
II-II. Masturbation is correlated with higher intelligence
III. Ban would cost a lot of money to actually enforce and wouldnt give much benefits.

I.

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.)

I-I.

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.

III.

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.

Round 2

Mieky

04.30.2025 04:10AM

Pro

#3

My sincere gratitude towards my opponent once again <3

Let me reply to some arguments that were made and respectfully point out why even for 16 year olds, banning access to pornography makes more sense.

1. "Most teens already watch porn, so why ban it?"

That is the same logic as claiming “Most teens consume alcohol or begin vaping, so why bother trying to put a stop to it.”

Just because something is a common may not indicate that it is safe for one’s health. The fact that 80 percent of 16 year old teenagers have access to porn and watch it regardless of some attempts to restrict means stronger enforcement with filters set up and education rather than ‘giving up and normalizing’ should be the destination for us is proof.

2. “It is their wish and it does not hurt others.”

Hopes or wishes do not equate for a decision being the best one for a person. A 16-year-old within the schooling phase of their life is free to “wish” for dropping out of school or binge eating mountains of calories which should not be encouraged. Allows children to adopt and mold unhealthy attitudes that affect mental wellness, shapes relationships, and even creates problems in partnership.

3. “Masturbation is healthy, and porn helps it.”

Masturbation can be healthy and porn is only one of the many options available for exploring one’s sexuality. Excessive consumption of porn, particularly at an early age, can lead to major consequences such as desensitization, sexual dysfunction, distorted body image, and even symptoms akin to addiction. The issue is not solely centered around masturbation but rather how porn impacts the brain.

04.30.2025 12:25PM

Con

#4

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

The fact that 80 percent of 16 year old teenagers have access to porn and watch it regardless of some attempts to restrict means stronger enforcement with filters set up and education

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.

Hopes or wishes do not equate for a decision being the best one for a person

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.

Masturbation can be healthy

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.

Round 3

Mieky

05.02.2025 07:47AM

Pro

#5

Thank you too to my opponent and everyone present. Let’s wrap up this debate with some undeniable facts.

We are talking about 16-year-olds—not adults. These are teens who are still going through puberty, developing psychologically, forming an identity, and are extremely susceptible to pornographic content, which is characteristically unrealistic, violent, and distorts real-life relationships and intimacy. This is not about, “denying pleasure.” It is about the protection of development.

My opponent makes the argument that “well, they will find it anyway,” which does nothing to defend their point, but helps further quit. Why? Because this logic is lazy. A child discovering alcohol is a sneak does not justify selling it legally. No is the answer. And yes, that is the understanding we have when a concept is introduced far too early. And no, porn doesn't differ. The objective isn't perfect enforcement. The objective is to lessen harm.

Quitting is what some opponents prefer saying, “it is their choice.” But let’s base real: merely because a sixteen year old desires something, does not mean they are ready for it. Desire to be behind the steering wheel should not justify a claim that they are ready to be driving on the highway to claim they are confident to navigate through heavy traffic. Where they should not be condoning free porn access is to believe there is no profound impact in branding nudity as intimately linked to performance and degradation instead of consent, connection, and respect.

Indeed, masturbation can be beneficial for one’s health. However, one does not require a porn addiction to achieve that. Moreover, the early onset of porn consumption is associated with having problems managing dopamine, sexual issues, and distressing images of authentic relationships. That is

05.02.2025 12:15PM

Con

#6

I thank you for a fun debate. I am glad we could keep it cool despite this sensitive topic.

As for my case, its just simply that:

1. Porn isnt harmful enough for 16 year olds to justify the ban, as proved by the fact that 80% of 16 year olds watch it despite ban, and no any great harm happened to them after.

2. Ban doesnt stop them, which then makes you wonder this: What is the point of a ban? You said the only point was to stop them, but ban clearly completely fails to do that. So, what is the point of ban?

3. Porn ban could even have many harmful effects, such as cost, legal costs, regulation costs, invasion of privacy, even put more pressure on teens.

4. Porn makes people masturbate much more. Masturbation is very healthy. So it is not "all bad, no good".

With that, I thank everyone for reading, even if it is a somewhat sensitive topic.

05.02.2025 05:36PM

#24

-->

@Barney

Thanks. I'll re-vote

Barney

05.02.2025 05:19PM

#23

-->

@fauxlaw

Previous vote (removed by request):

Looks like I'm first up to bat. Interesting pitches from both teams, and the only way this is goings to be a successful vote for me is to find a sensible logic in a participant's argument. I can do that. Let's get rid of the negatives: neither participant made any effort to substantiate their arguments by any credible sourcing although both made mention of supporting data. If the data exists, the Debate rules of DA stipulate they should be employed as part of argument. I know there are studies and white papers and such supporting both arguments. I have seen them and read them, so they are accessible and citable. Just mentioning they exist without making use of them is lazy and irresponsible for this site and this debate. No win on this feature for either side. Cite your sources. period.

Both conducted themselves well. Tie

Both used legible language. Tie

So, it comes down to argument. One of Con's arguments was that 80% percent of teens watch porn anyway, and that it is a feature of society virtually impossible to enforce its ban. Another argument oic that 90% successful enforcement is necessary to the cost/benefit ratio.I have seen studies on both issues on a variety of other topics, and this one,, and they are able to be cited, but they are presented, instead, as personal opinion without citation, so I cannot buy the argument on that assurance, alone. Sorry.
While acknowledging that enforcement of any ban would be difficult, Pro makes an argument that enforcement of behavior is not the purpose of a ban, but just setting an expected standard. That, too, is presented, as said, without back-up data, but it is a more sensible argument in any case. That is the factual result of any law of society: 100% prevention of an unwanted behavioral result is never expected, but then, we do not know how many ships are saved by a lighthouse in dangerous waters, the stat is only those that fail, anyway. Con's argument is a more successful argument, because arguing that a lighthouse is not enforced, and therefore should not exist will guarantee failure.
Con wins on argument.

05.02.2025 04:31PM

#22

-->

@Barney

Barney, may I request that my vote either be deleted to re-enter my intent, or... It is my choice that Pro win the debate, but the last two mentions of Con in my vote should have been for Pro, not Con. If you can just change those last two references that Pro wins the debate, I would appreciate it it. I've indicated in the actual vote that Con wins, but that's wrong, too. Damn, don't know what I'm thinking!

05.02.2025 12:20PM

#21

-->

@Barney

@fauxlaw

@Sir.Lancelot

@TheRizzler

Sorry to bother you, but if you want, you can cast a vote.

05.01.2025 08:00PM

#20

-->

@Barney

I wouldnt say this violates any laws, given that I have taken the least extreme possible opposite position there is on this topic. I did it because it gives me maximum advantage in a debate by not having to defend any case under 16.

05.01.2025 10:43AM

#19

-->

@AdaptableRatman

I am not sure if its legal to debate this, but here we are.

AdaptableRatman

05.01.2025 06:05AM

#18

-->

@Barney

Someone believing these things that Con believes and OPENLY pushing them out with 0 reprimand is the exact reason the West is losing its morals.

Barney

05.01.2025 05:45AM

#17

-->

@AdaptableRatman

My impression is pro would like people to have to click a box to verify they are 17 or up when accessing porn sites, and con would like it to be 16 and up.

Neither is arguing for anyone of any age to be able to participate in porn, nor for the legalization of porn featuring them, nor for anyone to intentionally show them porn. (Or so I would assume, I haven’t read either case)

It’s an uncomfortable topic to be sure, but I doubt it violates any laws.

AdaptableRatman

05.01.2025 03:49AM

#16

-->

@Barney

I question if this debate is even legal to take place.

Mieky

04.30.2025 04:12AM

#15

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

I dont agree with your parents choices. But i really do like how you debate lets keep this going.

04.29.2025 08:53PM

#14

-->

@TheRizzler

It was a different time back then. Not many people even cared much to put effort in preventing such things.

04.29.2025 08:46PM

#13

😬😬😬

04.29.2025 08:44PM

#12

Also, had internet without supervision lol

04.29.2025 08:42PM

#11

-->

@TheRizzler

I had a TV in my room, watched it late at night when those nasty things are shown on TV. You could say an obvious mistake of my parent to let me have TV in my room at that age.

04.29.2025 08:37PM

#10

'advanced' is an interesting word there...

04.29.2025 08:36PM

#9

-->

@TheRizzler

I was one of those advanced 8 year olds. I saw sex on TV, and later on internet.

04.29.2025 08:34PM

#8

I hadn't even had 'the talk' at 8

04.29.2025 08:33PM

#7

8 is craaaazy 💀

Mieky

04.29.2025 07:30PM

#6

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

Umm interesting story lol I don't know what to say.

04.29.2025 02:18PM

#5

-->

@Mieky

As someone who started watching porn at age 8, I can say for sure I wouldnt wait until 16. This topic triggers me.

Mieky

04.29.2025 02:14PM

#4

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

why did you accept that so fast lol?

Mieky

04.29.2025 02:14PM

#3

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

why did you accept that so fast lol?

04.29.2025 02:13PM

#2

Just giving me topics I cant resist accepting >.<

Mieky

04.29.2025 02:09PM

#1

I just found this topic very interesting online

05.02.2025 05:44PM

#2

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Let's get rid of the negatives: neither participant made any effort to substantiate their arguments by any credible sourcing although both made mention of supporting data. If the data exists, the Debate rules of DA stipulate they should be employed as part of argument. I know there are studies and white papers and such supporting both arguments. I have seen them and read them, so they are accessible and reeferable Just mentioning they exist without making use of them is lazy and irresponsible for this site and this debate. No win on this feature for either side. Cite your sources. period.
Both conducted themselves well. Tie
Both used legible language. Tie
[I realize this is not a multi-feature debate scoring debts, but simply win/lose]
So, it comes down to argument. One of Con's arguments was that 80% percent of teens watch porn anyway, and that it is a feature of society virtually impossible to enforce its ban. Another argument is that 90% successful enforcement is necessary to the cost/benefit ratio.I have seen studies on both issues on a variety of other topics, and this one, and they are able to be cited, but they are presented, instead, as personal opinion without citation, so I cannot buy the argument on that assurance, alone. Sorry. While acknowledging that enforcement of any ban would be difficult, Pro makes an argument that enforcement of behavior is not the purpose of a ban, but just setting an expected standard. That, too, is presented, as said, without back-up data, but it is a more sensible argument in any case. That is the factual result of any law of society: 100% prevention of an unwanted behavioral result is never expected, but then, we do not know how many ships are saved by a lighthouse in dangerous waters, the stat is only those that fail. Pro’s argument is a more successful argument, because arguing that a lighthouse is not enforced, and therefore should not exist will guarantee failure.  Pro wins on argument.

Barney

05.02.2025 05:18PM

#1

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

"There's plenty of researh that connects exposure too porn at a young age to depression, anxiety, and low self esteem in teens."
This is a fine example of BoP failure, pro is proposing a change, they name something that would greatly support their stance; but do not bother to actually cite it.
That said, aside from the appeal to authority (it would be a valid one with just a link or two), I do understand their point and frankly agree with it.

"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."
This was a fine point, which I actually make on gun control.

Con goes right for the jugular... As I've written elsewhere on Proposal Debates...
"A quality opening round must address the Why and How.
* If the Why is missing, they are easily countered by the lack of benefit.
* If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources."

That said, similar to my BoP note above, con falls into the same problem: "It increases life expectancy." Plus, there is a gross-out factor which IMO would be best avoided.

Likewise "Anyone who wants to watch it will anyway find way to watch it." mirrors the common gun control debate counter point (which is usually done with mindless parroting missing all nuance, but that's when applied to a different topic).

"How do you define porn?" Con leverages this quite effectively to point out the undefined scope limits.

...

Most of the remaining is largely repeats of the above, reaffirming and all, but not unique. Pro gravely hurt their case by not responding to the scope issue of how to define porn (skip the mindless know it when you see it standard, and just say visual depictions of penetration... Sure this would leave all softcore porn accessible, but is a clear standard which adheres to the 80/20 rule).

"The objective isn't perfect enforcement. The objective is to lessen harm." is a good point which more people ought to be able to understand. I think the car and candy examples were valid, even if getting into hyperbole territory.

Con did very well with a short summary for his final round, which highlights his cases strengths.

...

At the end of the day, the ban is just too poorly defined for serious consideration.