Censorship is irrational

It is a fact that I only need to rebut either (1) nudity or (2) language. There is no reason to refute both because of the way the resolution is crafted. My opponent’s R1 explains how censorship *is* rational in regards to *both* metrics. If I can debunk only one I win the debate because the entire resolution is not upheld. “[E]ven then Con only addressed the point partially” – Indeed, that is all I must do to win. You listed two criteria where censorship is irrational. If one is debunked you lose the debate. “I also make note of the fact that my opponent accepted the debate knowing that he harbor no interest whatsoever over half of its explicitly stated contents. ” – So what? If all I need to do is refute one thing, why spend energy refuting the whole thing? All I have to do is prove that censorship sometimes is rational and I win the debate. And really what I am doing is not abusive since there is some burden put upon me—to prove either child porn or normal pornography is worthy of *some* censorship. I accept that the BOP is shared—I never said that it wasn’t. I must prove that there is some censorship which is rational and you must prove the opposite. If I provide one—just one—case of rational censorship, I win. If anything, I have increased my burden, not decreased it. All of the examples my opponent cites really do nothing to harm my case. If we were debating minimum wages, you are for them being bad. All I would have to do is prove that some minimum wages—even low ones—are good (or at least do no harm). I have done exactly done that tactic showing that there is a point where censorship is rational under a set parameter (nudity), just as I could argue for a $1 minimum wage in the other debate. For global warming I could actually argue for lower climate sensitivity, which means parts of the world will benefit and others will be harmed, weigh it, and still win. The examples prove nothing against my case except that my tactics are sufficient for a vote to go either direction based upon who wins my contentions. C1) Child Pornography My opponent claims, since a parent owns a child, he/she can post videos of her child doing anything. This logic is extremely weak when you realize the fact that child abuse does exist and that a child is not allowed to abuse their child physically, verbally, or sexually [1]. So we actually can rationally limit what a parent does to their child rationally based upon a utilitarian perspective: that it harms the child more than it harms for adult, or from one based upon rights: it infringes upon the rights of the child to do such things. Just as it may be rational for a parent to do this for profit it would also be rational to prohibit that behavior based upon the moral (and physical) harms it inflicts upon the child. Say I was a hitman. It would be rational for me to murder for profit, but it would also be rational to prohibit that behavior because it is destructive. My opponent’s rebuttal fails to prove that child pornography censorship is irrational—it is very rational, and the resolution is negated because of it. My opponent seems to argue if we allow child porn it may cause people to be repulsed by the idea and cause its consumption to decline, so we need no censorship because it will fall out of favor naturally. This doesn’t even make sense. There will always be a segment of the population who indulges child porn, and legalization will increase its consumption amongst those groups. It would be like saying we do not need to ban slavery because it will fall out of favor overtime—which obviously didn’t happen because it existed 11,000 years ago and continued to be legal in the US until 1865 [2]. And I mean sure, it was banned because people saw the harms, but it took ten thousand years for it to be banned. Censoring child porn naturally (through disgust) is an inefficient way to prohibit material which harms anyone—and at least for slavery, it led to a war. Also note something being prohibited is censorship. Hitler banned books, which is a form of censorship. Censorship is merely the “suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. ” [3] Banning child porn is exactly that: banning information seen as harmful as determined by different authorities. Unless my opponent is willing to argue for child porn legalization, he admits that censorship of lewd material is rational—meaning censorship can be rational, and is not fully irrational (as is entails that everything is bad, nowhere in R1 or the resolution does he say ‘on balance’). C2) Normal Pornography My opponent here seems to want me to argue for a ban—although child porn should be banned, normal porn should be censored. We could censor it merely by making you call your ISP to give you access, making it harder to access sites while you are under 18, etc. Those would not really harm legitimate porn actors. But we should prohibit illegal porn—which can be done. We continue fighting against traffickers to reduce production—which is censorship, just as attacking newspapers for publishing would be censorship—and we find videos post-production and remove them if trafficking is suspected. All of this is rational as it prevents harming those who are trafficked. Further, my opponent’s line of logic that censorship mostly harms porn actors and not underground people is absurd. Drug bans may harm ‘normal’ drug users but they also reduce supply by increasing prices and preventing hard drugs from being consumed [4]. Let’s also take this from a utilitarian perspective, which my opponent seems to take: censorship would reduce consumption, thus reducing revenue, of trafficked porno. This means less production and bam, less abuse. Does the life-long abuse, rape, and humiliation reduced outweigh a few porn actors losing a job? I would argue that it does. My opponent’s argument benefits mine! It proves that censorship of violent pornography is a good thing because it leads to less rape and violence. This means some censorship of nudity is rational, and he just rebutted his whole case! The fact that the study argues “violent pornography resulted in significantly greater increase in attitudes supporting aggression” proves my point—that you cannot issue blanket statements saying censorship is irrational because there are cases where it is not only rational, but preferable. The study does say some of this is because aggressive men watch aggressive porn, but also that the aggressive porn increases and reinforces their previous dispositions. My opponent thus lessens the impact I originally argued, but accepts the fact that some pornography leads to violence—thus some censorship is rational. Also note I do not even need to prove that censorship is preferable, but that there are rational reasons (e. g. reducing violence) which means holding such beliefs are not wholly irrational as the resolution states. Another analysis confirms both of the evidence my opponent and I presented, reviewing 161 studies and concluding pornography is linked to more sexual aggression, especially among men predisposed to violence [5]. So, with this we have (1) evidence that porn in general causes aggression, (2) STRONG evidence that violent pornography causes violence, and (3) violent men should not be watching porn. So we should either (1) censor all porn, (2) censor some porn, or (3) prevent certain segments of the population from watching porn—all forms of censorship, all rational courses of action. It doesn’t make sense that pornography wouldn’t cause a reduction in sexual pleasure. Pornography causes orgasms, which causes dopamine, which causes addiction, which causes desensitization. Same things happen with drugs: you like it, you start to need more of it. So people’s sexual needs become greater and more extreme content is consumed. Porn consumption actually does cause desensitization [6]. I mean, if you are needing violent porn to get off, you are not gonna have an easy time getting off in bed. Plus, my opponent’s study uses a small sample size (N = 280) whereas studies using larger sample sizes (N = 531) have found happily married couples are less likely to view porn, and one of the strongest symptoms of using porn stems from a weak relationship [7]. Back to you. I have proven both C1 and C2, which refutes the blanket statement that censorship is irrational. I do not need to—though I have been—arguing that we should censor anything, only that it can be rational to do so. I have proven both that we should and that is rational, which is enough to negate the resolution that both censoring nudity and profanities are irrational. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.rand.org... 5. . http://217.35.77.12/Cb/england/research/pdfs/2007/280907.pdf 6. . http://www.yourbrainonporn.com... 7. . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...