Hardcore pornography is significantly harmful to society

Introduction It appears my opponent wishes to set a low bar for himself. He asks the reader to assess whether or not porn is a net positive or negative, yet given the structure there are no opportunities to give a positive argument; this debate is without context. This is exactly what Pro wants, a one sided narrative without context. This can be seen with his use of sources, statistics without context or fair interpretation, and his quote “In fact, my purpose of this debate is merely to raise attention regarding the negative effects of pornography upon our society.” He is not interested in the science or the possible positives of porn. Like moral crusaders before him he wishes to rail against porn based on his own morals. Pro says all he must do is prove porn is harmful to some degree, this is not hard given that anything from cars, to sugar, to homosexuality can be portrayed as harmful. But the question is; are the harms being claimed actually caused by porn? If we were to eliminate porn, would any of the problems attributed to it cease? Is porn a signifigant contribution/cause of the problems he claims? My argument is simple, I argue that porn is a null factor in general society. There is evidence to back this up [Round 2 D – H] and reason to believe the sources used by Pro, especially when it comes to porn and violence, are methodologically flawed [A]. My opponent conflates correlation with causation, and I hope by the end of this round the reader understands this and other misrepresentations he commits. Porn and Aggression This section is a perfect example of my opponent conflating causation with correlation in an effort to make the argument that porn is the cause of sexual violence. Source [Pro 1], and all of his sources claiming a link is a perfect example of the methodological flaw. The studies can be summed up as ‘What do sexually aggressive men have in common? Porn. Therefore porn must be the reason for their sexual aggression.’ This is clearly putting the cart before the horse: Quote “To explain the problem of violence in society, researchers should begin with that social violence and seek to explain it with reference, quite obviously, to those who engage in it: their identity, background, character and so on. The ‘media effects’ approach, in this sense, comes at the problem backwards, by starting with the media and then trying to lasso connections from there on to social beings, rather than the other way around . . . the ‘backwards’ approach involves the mistake of looking at individuals, rather than society, in relation to the mass media. [A]” Furthermore other problems with these studies include loose definition of what is porn, participants not being fully informed of what is being tested, and what even constitutes violent porn making testability difficult [A]. As you may recall in round 2, one of Pro’s sources listed spanking and rape as violent; but are they really equal? But what I find most interesting is my opponent has ignored his own source, Dr. Jensen, who acknowledges the untestable nature of the work and says that both the null and positive hypothesis are ‘just as likely’. In regards to the quote he takes from [A], he quotes a part claiming anecdotal evidence of harm, yet he is happy to ignore the purpose of the paper, to thoroughly show how the statistical correlations Pro is using are methodologically unsound when concluding a link between porn and violence. It doesn’t matter how many studies he cites, they all suffer the same flaws. In regards to the findings dealing with already sexually aggressive men, my opponent claims this makes them more violent. Yet how do we define what a sexually aggressive man is if we wasn’t already aggressive? If we were to erase porn from the internet would these men be less of a problem despite already being labeled aggressive? Is porn what causes wife beaters to beat their wives? Porn may be used at as tool, but it is not the problem. Making porn as the scapegoat does not solve the problem of spousal abuse or sexual violence in any significant way. Next my opponent cites [R3, Pro 2], but what he doesn’t mention is if these raised violent fantasies are permanent or if they lead to increased likelihood of assault. Among other problems, the study was only conducted on 29 students, hardly a representative sample. My opponent wishes to conflate fantasy with action. When in fact fantasy is a natural part of human sexuality [Con1]; and just because a person has a more violent (however this word is subjectively defined) fantasy, being the victim or perpetrator, fantasy does not necessarily equate to action. Furthermore “violent” sex can be consensual and healthy, BDSM is a perfect example. Next Pro mentions child molesters and Ted Bundy. What does this have to do with porn other than conflating those who look at porn with child molesters and serial killers? Did Ted Bundy kill because he looked at porn? Perhaps looking at porn is what held him back, and without porn he would have began his kill spree earlier. As for child molesters, there’s evidence to suggest that if child porn were legalized, there would be less sexual abuse towards children [Con2]. In fact just to contradict Pro, there’s evidence that regular porn reduces sexual assault too [G][Con3]! I am not committed to the porn reduces rape argument, all I am showing that given these conflicting studies presented by Pro and I, can we really be sure about his claim? In regards to India, Pro blatantly misrepresents me. I did not claim that rape had decreased, quote “For example a 37 year study in India on the connection ‘suggests that easy access to pornography did not have a significant impact on rape rates and crime rate against women. [B]” This is consistent with the null hypothesis. In regard to rape rates in the US, my opponent asks “If porn causes less rape, then why is our rape rate three times worse than it was when hardcore internet porn literally did not exist?” Without context this might be a tough question to answer. But if we look at the chart rape went dramatically up from 1960-1980 then peaked in the early 90’s, before the internet became widely used and has gone down since then. So how can Pro explain the increase in rape before internet porn existed? Porn Harms Relationships My opponent conflates correlation with causation again. He claims porn CAUSES divorce, not just contributes, but CAUSES it quote “However, this doesn’t change the fact that pornography causes divorce.” Just because porn is mentioned as a problem does not mean it is the source. The question before you is porn significant in divorce rates even though it has not contributed to an increase in divorce? Pro continues to argue with a lack of context. I already addressed this in Round 2, but a study that cited [8] commented on their results: “These results imply that women may not view their partners' SEM viewing as unhealthy as long as they do not perceive that viewing as excessive. In fact, some women may even view their partners' pornography use as enhancing their sexual relationship.” Even from the study itself, and alternative copy with fuller abstract says “Results suggest that highly negative evaluations of a partner's pornography use are not representative of women in general [Con4]”. To reverse his stats, 74% of women don’t have a problem with men looking at porn! Again a criticism of methodology is given “One of the limitations of the literature on SEM and romantic relationships is that most studies assess individuals' attitudes toward the opposite gender or toward relationships after being exposed to SEM in an experimental context, which does not necessarily reflect real-life experiences. [I]” Porn is Habit Forming It should be noted that the DSM does not recognize internet addiction [Con5] as a mental disorder. Habit forming is an irrelevant argument given that habits are not necessarily bad. And as shown this habit does not show evidence of increasing divorce or violence among the population. Furthermore the internet is so widely used for so many functions; we spend countless hours on it already, how does one distinguish our already constant internet use from addiction? Sex & STD’s Low on characters, must be brief. If porn is ones only source for sex info, then yes it can warp, just like if alcohol is your only drink you’ll get drunk. Porn is not to blame, lack of information is what causes young people to misunderstand porn. Pro cites the CDC saying 96% of young kids have a “formal sex education”. So many flaws. First, it was a regional study, done with face to face interviews, 2nd the study’s definition only included ‘did you ever learn how to say no to sex?’, there’s no way to tell the quality of education from that. However “AGI research, based on a nationwide survey of school superintendents, found that local policies overwhelmingly encourage abstinence. … Only 14% have a truly comprehensive policy that teaches about both abstinence and contraception as part of a broader program designed to prepare adolescents to become sexually healthy adults. [Con6]”. The majority of kids are not properly learning about sex. Porn is a scapegoat. As for STD’s the question is significance, yes it causes STD’s among porn stars, but again occupational hazard, all jobs have them, some bigger than others. But Pro saying that porn stars risk infecting those outside of porn, again risk is evident, but not deeming societal action. Porn is not responsible for the significant transfer of STD’s in the world. Also portraying youth as helpless but to imitate porn over simplifies the matter. Quote [Pro 28] “The notion that people should be able to choose to consume pornography if they wish is strong. We see this clearly among the young people in our study.” How can this opinion be if porn is a significant harm to society? Sources:http://www.debate.org...