Pornography is detrimental to society.

RESPONSES:I will highlight the far superior positive effects of porn on society that far outweigh the negative effects. First, I would like to point out comparing drugs to porn is a weak analogy fallacy[1]. Especially in the context in which Pro compared pornography to illegal drugs which actually inhibit the cerebrum in various ways. For example, Marijuana distorts our senses, LSD dilates our pupils and causes drowsiness, speed or methamphetamine causes nausea and potential brain damage, and cocaine causes hyper-stimulation and are likely to suffer depression[2][3][4][5]. Pornography itself does none of these things. Pornography is not a drug that can be prescribed nor bought. Pornography is simply images and videos which tend to be provocative with a sexual nature. It is erroneous to compare drugs to pornography at all because drugs are a substance. There is nothing scientific about what my opponent has stated at all since Pro ignores the basic conceptual difference between a substance and an image or video.[1]http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [2]http://www.drugfreeworld.org...[3]http://www.drugfreeworld.org...[4]http://www.drugfreeworld.org...[5]http://www.drugfreeworld.org...Pro mentions dopamine and dismisses pornography as being an unhealthy without any explanation or evidence. Then Pro mentions an experiment about rats which is a weak analogy fallacy because rats are not comparable to human beings in any great fashion at all. Perhaps, if Pro actually brought up an experiment with an ape which is the closest animal to the homosapian, there would be some validity. The cerebrum of a rat and life of a rat is not comparable to a human beings at all. My opponent used himself as an appeal to authority by just stating a pornography is unhealthy.My opponent continues on into offering unsupported claims. Pro has not pointed to any causation that porn actually causes "feeling loss, betrayal, mistrust, devastation, and anger." Pornography may not be the cause of that. It is simply correlation not causation. Also "anxiety and depression" are not physical symptoms. There is no indication of anxiety or depression physically, it can not be measured at all. I know that as a neuropshychology major so don't attempt to pull that one off. Then on top of all of Pro's statements all of them remain unsupported without any evidence to be seen. Pro's claims are unsubstantiated, therefore inconsequential. Pro says "studies" yet didn't offer a single one."And when a person frequently uses pornography, they"re far more likely to feel less satisfied with their partner"s looks, sexual performance, and willingness to try new sexual acts."Less satisfaction has nothing to do with pornography. Has polygamy not existed longer than pornography? After all, many societies have had men married to multiple women. Obviously, they were not satisfied. How about spousal abuse, has that not existed? I forgot, those were the days were people had be married to someone whom they may not of liked. "Between 1998 and 2005, sex scenes in these films doubled."Pro did not provide any proof."As society becomes more hedonistic and infatuated with porn, then there is a good chance that society will become more violent and attitudes towards women will change for the worse."Wrong, domestic abuse has declined 63% over last decade[6].[6]http://www.bjs.gov..."People who view pornography are more likely to support violence against women and to think that women enjoy being raped."Again,no proof that people who watch pornography support violence against women.However, I will inform you but there are a significant amount of women who have rape fantasies, the actual number remains unknown but it is worth noting. This should be common knowledge at this point since Fifty Shades of Grey became popular. There is evidence to support it from women willing to admit it, direct quote from Psychology Today:"From 1973 through 2008, nine surveys of women's rape fantasies have been published. They show that about four in 10 women admit having them (31 to 57 percent) with a median frequency of about once a month. Actual prevalence of rape fantasies is probably higher because women may not feel comfortable admitting them."[7]https://www.psychologytoday.com..."Porn objectifies women and it allows men to judge them based on their physical appearance."And? Could you please inform me of one person in this world who is not judged based on their physical appearance?"This alone should be enough for us to get rid of pornography. "No it is not."One should never be judged by their looks, be it man or woman, but rather be judged by their character and personality."Ok this is simply empty rhetoric. Saving that "judging" nonsense for Christians and those who don't like judging. If someone is obese, I plan to judge them. If someone has unkempt hair, I will judge them. The difference between you and I am honest and acknowledge I judge people based on appearance. MY ARGUMENTS:1A. Relationships, Relationships, and the Yielding Cost of those Relationships. Forgot to Mention When We Suffer From a Failed RelationshipI think it is important for us to understand and analyze what my opponent really wants.It is very clear since Pro is against porn for relationship reasons. Pro does not offer any benefits to the alternative he really is supporting. Probably because he knows it is a failure for many people on this earth. Pro wants people to be stuck in relationships with what may be termed the mentally ill, the crazy, the insecure, those of poor character, and worse of all, the ugly. My opponent doesn't mention stalkers, depression, suicide, physical abuse, mental abuse, alleged rape claims, revenge porn, doxxing, and all other possible horrendous things we can possibly imagine when a relationship turns sour.Pro casually ignores men who physically abuse their wives. Pro casually ignores women who may mentally abuse their husbands. Why? Pro is not interested in offering us the truth but their agenda against pornography. As Con, I am fully intent of leaving no stone unturned. I will admit pornography can be addictive and it may be costly. However, it is not that costly compared to a relationship. When was the last time pornography sued their user for alimony? When was the last time pornography produced an unwanted child? When was the last time pornography attacked? When was the last time, pornography warranted personal time to be spent with? Pro casually ignores these things because Pro is simply anti-porn. I am not pro-porn as much as I am for preventing as much suffering as possible.Notice how Pro ignores the results of what happens when someone has failed at attempting to get their "reward." Pro didn't mention the depression or the possible attempts of suicide. To carry on even further, my opponent's arguments encourage more Eliot Rodgers in the world. Eliot Rodgers should of simply watched pornography and he would of been happy. Instead Mr. Rodgers went through the trial and tribulations of failed attempts at relationships with women. Do you know what happened when he got tired of his failed relationships? He went out and "punished" the women of the world whom he didn't know. Rodgers went out and shot six people with extreme prejudice and no mercy for those whom he did not know.This, this is the consequences of what Pro advocates. [8]http://www.nydailynews.com...I am advocating the position of pleasure and practical benefits while Pro advocates for suffering and depression. I am here to save the Eliot Rodgers of the world, Pro wants more of them.