Resolved: The U.S. should abolish all forms of pornography

1. Pro agreed that what he is advocating is making all forms of pornography illegal. That, of course, would not abolish it. Pro seems to be especially concerned with Internet porn, if I under him correctly. Passing laws against Internet activity has almost no effect, because sites just relocate to unenforceable locations overseas. For example, Congress passed a strict law against Internet gambling. There was no observable effect overall. 2. I argued that making pornography illegal implies that a censorship board must be established and charged, per Pro's resolution, with banning "all forms" of pornography. I argues that such a board is unlikely to use good judgment in distinguishing art from pornography. Pro responded that he knows the difference for the one example I cited, "David." That does not respond to my argument that a board appointed to be zealous censors will not make good judgments. We have an example of how such boards operate from back in the 1930's in the United States when the Hayes Commission was empowered to censor movies. One of the many ridiculous results was that married couples were not permitted to be shown in the same bed at any time. A husband-and-wife detective team had to discuss cases from perches on separate beds. Pro has given no reason why a modern censorship board, especially one given the charge of banning "all forms" of pornography would not be overzealous in exercising poor judgment. 3. I argued that none of the scientifically established causes of child molesting include pornography, child pornography or otherwise. I provided a reference. Pro offers no contrary scientific evidence. 4. Pro now gives some web sites as sources for the studies he cites. I can find no such studies on those web sites. It is not my job to try to find Pro's sources. If the studies exist then give the title, the author, the scientific journal in which they were published, and a pointer to the study itself -- or at least to an abstract. The field is rank with bogus studies done by people determined to prove their preconceptions, so the work must be carefully examined for validity. 5. Possession of pornography by child molesters does not prove it caused crimes. Arsonists possess matches, but matches didn't make them arsonists. Pro argues "How can you clearly state that when at least 87 stated to admitting to pornography being the engine for their crimes." First, I don't know what "engines for their crimes" means, and until I see the study I cannot evaluate the claim. Second, criminals can always be counted upon to blame something other than themselves for their crimes. It is never their fault, it is always something in society that is to blame. If a questioner offers an excuse, the criminal is likely to accept it, "Yes, indeed, the devil made me do it. It wasn't my fault." Someone observed that child molesters also tend to collect Disney material. Disney is nonetheless not causing child molesting. 6. I argued that authoritarian bans on all forms of pornography did not lead to good societies with little sexual abuse, citing strict Muslim societies that have severe problems of cruel sexual abuse. Pro made no rebuttal, therefore the argument stands. 7. I argued that the cure to children inappropriate mimicking adult behavior, sexual or otherwise, is proper parenting and a better society, not banning adult behavior. I gave an example. Pro made no rebuttal, so the argument stands. If something can be done to extend parental controls, I am in favor of that. 8. I argued that intensively exposing a normal person to any extreme activity, whether it be violent pornography or reckless driving or whatever, is bound to have at least some temporary desensitizing effect. Moreover, normal people do not enjoy violent pornography, so it exists only as a tiny sub-genre. Pro rebutted, "Yes if if they have i mental problem porn does not help but by removing porn does it not help the person with the mental problem also?" I think Pro is asking if the violent pornography were unavailable, wouldn't the person's mental condition improve? We know from the data on extremely repressive societies that it does not help. However, if it did help then that would be an argument for making violent pornography illegal, for which a better case can be made than "all forms." Pro's argument that one thing leads to another is false, because violent pornography is an unpopular genre. If Pro's argument were true it would be the most popular. 9. I argued that ordinary "soft" porn was harmless and appropriate given human nature. Pro made no rebuttal, so the argument stands.