This House Would Legalize Pornography

0
987

This is another one of the classics that, debate coaches, who are more of a play-safer, by now, will usually try to run when being faced with ultra-extra-conservative debaters as their students. This motion deals quite the significant shock therapy and requires ultra-extra-conservative to think out of their comfort zone whilst still not exactly and extremely violating their religious beliefs.

How this is a motion that delivers quite the shock therapy and yet at the same time ignites the spark of critical thinking and analysis, though (the start much needed for these ultra-extra-conservatives in order to become a debater), relies in the mutual exclusivity of the two directions of discourse this debate can unfold. And both of them depends on the Team Affirmative. Team Negative, as always, can choose to follow suit or challenge the notion of the motion interpretation (pun unintended).

The dilemma that newbie debaters (especially the conservative ones) might have when being presented with a motion like this and then they draw (+), is that they tend to automatically assume that they have to support the idea of pornography (1st mistake of newbies, thus: mistaking ‘legalization’ as ‘supporting’). Second, is that they start having doubts when they assumed that they have to think of benefits to having prostitution (2nd mistake of newbies, thus: mistaking an entirely proposal debate as a value-judgment debate). Third, is that they start having doubts, and then judging the debating scene, both as a sport and as a community, labeling this activity as haram and as actively trying to convert people into atheists and liberals. Erm.. nevermind. The point is that, there is a distinctive difference between how the debating scene in the West nurtures new and aspiring debaters from how the East does. Here, in most debating societies in the East, at this point comes the debate coaches enlightening the ultra-extra-conservative debaters that they can still uphold their own personal values on both sides of the house. It is possible to have conservative ideals and yet still wanting to legalize pornography: legalizing means control, and proper registry, and that helps control pornography and keep it in check, better rather than letting black markets running rampant with their midget and rape porn and having government and law enforcement officials futilely trying to eliminate its existence. And that is the distinctive difference from how debate coaches in the West educates: pornography is good; access to sex is a basic human right, as much as access to food is, for a human, there is no substantial difference between watching porn and being in a swimming pool anyway.

Anyway, this post entry over here is going to be about us sharing the most common first-sessions. Probably in all debate clubs.

Aand, that’s it.

Team Affirmative

  1. Because pornography needs to be controlled.

Pornography, if left unchecked, leads to some serious repercussions. It is impossible to completely erase pornography, everywhere in this world. And things are worse in a country that bans pornography. The chances are that because mainstream pornography from the US, France, Russia, and Japan gets censored (sorry, banned, actually; completely filtered), that leaves only homemade amateur porn circulating around the country. This is the kind of porn that would circulate around social media, as they are usually still allowed, unlike pornsites. Making matters worse is the existence of “revenge porn” – couples who were kinky enough to record and take pictures of their sexual journeys, after breakup, have the likelihood to get revenge by uploading these. Sadly, this is the story behind how most pornstars end up pursuing that professional life of theirs. Because all it takes is only one single upload to the internet for it to stay there forever – from that point on, they can’t turn back anymore.

-> So, that’s the urgency established. Remember the good old classic checklist? Works wonders in improving newbies’ performances. And please don’t ask us how we know about which countries produce and export the most porn.

We then aim to legalize pornography, in order to dampen the tendencies of these unwanted porn from existing in internet. Hopefully when the demand for “normal” porn from the people gets satisfied, they won’t turn to access child/midget/pedophilia/revenge porn or any of the likes. the employment of children through workforce IDs, and generate extra income for our country via taxes we would otherwise be losing thanks to them operating in the dark, and thanks to us having to pay extra to our police and military forces (law enforcement, when trying to eradicate prostitution)

-> So that’s the goal.

All that’s left is just to explain the process from psychology, biology, and economics perspectives, and then you’re set.

  1. Because pornography is good.

Contradiction alert. Warning, guys.

There is actually the benefit of pornography. Stress stems itself from different factors, and one of them is a whole new another category of stress, sexual tension. And there are only two known ways in order to deal with this sexual frustration: diversion, by doing something else in order to suppress and distract the sex drive from arising, and release. People release their sexual frustration and pent-up urges in different ways. Some of the most extreme cases recall and list rape and sexual harassment in the form of grope in tight and enclosed areas, like in an elevator/lift or in a bus. But the presence of pornography opens up a safe channel for them to release their urges through masturbation by provision of visual stimulus. This serves as an indirect form of protection to women who are prone to be rape victims.

Although we recommend you reading more psychology books in order to confirm and reaffirm the truth of this argument.

Finally, all that is left for you is to explain how the government has the moral responsibility to legalize something when that thing has been proven to bring more benefits than harms. In other cases, sometimes even subsidize.

  1. Because body autonomy.

Now, be careful over here! The way you are going to elaborate this point is by basing all your explanations on the belief that pornography is useful. And harmless. Which is a very different belief than what you would base your explanations for your Team Affirmative Argument 1, are we right? The body autonomy argument has always been a classic, but debating motions like these compel newbie debaters to think especially harder and train better in trying to explore the boundaries of body autonomy – as far as it can be stretched!

It is as much the right to consume foods in order to sustain your livelihood as the right to consume porn in order to channel pent-up stress. People have no right to dictate what you eat, whether you want to consume that greasy chicken wing or digest that healthy salad is, and should be, none of their concern. Likewise governments cannot ban you from entering KFC or banning them from providing service to you when you wish to increase your cholesterol intake.

So, they also will have no say in how you use your eyes. Whether you want to look up, or down, or left, or right when urinating in the toilet, that is none of their concern. Whether you sleep while opening or closing your eyes, also none of their business. To sum up, that is also none of their concern when you wish to use your fingers to type the URL address of that porn site and wish to use your eyes to taste the delight of pornography. You may use your fingers as you see fit, to do your homework, to text your friends – nobody should have any dictation on it. You may use your eyes as you see fit, to watch movies, to watch horror, to watch fashion shows – nobody should have any dictation on it either. Pornography just happens to be a combination of both cases.

Although, yes, we admit, especially to those of you who happen to be alltoofamiliaralready with this body autonomy versus social contract clash, that things like these are never absolute like what we have stated. But, it is imperative that newbie debaters get the feeling of “Ohh!” when things get stretched really far to the extreme. Eventually, when they progress in this field of debating and become more experienced in clashes and analyzing motions, especially classic ones like this, they will know that there are some certain thresholds, which is a more feasible boundary to set, and thus making burdens easier to prove, rather than establishing that these values (body autonomy and social contract) are absolute.

But, again, for now, this should suffice. Should.

Another variant of the good old body autonomy versus social contract ideals clash is the economics. Pornography belongs to the same identity under economics, being businesses. Service providers. And the moment when governments step in to interfere with how private enterprises conduct their businesses, that’s when the government turns autocratic and into a dictatorship. From that point on, the government can use that justification to invade, control, and conduct the whole production, distribution, and consumption system within a country as they see fit.

It is one thing for governments to dictate how people should use their genitals, and it is another thing for governments to dictate what people should do for a living. Or what entrepreneurs should think of when having the inspiration to start a new business.

Again, be warned. Somewhere along explaining this argument, you might contradict your own explanation(s) for your Team Affirmative Argument 1.

Team Negative

  1. Because pornography is harmful.

Pornography, if left unchecked, leads to some serious repercussions. It is impossible to completely erase pornography, everywhere in this world. And things are worse in a country that bans pornography. The chances are that because mainstream pornography from the US, France, Russia, and Japan gets censored (sorry, banned, actually; completely filtered), that leaves only homemade amateur porn circulating around the country. This is the kind of porn that would circulate around social media, as they are usually still allowed, unlike pornsites. Making matters worse is the existence of “revenge porn” – couples who were kinky enough to record and take pictures of their sexual journeys, after breakup, have the likelihood to get revenge by uploading these. Sadly, this is the story behind how most pornstars end up pursuing that professional life of theirs. Because all it takes is only one single upload to the internet for it to stay there forever – from that point on, they can’t turn back anymore.

  1. Because the situation is unsuitable.

Let’s talk about this, before, or instead of, discussing about the good old classic of social contract versus body autonomy ideals clash. At some point around the debate, there could be a consensus reached (just our expectations, though) that this debate will be talking about timeframes. Timeframes refer to the time contexts and biases in which this motion would be applicable—preferable. When Team Affirmative and Team Negative both agree that pornography is a basic human right, and even necessity, and that access for porn shouldn’t be restricted by the government, this “agreement-consensus” is reached, and the debate clash, one of the possible ones, becomes about timeframes. Team Affirmative afterwards would say that they are going to legalize pornography because the society have their rights and they want it right now, and Team Negative would respond by saying that they are not ready yet to embrace this basic right of theirs.

So, what to do for Team Negative next, is to prove how the social condition and phenomenon is not ready yet for pornography legalization. Social stigma and tension refers to a condition where not everybody in the society is of the same page. When society is still divided into some still upholding abstinence beliefs and others into promiscuity, that is when governments are trying to ignite pandemonium by suddenly taking a side (of promiscuity) amidst the dispute. Governments therefore will worsen the status quo by inciting chaos, thanks to this motion. Furthermore, the discourse will have the tendency to be destructive since the people who are against pornography, the religious groups, will seem to lose faith in their country, and then unleashes their rage, not to only one, but now to two stakeholders: they do not rage to only the pornstars and the porn companies, but now to the government too.

And then, remember that you are assuming the stance of saying that “pornography is okay—but not now” by choosing this argument; so you still have to explain why “later” is better than “now”. Remember to put explanations about how status quo is progressing to be more progressive and liberal and more receptive towards pornography, so it is better to just wait a little bit more, instead of implementing the motion straightaway. Hmm… maybe because “right now” might not be such a good idea for the pornstars.

If you want to go back to your Team Negative Argument 1 (benefits versus harms), remember that this motion is also about protection to the pornstars. Not only about talking about satisfying the demands of the porn viewers.

  1. Because this legalization has many holes.

Now let’s shift our paradigm into analyzing that if our Team Affirmative is the conservative type and addresses that this motion is a form of control over pornography instead of an accommodation for individuals to exercise their free will.

It will make perfect sense for you to agree that child porn is bad, rape porn is bad, and that children shouldn’t be allowed to access porn, and others. Still, we do understand that there are extremely liberal debaters who prefer to assume the stance of “whatever-porn-we-don’t-care-it’s-our-right” and thus would argue that this government control violates some human rights who desire to access rape porn (this scenario is what people would usually call as a “flip stance” – Team Affirmative taking Team Negative values, and vice versa). But since we are talking about the perspectives from conservative debaters right here, then, please, just bear with us for now. So these child and rape porn are bad, and children accessing porn is bad, and you also have the same goal, which is to stop them. You are now on the same page with your Team Affirmative, with the same goal, but different process in accomplishing to achieve so.

The different process is caused by your beliefs not being the same with your Team Affirmative. Somehow, somewhere along the line of having a Team Affirmative setting up a stance like that, identify if your Team Affirmative has properly drawn the line and set up the boundaries between a person of sixteen years old and seventeen years old (or whatever the year threshold for coming of age might be, according to both of you, depending on both of your countries’ policies). If they didn’t set it up properly, rejoice: that means that they forgot to justify how pornography is suddenly okay to be legalized for 17++. If their belief is “legalize in order to control”, then their stance is likely to be “pornography is bad”, and then you can come up with an argument of identifying how weak that stance is, because when something is bad, you don’t succumb to it, you combat it. If they set it up properly, identify the mechanism: do they have proper controls and procedures to prevent 16– from accessing porn? If they don’t, rejoice. Go ahead and put all the pressure you can into attacking their lack of mechanism in order for their motion to lose credibility in front of the adjudicators. If they do, well—start scrutinizing. The three most common lies in the internet are “I have read the terms and conditions”, “I am offline”, and “I hereby declare that I am 17 of age”, just saying.

Leave a Reply