It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Challenge Match: Skyfloating vs nyk537: Baring It All In Public.
page: 15
share:
The topic for this debate is "Public nudity is OK"
Skyfloating is arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Nyk537 will be arguing the con position.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
Character limits are no longer in effect. You may use as many characters as a single post allows.
Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
Responses should be made within 24 hours. One single 24 hour extension can be used by a member by requesting it in the thread. If 24 hours passes without response, you may proceed with your next post. Members who exceed 24 hours run the risk of losing their post, but may still post up until their opponent has submitted their next response.
This is a challenge match. The winner will receive 2 ranking points, the loser will lose two ranking points.
Skyfloating is arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Nyk537 will be arguing the con position.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
Character limits are no longer in effect. You may use as many characters as a single post allows.
Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
Responses should be made within 24 hours. One single 24 hour extension can be used by a member by requesting it in the thread. If 24 hours passes without response, you may proceed with your next post. Members who exceed 24 hours run the risk of losing their post, but may still post up until their opponent has submitted their next response.
This is a challenge match. The winner will receive 2 ranking points, the loser will lose two ranking points.
Nudity in Public is OK
Dear Readers, dear esteemed opponent nyk. Before introducing my case, let me share some introductory Definitions from the online Encyclopedia
On Legality:
Opponents of Public Nudity:
On NIP is becoming more common:
I think we can safely assert that the more backward and bigotted a society is, the more fear of nudity there is. The Taliban of Afghanistan get enraged by only seeing a woman expose her ankles, while some of the most progressive societies, such as the well-educated Scandinavians, enjoy conducting nude sports bicycle races. America is somewhere in the middle. In many american saunas swimming-clothes are still required wheras in most European nations, especially Scandinavia going into a public sauna with anything on is deemed inappropriate and is most often even prohibited.
“Public Nudity is OK” also means It is OK to be yourself. You neednt fear being your natural self. You are born nude. Surely if nudity were not natural you would be born with clothes on. As the intelligence of our society increases and evolutionary progress is made, more and more will recognize that the moral standards and habits we have bestowed upon ourselves in respect to nudity are artificial. The only reason to wear clothes then, becomes one of air-temperature necessity. Not because it`s “indecent” to be and show yourself, but because it`s snowing outside. Nude Beaches are becoming more and more popular as people feel the need to liberate themselves from silly and close-minded restrictions.
Everybody knows what you look like underneath. Whats the point of hiding it? Everybody knows what those “private parts” are.
And what happens at nude beaches? Are all ethics and decency cast into the wind and society descending into evil and chaos? Not hardly. The behaviour of people at nude beaches is mostly respectful and normal. People will sunbathe, get ice-cream, read, work out. No big deal.
My opponent is tasked with arguing “Public Nudity is not OK”. How is he going to do that? Its difficult to imagine, probably on “moral grounds” (whatever that may be), but I look forward to it nonetheless.
Socratic Questions to my opponent:
1.Would you agree that children are generally more innocent and dont second guess everything and do not automatically ascribe sexual meanings to nudity?
2.Is being born nude indicative of nudity being our most natural and native state?
3.Would you find it unpleasant to constantly have to be covered in garment, even when it`s hot?
4.Do you feel offended by people wearing shorts (showing bare skin) in the gym?
5.When seeing a beautiful naked woman lying in your bed, do you think “that´s not OK”?
Dear Readers, dear esteemed opponent nyk. Before introducing my case, let me share some introductory Definitions from the online Encyclopedia
Public nudity or nude in public (NIP) refers to nudity not in an entirely private context. It refers to a person appearing nude in a public place or to be seen from a public place. Nudity in the privacy of a person's home or private grounds or facilities is not public nudity. Nudity at fitness facilities, swimming pools, saunas, or gymnasia, nudist or naturist clubs or resorts are also not public, since they take place on private grounds. Naturism promotes social nudity, but mostly on private properties or officially sanctioned public areas.
In some cases, public nudity may be legal. For example, there are many countries which have designated public areas as nude beaches, or where nude bathing is unofficially tolerated. In those places a person would not face legal prosecution merely for being nude.
On Legality:
Outside of those areas, community and legal acceptance of public nudity varies considerably. To avoid offending the public in general, public authorities maintain what are sometimes called "standards of decency". What falls outside these standards are usually termed "indecent exposure", or similar terminology. These standards, however, vary with time and place. Most people object to public nudity in a sexualised context, or when children are in issue. People regard those who appear nude in public as trying to draw attention to themselves. If the attention seeking is to oneself, it may be referred to as exhibitionism, otherwise it may be to draw attention to a cause (see nudity and protest). There are also some people who disrobe in public to attract publicity to themselves, as a career move, such as some streakers at sporting events. There are also others who spontaneously disrobe in public, as an expression of their freedom and the shedding of inhibitions; an example being skinny dipping.
Opponents of Public Nudity:
There are some people who object to any public exposure of a naked human body, on moral, religious or decency grounds, and regard the exposure of a naked body as inherently sexual. (See also gymnophobia.) The degree to which a person can be exposed to be considered "indecent" varies with cultural standards. At one extreme is the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan which considered the exposure of any part of a woman's body in public as indecent, and required all women to wear a burqa in public. Less extreme is the requirement for women who enter a church to wear "modest" clothing and to cover their heads. This is not entirely analogous, because this sort of requirement is not made in respect of a public place. (See also modesty.)
On NIP is becoming more common:
In recent times, it appears that public nudity is becoming more common with nude sporting and other activities being held. These include naked hiking, the World Naked Bike Ride, Bay to Breakers, Solstice Cyclists, and modern art movements as seen in the work of Spencer Tunick and others. No general public outcry has accompanied these events.
I think we can safely assert that the more backward and bigotted a society is, the more fear of nudity there is. The Taliban of Afghanistan get enraged by only seeing a woman expose her ankles, while some of the most progressive societies, such as the well-educated Scandinavians, enjoy conducting nude sports bicycle races. America is somewhere in the middle. In many american saunas swimming-clothes are still required wheras in most European nations, especially Scandinavia going into a public sauna with anything on is deemed inappropriate and is most often even prohibited.
“Public Nudity is OK” also means It is OK to be yourself. You neednt fear being your natural self. You are born nude. Surely if nudity were not natural you would be born with clothes on. As the intelligence of our society increases and evolutionary progress is made, more and more will recognize that the moral standards and habits we have bestowed upon ourselves in respect to nudity are artificial. The only reason to wear clothes then, becomes one of air-temperature necessity. Not because it`s “indecent” to be and show yourself, but because it`s snowing outside. Nude Beaches are becoming more and more popular as people feel the need to liberate themselves from silly and close-minded restrictions.
Everybody knows what you look like underneath. Whats the point of hiding it? Everybody knows what those “private parts” are.
And what happens at nude beaches? Are all ethics and decency cast into the wind and society descending into evil and chaos? Not hardly. The behaviour of people at nude beaches is mostly respectful and normal. People will sunbathe, get ice-cream, read, work out. No big deal.
My opponent is tasked with arguing “Public Nudity is not OK”. How is he going to do that? Its difficult to imagine, probably on “moral grounds” (whatever that may be), but I look forward to it nonetheless.
Socratic Questions to my opponent:
1.Would you agree that children are generally more innocent and dont second guess everything and do not automatically ascribe sexual meanings to nudity?
2.Is being born nude indicative of nudity being our most natural and native state?
3.Would you find it unpleasant to constantly have to be covered in garment, even when it`s hot?
4.Do you feel offended by people wearing shorts (showing bare skin) in the gym?
5.When seeing a beautiful naked woman lying in your bed, do you think “that´s not OK”?
Greetings ATS! First off I'd like to offer a big thank you to MemoryShock for hosting this debate, and Skyfloating for coming up with this
"revealing" debate topic. This should be a fun change of pace for the debate forum!
--------------------------
Taking a cue from my opponents opening statement, I do not believe it is fair to assume that a "fear of nudity" should be tied to a society being backwards or bigoted. Surely not aspiring to see that vast majority of your fellow man in the nude does not make you a bigot, or un-educated?
The question was raised as to how I could go about arguing that "Public Nudity is not OK." As my opponent correctly pointed out I will not attempt to argue this case on "moral grounds", as quite obviously not everyone shares the same set of morals. Instead, I will simply answer the question posed rather directly. I will prove to you in no uncertain terms that public nudity is indeed, not OK.
--------------------------
Answers to Socratic Questions:
Of course. I will agree with you that children are generally more innocent; but at what point does that innocence go away? I will also agree that children do not automatically ascribe sexual meaning to nudity, but how long does it take them to begin?
I'm afraid in the society we live in, simply having the television turned on in one's home will begin feeding the idea of sex to our children. The age at which children are having sex increases to lower each and every year. How would letting people parade around in the nude help this?
I do not believe that being born nude is indicative of nudity being our most natural state. After all, we are born unable to walk or speak, perhaps that is our natural state as well?
No, I wouldn't. That is why man created Air-Conditioning and Fans. Would you find it unpleasant to be nude, even when it's freezing?
No I don't. However, I would feel offended if the rather portly fellow who is usually on the treadmill next to me was jogging in his birthday suit.
Actually, yes. Unless of course that woman was my wife.
Seriously though, if walking through town you were to see some brutally overweight naked construction workers pounding away on their jackhammers, would you think "that's not OK"?
--------------------------
I can see this debate branching off into a few different directions, and I am prepared to defend my position in any instance. I can assure you that by the end of this debate, you will be unequivocally opposed to a free for all on Public Nudity.
--------------------------
Taking a cue from my opponents opening statement, I do not believe it is fair to assume that a "fear of nudity" should be tied to a society being backwards or bigoted. Surely not aspiring to see that vast majority of your fellow man in the nude does not make you a bigot, or un-educated?
The question was raised as to how I could go about arguing that "Public Nudity is not OK." As my opponent correctly pointed out I will not attempt to argue this case on "moral grounds", as quite obviously not everyone shares the same set of morals. Instead, I will simply answer the question posed rather directly. I will prove to you in no uncertain terms that public nudity is indeed, not OK.
--------------------------
Answers to Socratic Questions:
Would you agree that children are generally more innocent and dont second guess everything and do not automatically ascribe sexual meanings to nudity?
Of course. I will agree with you that children are generally more innocent; but at what point does that innocence go away? I will also agree that children do not automatically ascribe sexual meaning to nudity, but how long does it take them to begin?
I'm afraid in the society we live in, simply having the television turned on in one's home will begin feeding the idea of sex to our children. The age at which children are having sex increases to lower each and every year. How would letting people parade around in the nude help this?
Is being born nude indicative of nudity being our most natural and native state?
I do not believe that being born nude is indicative of nudity being our most natural state. After all, we are born unable to walk or speak, perhaps that is our natural state as well?
Would you find it unpleasant to constantly have to be covered in garment, even when it`s hot?
No, I wouldn't. That is why man created Air-Conditioning and Fans. Would you find it unpleasant to be nude, even when it's freezing?
Do you feel offended by people wearing shorts (showing bare skin) in the gym?
No I don't. However, I would feel offended if the rather portly fellow who is usually on the treadmill next to me was jogging in his birthday suit.
When seeing a beautiful naked woman lying in your bed, do you think “that´s not OK”?
Actually, yes. Unless of course that woman was my wife.
Seriously though, if walking through town you were to see some brutally overweight naked construction workers pounding away on their jackhammers, would you think "that's not OK"?
--------------------------
I can see this debate branching off into a few different directions, and I am prepared to defend my position in any instance. I can assure you that by the end of this debate, you will be unequivocally opposed to a free for all on Public Nudity.
Freedom, Choice, Beauty, Honesty
In terms of humor my opponent has taken the lead. I enjoyed the last post a lot. In terms of the debate topic it´s a different story though.
There are many stances here, ranging from outlawing any sign of naturalness to the other extreme of advocating a free-for-all widespread striptease and breakdown of the social order we are accustomed to. I am not advertising “Public Nudity should be free for all” or “Public Nudity is mandatory” or even “Nudity is Good”, but simply “Public Nudity is OK” - it is not the sinful, evil, scandalous act it is made out to be.
Remember the public outrage when Janet Jackson accidentally showed a nipple for a few seconds at a public concert? It was an issue in the news media for weeks, press agents, producers, PR people, politicians, moralizer going completely bonkers over such a minor slip-up. That´s the stupidity we are debating against here.
So the debate topic really is not “Everyone should run around naked, no matter the time, place and circumstance”. The debate topic is “Public Nudity is OK”, meaning it is not OK to stone, arrest, jail, torture, stigmatize, discriminate against people who like nude beaches, nudity in saunas, partial nudity at public beaches, sexy clothing that shows a bit more, etc.
“Yes but there were children watching Janet Jacksons concert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” the uptight cry. Indignation. Shame. Will these children be cast to hell and experience punishment from eternity to eternity?
Or is it much more that most children didn`t even notice the few seconds of nipple exposure or if they did notice didn`t care as much as the moralizers - who focus on nothing other than that – did?
Is it because these moralizers have repressed and suppressed nudity and our sexual nature as humans to such an extreme that we got the reaction in the form of extreme sexual perversion and our society now literally being flooded with freely availible hardcore pornography and sexual bestiality? I would think so. One extreme breeds the other.
In response to nyks statements:
Surely there´s a difference between stoning a woman for showing her ankles *God Forbid* and grown men aspiring to see nudity. There´s a middle ground and that ground I represent in this debate.
This is a touchy subject matter and I vow to treat it respectfully. However, it should be apparent by now (the year 2008) that incessantly trying to hide the facts of life from children makes them ever more curious. And trying to suppress the truth, makes them rebell. Unfortunately more than only nudity, namely hardcore pornography of every type is freely available in the Internet. The so-called “filters” are a joke. This knowledge hasn`t trickled down yet to common understanding, but it will in time. Psychologically this overload of pornography is a knee-jerk reaction to the suppression of sexuality and general nudity imposed on us by bigots and those afraid of our nature.
The original cause of hardcore porn, exhibitionism and sexual perversion can be found in the suppression of our natural insticts and joy of sex. Push something down and it fights back even more extremely. It is our sick brainwashing to hide everything from children that makes them rebell to later become addicted to things such as porn.
Nudists, Naturalists and Libertarians on the other hand, do not advocate suppression and concealment but a non-neurotic, open discussion and education on the facts of life. If I child can approach it`s parents honestly, there is no need to rebell.
So Im assuming you think that the stuff you are currently wearing is a biological extension of you?
Indeed clothes are an air-temperature necessity, not a moral one.
So you wouldnt be offended by someone wearing shorts. You concede that public nudity (of legs) is OK
Considering the grin I understand that you do enjoy the sight of a naked woman. You know that – had you tried to convince us otherwise – we (me and the readers) wouldn`t have bought it.
If someone is beautiful and to our liking then their nudity is indeed “OK”.
Fortunately I am not advocating a free-for-all and anywhere/anytime nudity. Im simply saying “Nudity is OK” meaning its less objectionable than our conditioning through school, religion, media makes it out to be. Besides, at a construction site, some clothes are needed...again, not on moral grounds, but simply for protection.
By the end of this debate? Im already opposed to a free for all public nudity now. And so is the rest of society with the exception of extremist anarchists.
Consider this:
The same sense of no-shame can be found in the indigenous cultures of Australia and some pockets of South America and Africa. In other words: Anywhere where religious zealots with their weird views did not show up you find nudity to be something that is OK.
Socratic Questions:
1.What is wrong with the ancient Spartans having been nude in public?
2.What is wrong with these cyclists being nude in public?
3.What is wrong with these indian children swimming nude?
I think I can answer: There´s absolutely nothing wrong with it.. Its OK. But I´d like you to confirm that.
In terms of humor my opponent has taken the lead. I enjoyed the last post a lot. In terms of the debate topic it´s a different story though.
There are many stances here, ranging from outlawing any sign of naturalness to the other extreme of advocating a free-for-all widespread striptease and breakdown of the social order we are accustomed to. I am not advertising “Public Nudity should be free for all” or “Public Nudity is mandatory” or even “Nudity is Good”, but simply “Public Nudity is OK” - it is not the sinful, evil, scandalous act it is made out to be.
Remember the public outrage when Janet Jackson accidentally showed a nipple for a few seconds at a public concert? It was an issue in the news media for weeks, press agents, producers, PR people, politicians, moralizer going completely bonkers over such a minor slip-up. That´s the stupidity we are debating against here.
So the debate topic really is not “Everyone should run around naked, no matter the time, place and circumstance”. The debate topic is “Public Nudity is OK”, meaning it is not OK to stone, arrest, jail, torture, stigmatize, discriminate against people who like nude beaches, nudity in saunas, partial nudity at public beaches, sexy clothing that shows a bit more, etc.
“Yes but there were children watching Janet Jacksons concert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” the uptight cry. Indignation. Shame. Will these children be cast to hell and experience punishment from eternity to eternity?
Or is it much more that most children didn`t even notice the few seconds of nipple exposure or if they did notice didn`t care as much as the moralizers - who focus on nothing other than that – did?
Is it because these moralizers have repressed and suppressed nudity and our sexual nature as humans to such an extreme that we got the reaction in the form of extreme sexual perversion and our society now literally being flooded with freely availible hardcore pornography and sexual bestiality? I would think so. One extreme breeds the other.
In response to nyks statements:
I do not believe it is fair to assume that a "fear of nudity" should be tied to a society being backwards or bigoted. Surely not aspiring to see that vast majority of your fellow man in the nude does not make you a bigot, or un-educated?
Surely there´s a difference between stoning a woman for showing her ankles *God Forbid* and grown men aspiring to see nudity. There´s a middle ground and that ground I represent in this debate.
Of course. I will agree with you that children are generally more innocent; but at what point does that innocence go away? I will also agree that children do not automatically ascribe sexual meaning to nudity, but how long does it take them to begin?
This is a touchy subject matter and I vow to treat it respectfully. However, it should be apparent by now (the year 2008) that incessantly trying to hide the facts of life from children makes them ever more curious. And trying to suppress the truth, makes them rebell. Unfortunately more than only nudity, namely hardcore pornography of every type is freely available in the Internet. The so-called “filters” are a joke. This knowledge hasn`t trickled down yet to common understanding, but it will in time. Psychologically this overload of pornography is a knee-jerk reaction to the suppression of sexuality and general nudity imposed on us by bigots and those afraid of our nature.
I'm afraid in the society we live in, simply having the television turned on in one's home will begin feeding the idea of sex to our children. The age at which children are having sex increases to lower each and every year. How would letting people parade around in the nude help this?
The original cause of hardcore porn, exhibitionism and sexual perversion can be found in the suppression of our natural insticts and joy of sex. Push something down and it fights back even more extremely. It is our sick brainwashing to hide everything from children that makes them rebell to later become addicted to things such as porn.
Nudists, Naturalists and Libertarians on the other hand, do not advocate suppression and concealment but a non-neurotic, open discussion and education on the facts of life. If I child can approach it`s parents honestly, there is no need to rebell.
I do not believe that being born nude is indicative of nudity being our most natural state.
So Im assuming you think that the stuff you are currently wearing is a biological extension of you?
No, I wouldn't. That is why man created Air-Conditioning and Fans. Would you find it unpleasant to be nude, even when it's freezing?
Indeed clothes are an air-temperature necessity, not a moral one.
No I don't.
So you wouldnt be offended by someone wearing shorts. You concede that public nudity (of legs) is OK
Actually, yes. Unless of course that woman was my wife.
Considering the grin I understand that you do enjoy the sight of a naked woman. You know that – had you tried to convince us otherwise – we (me and the readers) wouldn`t have bought it.
If someone is beautiful and to our liking then their nudity is indeed “OK”.
Seriously though, if walking through town you were to see some brutally overweight naked construction workers pounding away on their jackhammers, would you think "that's not OK"?
Fortunately I am not advocating a free-for-all and anywhere/anytime nudity. Im simply saying “Nudity is OK” meaning its less objectionable than our conditioning through school, religion, media makes it out to be. Besides, at a construction site, some clothes are needed...again, not on moral grounds, but simply for protection.
I can assure you that by the end of this debate, you will be unequivocally opposed to a free for all on Public Nudity.
By the end of this debate? Im already opposed to a free for all public nudity now. And so is the rest of society with the exception of extremist anarchists.
Consider this:
The closest western historical example of free public nudity was ancient Sparta, a society with rigorous codes of training and physical exercise, yet also having art and music. Spartan women wore briefer clothing than other Greek women, yet they sometimes dispensed with these garments and went nude in the town if they wished.[9] (Customarily, they and other Greek men and women were nude at festivals of the Classical period). In Spartan society naked women or men in the city would probably have been treated with the same respect as clothed people.[10]
same source as above
The same sense of no-shame can be found in the indigenous cultures of Australia and some pockets of South America and Africa. In other words: Anywhere where religious zealots with their weird views did not show up you find nudity to be something that is OK.
Socratic Questions:
1.What is wrong with the ancient Spartans having been nude in public?
2.What is wrong with these cyclists being nude in public?
3.What is wrong with these indian children swimming nude?
I think I can answer: There´s absolutely nothing wrong with it.. Its OK. But I´d like you to confirm that.
The Problem With "Public" Nudity
My opponent has begun to paint a picture for us of the beautiful beauty strolling about in the nude as the basis for public nudity being OK. In reality, we know that this is not the case. The case so far is attempting to play off of one of our most basic instincts, the desire to see an attractive member of the opposite sex in the nude. We can not allow ourselves to fall pray to this logic, for who among us can disagree with it. Rather, we must continue to focus on the broader spectrum of the topic, that public nudity is not OK.
I'd like to take a moment to pull a piece from my opponents previous post, in which the following was stated:
First of all, I don't believe that anyone has ever suggested we stone, arrest, jail, torture, etc. anyone who chooses to be nude in public. Instead, I have simply suggested we not let them be nude in public in the first place. My opponent then goes on to make a very interesting comment.
What my opponent has given us here is a list of places where nudity would not in fact be public. It is understood if you go to a nude beach you will see nude people, in general saunas are labeled as such if nudity is allowed, and partial nudity is not technically nudity.
I will not argue with my opponent that nudity in places that are "reserved" for nudity are wrong. However, the points that are being made have no relevance to the topic at hand, that public nudity is not OK.
Would that sentence read the same with different locations?...people who like nudity in grocery stores, public parks, and sporting events...I think not.
My opponent then repeatedly draws comparisons of public nudity to pornography. I find this to be somewhat illogical.
The very definition of public nudity is nudity in....you guessed it...public. Pornography is not public. Sure it might be easily obtained by even the youngest of children, but it is not marketed as such. Public nudity, on the other hand, is. If someone is nude in public, anyone of any age is free to see, without having to bypass any filters.
--------------------------
Answers to Socratic Questions:
Obviously I can't speak for everyone about why such a thing would be "wrong". Admittedly, that was a different period in time, and such things may have been acceptable then. Today, however, public nudity as such is not acceptable.
Depends on who you ask I would imagine. Personally, if I wanted to go out with my children and enjoy a good bike race, I would rather them, or myself, not be exposed to rampant nudity. Why could these people not do the same activity wearing clothes?
Again I cannot speak for everyone on this. Personally, I would never allow my children to do such a thing, for fear of some sicko who would enjoy it too much.
--------------------------
Socratic Questions:
1.) What do you consider to be "public" nudity? You have listed some places that are not technically public, so I'm curious as to what you do consider public.
2.) You make the argument that since we are born nude, it is a natural state. Taking that into consideration, since we are born unable to walk or speak, do you consider that to be our natural state as well?
2a.) Furthermore, if we eventually walk and talk because we learn. Could you not also say that we "learn" to wear clothes?
My opponent has begun to paint a picture for us of the beautiful beauty strolling about in the nude as the basis for public nudity being OK. In reality, we know that this is not the case. The case so far is attempting to play off of one of our most basic instincts, the desire to see an attractive member of the opposite sex in the nude. We can not allow ourselves to fall pray to this logic, for who among us can disagree with it. Rather, we must continue to focus on the broader spectrum of the topic, that public nudity is not OK.
I'd like to take a moment to pull a piece from my opponents previous post, in which the following was stated:
The debate topic is “Public Nudity is OK”, meaning it is not OK to stone, arrest, jail, torture, stigmatize, discriminate against people who like nude beaches, nudity in saunas, partial nudity at public beaches, sexy clothing that shows a bit more, etc.
First of all, I don't believe that anyone has ever suggested we stone, arrest, jail, torture, etc. anyone who chooses to be nude in public. Instead, I have simply suggested we not let them be nude in public in the first place. My opponent then goes on to make a very interesting comment.
people who like nude beaches, nudity in saunas, partial nudity at public beaches
What my opponent has given us here is a list of places where nudity would not in fact be public. It is understood if you go to a nude beach you will see nude people, in general saunas are labeled as such if nudity is allowed, and partial nudity is not technically nudity.
I will not argue with my opponent that nudity in places that are "reserved" for nudity are wrong. However, the points that are being made have no relevance to the topic at hand, that public nudity is not OK.
Would that sentence read the same with different locations?...people who like nudity in grocery stores, public parks, and sporting events...I think not.
My opponent then repeatedly draws comparisons of public nudity to pornography. I find this to be somewhat illogical.
The very definition of public nudity is nudity in....you guessed it...public. Pornography is not public. Sure it might be easily obtained by even the youngest of children, but it is not marketed as such. Public nudity, on the other hand, is. If someone is nude in public, anyone of any age is free to see, without having to bypass any filters.
--------------------------
Answers to Socratic Questions:
What is wrong with the ancient Spartans having been nude in public?
Obviously I can't speak for everyone about why such a thing would be "wrong". Admittedly, that was a different period in time, and such things may have been acceptable then. Today, however, public nudity as such is not acceptable.
What is wrong with these cyclists being nude in public?
Depends on who you ask I would imagine. Personally, if I wanted to go out with my children and enjoy a good bike race, I would rather them, or myself, not be exposed to rampant nudity. Why could these people not do the same activity wearing clothes?
What is wrong with these Indian children swimming nude?
Again I cannot speak for everyone on this. Personally, I would never allow my children to do such a thing, for fear of some sicko who would enjoy it too much.
--------------------------
Socratic Questions:
1.) What do you consider to be "public" nudity? You have listed some places that are not technically public, so I'm curious as to what you do consider public.
2.) You make the argument that since we are born nude, it is a natural state. Taking that into consideration, since we are born unable to walk or speak, do you consider that to be our natural state as well?
2a.) Furthermore, if we eventually walk and talk because we learn. Could you not also say that we "learn" to wear clothes?
Sweet Liberation from yesteryears uptight, square and stiff
Us Fighters who love to debate frequently in this Forum know that in each debate there comes a special moment when the debate can be turned to ones favor because the opponent has made a mistake or overlooked something. One of these defining moments can be found in this statement by my opponent:
I currently live in the European Alps in driving distance of switzerland, austria, italy, france and germany. What all these countries have in common is that it is quite normal to lie at the lake or go to a public swimming pool with saunas...and be nude. Unless my opponent thinks that the U.S. is the only place in the world, his statement of these places (lakes, swimming centers) not being public is false.
The same thing goes for this statement:
Believe it or not, the Internet is defined as a public place and pornography is only a mouseclick away. The reason I brought up pornography is because we go to great lengths trying to censor an accidental slip by Janet Jackson while the public arena of the Internet is brim full with the most hardcore type of images and movies...which make your typical nudist and naturalist look tame in comparison. I also brought up pornography to point out that our unnatural, bigotted and neurotic behaviour and upbringing towards sex is what has led to sexual perversions of all shapes and forms. Going the libertarian way of saying "Hey! Nudity is OK!" will allow us to develop a more natural stance toward what makes us human and ultimately decrase sex crime and perversion.
As if two false statements in a post arent enough, we have this one:
It is common knowledge that in some extremely fanatic religious areas of this world, this is happening right now. Homosexuals are hung in public for "indicent exposure" (Iran), Women are stoned for showing their legs (Afghanistan), other woman beheaded for wearing a bikini (Saudi Arabia).
My opponent is not suggesting this, but others obviously are.
Nyk writes:
So whats good for the ancient greeks is not good for us?
Debate Judges pay attention: Up to now nyk has repeated that public nudity is wrong, not acceptable, not good, not right. But he has not pointed out why. Why oh Why is it not acceptable?
I think I know the reason he is not explaining himself: Any explanation of why nudity in public is "wrong" would end up having no merit and not making any rational sense.
Since my opponent keeps bringing up children and will presumably keep doing so as his main argument against public nudity, allow me to address this thouroughly:
We´ve lost the innocence that children have because of our unnatural stance towards nudity. I personally and children do not first think of pedophiles, rape and fire/brimstone when seeing nudes. We think of beauty, naturalness, OKness. If we want to conquer sexual deviation and crime in our society we must change our attitude towards the whole issue. And one aspect of this change is: Public Nudity is OK.
As the reader can see I am not only talking about the "beauty strolling at the beach" as my opponent claims, but also taking more serious issues into account.
Lakes. Swimming Centres. Saunas. The Internet. Discos and Nightclubs, etc.
Our native state is intellectually innocent, nude, not yet able to speak or walk. In time we learn speaking and walking. But we are also soczialized and conditioned into behaviour that is not necessarily "natural" simply for the reason to "fit into society", "go with the crowds", "do what others are doing", "say what others are saying". While I do find it appropriate to be dressed for many ocassaions, I say it is also OK to be nude. Just because it is our habit since thousands of years doesnt make it normal. Its something we´ve learned in the sense of being conditioned to believe that thats "the way things are supposed to be".
Yes. Answered above.
__________________________________
Socratic Questions
1. Would you agree that having made sex a taboo-subject in our society has done more harm than good?
2. Do you really think nudity is unnatural?
3. Do you admit that lakes, swimming centres, discos and nightclubs are public places?
4. Would you agree that clothing is mostly used as
a) Protection (from cold and environmental factors)
b) as a style and personality statement
5. Would you agree that the strictness with which some groups (such as the Taliban) punish showing bare skin, is exaggerated and unhealthy by our western standards?
___________________________________________
Groups, Movements and Key Concepts which say Public Nudity is OK:
1. Movements pro Artistic Expression
2. Libertarian Movements
3. Naturist Movements
4. New Age Movements
5. Civil Disobedience & Protest Movements
6. Nudist Movements
7. Counterculture and Bohemianism
To wrap it up, I found this beautiful article showing how a town in Vermont achieved making it OK to be nude in public
Us Fighters who love to debate frequently in this Forum know that in each debate there comes a special moment when the debate can be turned to ones favor because the opponent has made a mistake or overlooked something. One of these defining moments can be found in this statement by my opponent:
What my opponent has given us here is a list of places where nudity would not in fact be public. It is understood if you go to a nude beach you will see nude people, in general saunas are labeled as such if nudity is allowed, and partial nudity is not technically nudity.
I currently live in the European Alps in driving distance of switzerland, austria, italy, france and germany. What all these countries have in common is that it is quite normal to lie at the lake or go to a public swimming pool with saunas...and be nude. Unless my opponent thinks that the U.S. is the only place in the world, his statement of these places (lakes, swimming centers) not being public is false.
The same thing goes for this statement:
Pornography is not public.
Believe it or not, the Internet is defined as a public place and pornography is only a mouseclick away. The reason I brought up pornography is because we go to great lengths trying to censor an accidental slip by Janet Jackson while the public arena of the Internet is brim full with the most hardcore type of images and movies...which make your typical nudist and naturalist look tame in comparison. I also brought up pornography to point out that our unnatural, bigotted and neurotic behaviour and upbringing towards sex is what has led to sexual perversions of all shapes and forms. Going the libertarian way of saying "Hey! Nudity is OK!" will allow us to develop a more natural stance toward what makes us human and ultimately decrase sex crime and perversion.
As if two false statements in a post arent enough, we have this one:
First of all, I don't believe that anyone has ever suggested we stone, arrest, jail, torture, etc. anyone who chooses to be nude in public.
It is common knowledge that in some extremely fanatic religious areas of this world, this is happening right now. Homosexuals are hung in public for "indicent exposure" (Iran), Women are stoned for showing their legs (Afghanistan), other woman beheaded for wearing a bikini (Saudi Arabia).
My opponent is not suggesting this, but others obviously are.
Nyk writes:
Obviously I can't speak for everyone about why such a thing would be "wrong". Admittedly, that was a different period in time, and such things may have been acceptable then. Today, however, public nudity as such is not acceptable.
So whats good for the ancient greeks is not good for us?
Debate Judges pay attention: Up to now nyk has repeated that public nudity is wrong, not acceptable, not good, not right. But he has not pointed out why. Why oh Why is it not acceptable?
I think I know the reason he is not explaining himself: Any explanation of why nudity in public is "wrong" would end up having no merit and not making any rational sense.
Personally, if I wanted to go out with my children and enjoy a good bike race, I would rather them, or myself, not be exposed to rampant nudity. Why could these people not do the same activity wearing clothes?
I would never allow my children to do such a thing, for fear of some sicko who would enjoy it too much.
Since my opponent keeps bringing up children and will presumably keep doing so as his main argument against public nudity, allow me to address this thouroughly:
We´ve lost the innocence that children have because of our unnatural stance towards nudity. I personally and children do not first think of pedophiles, rape and fire/brimstone when seeing nudes. We think of beauty, naturalness, OKness. If we want to conquer sexual deviation and crime in our society we must change our attitude towards the whole issue. And one aspect of this change is: Public Nudity is OK.
As the reader can see I am not only talking about the "beauty strolling at the beach" as my opponent claims, but also taking more serious issues into account.
Socratic Questions:
1.) What do you consider to be "public" nudity? You have listed some places that are not technically public, so I'm curious as to what you do consider public.
Lakes. Swimming Centres. Saunas. The Internet. Discos and Nightclubs, etc.
2.) You make the argument that since we are born nude, it is a natural state. Taking that into consideration, since we are born unable to walk or speak, do you consider that to be our natural state as well?
Our native state is intellectually innocent, nude, not yet able to speak or walk. In time we learn speaking and walking. But we are also soczialized and conditioned into behaviour that is not necessarily "natural" simply for the reason to "fit into society", "go with the crowds", "do what others are doing", "say what others are saying". While I do find it appropriate to be dressed for many ocassaions, I say it is also OK to be nude. Just because it is our habit since thousands of years doesnt make it normal. Its something we´ve learned in the sense of being conditioned to believe that thats "the way things are supposed to be".
2a.) Furthermore, if we eventually walk and talk because we learn. Could you not also say that we "learn" to wear clothes?
Yes. Answered above.
__________________________________
Socratic Questions
1. Would you agree that having made sex a taboo-subject in our society has done more harm than good?
2. Do you really think nudity is unnatural?
3. Do you admit that lakes, swimming centres, discos and nightclubs are public places?
4. Would you agree that clothing is mostly used as
a) Protection (from cold and environmental factors)
b) as a style and personality statement
5. Would you agree that the strictness with which some groups (such as the Taliban) punish showing bare skin, is exaggerated and unhealthy by our western standards?
___________________________________________
Groups, Movements and Key Concepts which say Public Nudity is OK:
1. Movements pro Artistic Expression
2. Libertarian Movements
3. Naturist Movements
4. New Age Movements
5. Civil Disobedience & Protest Movements
6. Nudist Movements
7. Counterculture and Bohemianism
To wrap it up, I found this beautiful article showing how a town in Vermont achieved making it OK to be nude in public
My opponent has made some strong arguments thus far. However, as you will see, they can not be applied everywhere to prove to us that nudity is in
fact, OK.
Let's begin by taking a look at the excerpt that was pulled from my previous reply, and how it was handled by my opponent.
And on the other hand, unless my opponent believes the European Alps are the only place in the world, his claim is also false. The places I listed are in fact public places where nudity is not allowed in America. Just because they are not in some countries, does not make it a universal truth.
I would also like to look at another claim by opponent that I find fascinating.
Really? Please explain.
I fail to see how allowing people to be nude in public will solve or decrease anything.
Quite obviously there are some very "enlightened" people such as my opponent in this world who could tolerate such a thing with no problems. However, it cannot be denied that are many people who would also abuse and take advantage of such a thing.
Regardless of whatever laws or rules are in effect, there will always be sexual predators and deviants. I would love to know exactly how allowing people to be nude will help these people. As far as I can tell, this would only make matters worse.
On top of this previous comment, by opponent brings this issue up again in the following statement:
Nor do I and many others, but can you deny that many do? Can you prove to me that allowing public nudity would not encourage people who DO think of such things first, to perhaps act on those thoughts?
Continued....
Again my opponent proposes that public nudity is some sort of cure for sexual deviancy. How?
I cannot understand how these same people who commit sexual crimes, will suddenly stop if they are able to see nude people in public.
My opponent claims that I have provided no reason as to why public nudity is not OK, when in turn I have seen no reason that it is OK other than it is natural.
As far as I'm concerned, allowing public nudity would only serve to increase the number of sexual crimes and deviant acts, not magically decrease them as my opponent asserts.
Just because we can be nude, doesn't mean we should.
-----------------------------
Answers to Socratic Questions:
No I would not. Furthermore, I would argue that we really have not made sex such a taboo subject as you make it seem. As you yourself have stated, sex is everywhere in today's society. A simple change of the television channel or click of the mouse can provide all the nudity and depravity you can imagine. Do we really need to add to that by allowing people to appear nude in public?
I do not believe it is unnatural. However, I don't think that just because we are born nude means that we should stay nude because it is our natural state.
I also believe that sex is a very natural thing as well. Will you next be proposing that we allow people to have sex in public? I can imagine that as the next step once nudity is allowed.
Absolutely I do. And where I am from, those places are locations where nudity is not allowed. As I have said before, just because something is OK in some places, does not make it a universal truth.
I would say that this is a main function of clothing, sure. Is that what it's mostly used for? No.
Sure. I would say that more people are worried about looking good than they are being protected from the elements. Again though, I don't believe this to be the main function of clothing.
Of course I would. However, allowing nudity is not the answer to those problems.
Perhaps we should be more worried about allowing everyone in the world the opportunity to wear what they choose rather than to wear nothing at all.
And to wrap it up on this end...I found this updated article in which that same town in Vermont had to place an emergency ban on public nudity.
Let's begin by taking a look at the excerpt that was pulled from my previous reply, and how it was handled by my opponent.
Unless my opponent thinks that the U.S. is the only place in the world, his statement of these places (lakes, swimming centers) not being public is false.
And on the other hand, unless my opponent believes the European Alps are the only place in the world, his claim is also false. The places I listed are in fact public places where nudity is not allowed in America. Just because they are not in some countries, does not make it a universal truth.
I would also like to look at another claim by opponent that I find fascinating.
Going the libertarian way of saying "Hey! Nudity is OK!" will allow us to develop a more natural stance toward what makes us human and ultimately decrease sex crime and perversion.
Really? Please explain.
I fail to see how allowing people to be nude in public will solve or decrease anything.
Quite obviously there are some very "enlightened" people such as my opponent in this world who could tolerate such a thing with no problems. However, it cannot be denied that are many people who would also abuse and take advantage of such a thing.
Regardless of whatever laws or rules are in effect, there will always be sexual predators and deviants. I would love to know exactly how allowing people to be nude will help these people. As far as I can tell, this would only make matters worse.
On top of this previous comment, by opponent brings this issue up again in the following statement:
I personally and children do not first think of pedophiles, rape and fire/brimstone when seeing nudes.
Nor do I and many others, but can you deny that many do? Can you prove to me that allowing public nudity would not encourage people who DO think of such things first, to perhaps act on those thoughts?
Continued....
If we want to conquer sexual deviation and crime in our society we must change our attitude towards the whole issue. And one aspect of this change is: Public Nudity is OK.
Again my opponent proposes that public nudity is some sort of cure for sexual deviancy. How?
I cannot understand how these same people who commit sexual crimes, will suddenly stop if they are able to see nude people in public.
My opponent claims that I have provided no reason as to why public nudity is not OK, when in turn I have seen no reason that it is OK other than it is natural.
As far as I'm concerned, allowing public nudity would only serve to increase the number of sexual crimes and deviant acts, not magically decrease them as my opponent asserts.
Just because we can be nude, doesn't mean we should.
-----------------------------
Answers to Socratic Questions:
Would you agree that having made sex a taboo-subject in our society has done more harm than good?
No I would not. Furthermore, I would argue that we really have not made sex such a taboo subject as you make it seem. As you yourself have stated, sex is everywhere in today's society. A simple change of the television channel or click of the mouse can provide all the nudity and depravity you can imagine. Do we really need to add to that by allowing people to appear nude in public?
Do you really think nudity is unnatural?
I do not believe it is unnatural. However, I don't think that just because we are born nude means that we should stay nude because it is our natural state.
I also believe that sex is a very natural thing as well. Will you next be proposing that we allow people to have sex in public? I can imagine that as the next step once nudity is allowed.
Do you admit that lakes, swimming centers, discos and nightclubs are public places?
Absolutely I do. And where I am from, those places are locations where nudity is not allowed. As I have said before, just because something is OK in some places, does not make it a universal truth.
Would you agree that clothing is mostly used as
a) Protection (from cold and environmental factors)
I would say that this is a main function of clothing, sure. Is that what it's mostly used for? No.
as a style and personality statement
Sure. I would say that more people are worried about looking good than they are being protected from the elements. Again though, I don't believe this to be the main function of clothing.
Would you agree that the strictness with which some groups (such as the Taliban) punish showing bare skin, is exaggerated and unhealthy by our western standards?
Of course I would. However, allowing nudity is not the answer to those problems.
Perhaps we should be more worried about allowing everyone in the world the opportunity to wear what they choose rather than to wear nothing at all.
And to wrap it up on this end...I found this updated article in which that same town in Vermont had to place an emergency ban on public nudity.
Criminializing Nudity vs. Loosening our tight grip
I see that this debate has turned into a discussion of whether we should loosen our grip on the subject of nudity and sexuality and allow for a bit more leeway or whether we should continue to enforce the strictest rules and taboos on the subject.
I can say, with conviction that there is not a shred of scientific evidence pointing to more liberal nudity-laws being the cause of sex-crime. There is however scientific evidence showing the correlation between more loose and liberal nudity-laws and lower sex-crime rates. The most liberal countries in regards to public nudity are:
Sweden
Finnland
Norway
Denmark
Germany
Austria
Switzerland
The Netherlands
Sex-crime rates in these countries are lower than in the U.S. and other countries which have stricter nudity-laws. Why am I not surprised?
Here´s an article on the acceptance of public nudity in Sweden
Judges, please take note that my opponent will not be able to prove higher sex-crime rates in Sweden or similar countries no matter how hard he tries.
This directly refutes, once and for all, the following assertions by my opponent:
There is no correlation between public nudity and an increased sex-crime-rate. None whatsoever. As Ive shown, its quite possible that the opposite is true.
Why? Because suppressing our naturalness necessarily leads to perversion.
And yet, putting all his eggs in one basked by continuing to pound on the same issue over and over again, he asks:
To which I answer: Yes I can! Lucky for me.
The fact of crime rates, including sexual assault crimes being lower in the countries I listed can be found in any international crime rate comparison.
International Crime Victims Survey
Crime Statistics
One of your typical crime statistical maps looks something like this:
But what all these maps have in common is that the countries known to have more loose laws in respect to sexuality and nudity, tradionally have a lower crime rate (Have a look at The Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland) not only in sex crimes but in other hard crimes such as homocide.
My opponents hints that public nudity will cause or increase or are even linked to sex crimes is hereby refuted. He wont be able to prove that links exist.
In the last post my opponents america-centredness shone through a bit. I called him out on the false statement of nudity at lakes being forbidden and all he says is:
This doesnt change the fact of him bringing forth false statements within this debate.
So what has my opponent come up with against public nudity being OK?
Nothing it seems.
____________________________________
Socratic Questions:
1. What exactly are your three main points against public nudity being OK?
2. Do you personally believe public nudity is immoral and will be punished by God?
3. Why do you think female nudity is suppressed in islamic societies?
4. Are you offended by nudity in art galleries?
5. Do you agree that the Internet is a public place which anyone can enter?
________________________________
Since the Catholic Church of the last 900 years has played a major role in the shaping of our consciousness in regards to nudity and the association of shame and negativity with it, it is interesting to note that even the Catholic church has backpedaled and changed its ways. To quote Pope John Paul II:
If even this guy says it, we can indeed conclude: Nudity is OK and neednt be punished as strictly as it has been.
I see that this debate has turned into a discussion of whether we should loosen our grip on the subject of nudity and sexuality and allow for a bit more leeway or whether we should continue to enforce the strictest rules and taboos on the subject.
I can say, with conviction that there is not a shred of scientific evidence pointing to more liberal nudity-laws being the cause of sex-crime. There is however scientific evidence showing the correlation between more loose and liberal nudity-laws and lower sex-crime rates. The most liberal countries in regards to public nudity are:
Sweden
Finnland
Norway
Denmark
Germany
Austria
Switzerland
The Netherlands
Sex-crime rates in these countries are lower than in the U.S. and other countries which have stricter nudity-laws. Why am I not surprised?
Here´s an article on the acceptance of public nudity in Sweden
Judges, please take note that my opponent will not be able to prove higher sex-crime rates in Sweden or similar countries no matter how hard he tries.
This directly refutes, once and for all, the following assertions by my opponent:
I fail to see how allowing people to be nude in public will solve or decrease anything.
Quite obviously there are some very "enlightened" people such as my opponent in this world who could tolerate such a thing with no problems. However, it cannot be denied that are many people who would also abuse and take advantage of such a thing.
Regardless of whatever laws or rules are in effect, there will always be sexual predators and deviants. I would love to know exactly how allowing people to be nude will help these people. As far as I can tell, this would only make matters worse.
There is no correlation between public nudity and an increased sex-crime-rate. None whatsoever. As Ive shown, its quite possible that the opposite is true.
Why? Because suppressing our naturalness necessarily leads to perversion.
And yet, putting all his eggs in one basked by continuing to pound on the same issue over and over again, he asks:
Can you prove to me that allowing public nudity would not encourage people who DO think of such things first, to perhaps act on those thoughts?
To which I answer: Yes I can! Lucky for me.
Sourced on this page
In a 1995 review of the literature, Paul Okami concluded that there was no reliable evidence linking exposure to parental nudity to any negative effect.[6] Three years later, his team finished an 18-year longitudal study that showed that, if anything, such exposure was associated with slight beneficial effects, particularly for boys.[7]
The fact of crime rates, including sexual assault crimes being lower in the countries I listed can be found in any international crime rate comparison.
International Crime Victims Survey
Crime Statistics
One of your typical crime statistical maps looks something like this:
But what all these maps have in common is that the countries known to have more loose laws in respect to sexuality and nudity, tradionally have a lower crime rate (Have a look at The Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland) not only in sex crimes but in other hard crimes such as homocide.
My opponents hints that public nudity will cause or increase or are even linked to sex crimes is hereby refuted. He wont be able to prove that links exist.
In the last post my opponents america-centredness shone through a bit. I called him out on the false statement of nudity at lakes being forbidden and all he says is:
And where I am from, those places are locations where nudity is not allowed.
This doesnt change the fact of him bringing forth false statements within this debate.
So what has my opponent come up with against public nudity being OK?
Nothing it seems.
____________________________________
Socratic Questions:
1. What exactly are your three main points against public nudity being OK?
2. Do you personally believe public nudity is immoral and will be punished by God?
3. Why do you think female nudity is suppressed in islamic societies?
4. Are you offended by nudity in art galleries?
5. Do you agree that the Internet is a public place which anyone can enter?
________________________________
Since the Catholic Church of the last 900 years has played a major role in the shaping of our consciousness in regards to nudity and the association of shame and negativity with it, it is interesting to note that even the Catholic church has backpedaled and changed its ways. To quote Pope John Paul II:
Sourced from the same page as above.
"...the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty...Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness...Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person...The human body is not in itself shameful...Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person."
If even this guy says it, we can indeed conclude: Nudity is OK and neednt be punished as strictly as it has been.
Once again my opponent seems to dance around the issue and do the same thing I have been accused of doing, focusing on only one certain area of the
world.
We are given statistics that show that countries that have less strict nudity laws have lower sex-crime rates. I fail to see how this in any way relates to those nudity laws. Could the lower rate of sex-crimes not easily be attributed to something else?
Furthermore, I do not have to prove anything about high sex-crime rates as my opponent so arrogantly pointed out to the judges. This is because while making this point, my opponent has not been able to tie the statistics in any way to the laws on nudity. My opponent even goes so far as to make the following remark:
On that same token, I would argue that there is no correlation between public nudity and a decreased sex-crime rate. So while attempting to cancel out my argument, my opponent has canceled out their own.
Moving on, my opponent gives us the following piece of information:
Parental nudity? Aren't we debating public nudity?
Furthermore, this excerpt makes no mention as to what effects the study was looking for while studying exposure to parental nudity!
I fail to see how this has any bearing whatsoever on our current topic of discussion.
My opponent continues to pound the issue with this comment:
MY opponent hints that for some reason more liberal nudity laws are somehow linked to lower crime rates, but provides no real evidence of this connection. There will also be no proof that this connection exists.
My opponent claims that I have provided no real reasons that public nudity is not OK, but have reasons been given to us that suggest otherwise? Some crime statistics that have no correlation to nudity? Some firsthand accounts of public nudity being OK? This is hardly proof that public nudity should be allowed.
The simple fact of the matter is that nudity is something not everyone wants to be exposed to. Just because nudity is readily available anywhere, does not make it right. There are many people who do not want themselves or their families exposed to nudity while trying to enjoy themselves. If people want to be nude, fine. I only ask that they do so in appropriate areas.
--------------------------
Answers to Socratic Questions:
I believe I have covered at least this amount in my previous posts. As stated above, nudity is something not everyone wants and/or needs to be exposed to. There is also no reason that nudity cannot be contained to specific areas, instead of anywhere in the public. Also, given that there are is no real evidence either way, it cannot be discounted that public nudity could have an adverse effect on society.
No I do not, and that is not the issue we are debating. We are not debating whether or not public nudity should be allowed or not allowed based on religous reasoning. We are debating whether it should be allowed. Period.
I cannot claim to speak for Islamic societies. I'm also not sure how this has much bearing on our debate. The things that are punishable under some Islamic law, such as showing ankles etc., are not what we are talking about here.
No I'm not. Although an art gallery is a public place, it is also a place where one can "expect" to see nudity. What we are debating is whether or not someone should "expect" to see nudity while taking their family to the park.
I do. However, nudity on the internet does have safeguards to keep people who do not wish to be exposed to such things away. The fact that many of these safeguards are easily avoided is irrelevant. The fact that they are in place shows that there are many people who do not wish to see such things.
--------------------------
In conclusion, my opponent gives us yet another interesting quote:
This is another example of how my opponent is attempting to paint the picture that I am opposed to any sort of nudity. This is not so. The quote above only confirms that there is nothing inherently wrong about the naked human body. I see nowhere in this excerpt where the Pope makes mention of being nude in public.
Do you?
We are given statistics that show that countries that have less strict nudity laws have lower sex-crime rates. I fail to see how this in any way relates to those nudity laws. Could the lower rate of sex-crimes not easily be attributed to something else?
Furthermore, I do not have to prove anything about high sex-crime rates as my opponent so arrogantly pointed out to the judges. This is because while making this point, my opponent has not been able to tie the statistics in any way to the laws on nudity. My opponent even goes so far as to make the following remark:
There is no correlation between public nudity and an increased sex-crime-rate. None whatsoever. As Ive shown, its quite possible that the opposite is true.
On that same token, I would argue that there is no correlation between public nudity and a decreased sex-crime rate. So while attempting to cancel out my argument, my opponent has canceled out their own.
Moving on, my opponent gives us the following piece of information:
In a 1995 review of the literature, Paul Okami concluded that there was no reliable evidence linking exposure to parental nudity to any negative effect.[6] Three years later, his team finished an 18-year longitudal study that showed that, if anything, such exposure was associated with slight beneficial effects, particularly for boys.[7]
Parental nudity? Aren't we debating public nudity?
Furthermore, this excerpt makes no mention as to what effects the study was looking for while studying exposure to parental nudity!
I fail to see how this has any bearing whatsoever on our current topic of discussion.
My opponent continues to pound the issue with this comment:
My opponents hints that public nudity will cause or increase or are even linked to sex crimes is hereby refuted. He wont be able to prove that links exist.
MY opponent hints that for some reason more liberal nudity laws are somehow linked to lower crime rates, but provides no real evidence of this connection. There will also be no proof that this connection exists.
My opponent claims that I have provided no real reasons that public nudity is not OK, but have reasons been given to us that suggest otherwise? Some crime statistics that have no correlation to nudity? Some firsthand accounts of public nudity being OK? This is hardly proof that public nudity should be allowed.
The simple fact of the matter is that nudity is something not everyone wants to be exposed to. Just because nudity is readily available anywhere, does not make it right. There are many people who do not want themselves or their families exposed to nudity while trying to enjoy themselves. If people want to be nude, fine. I only ask that they do so in appropriate areas.
--------------------------
Answers to Socratic Questions:
What exactly are your three main points against public nudity being OK?
I believe I have covered at least this amount in my previous posts. As stated above, nudity is something not everyone wants and/or needs to be exposed to. There is also no reason that nudity cannot be contained to specific areas, instead of anywhere in the public. Also, given that there are is no real evidence either way, it cannot be discounted that public nudity could have an adverse effect on society.
Do you personally believe public nudity is immoral and will be punished by God?
No I do not, and that is not the issue we are debating. We are not debating whether or not public nudity should be allowed or not allowed based on religous reasoning. We are debating whether it should be allowed. Period.
Why do you think female nudity is suppressed in islamic societies?
I cannot claim to speak for Islamic societies. I'm also not sure how this has much bearing on our debate. The things that are punishable under some Islamic law, such as showing ankles etc., are not what we are talking about here.
Are you offended by nudity in art galleries?
No I'm not. Although an art gallery is a public place, it is also a place where one can "expect" to see nudity. What we are debating is whether or not someone should "expect" to see nudity while taking their family to the park.
Do you agree that the Internet is a public place which anyone can enter?
I do. However, nudity on the internet does have safeguards to keep people who do not wish to be exposed to such things away. The fact that many of these safeguards are easily avoided is irrelevant. The fact that they are in place shows that there are many people who do not wish to see such things.
--------------------------
In conclusion, my opponent gives us yet another interesting quote:
"...the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty...Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness...Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person...The human body is not in itself shameful...Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person."
This is another example of how my opponent is attempting to paint the picture that I am opposed to any sort of nudity. This is not so. The quote above only confirms that there is nothing inherently wrong about the naked human body. I see nowhere in this excerpt where the Pope makes mention of being nude in public.
Do you?
1-to-1 Debate Combat
Waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit a second here. It was my opponent he has built much of this debate around the claim that public nudity will bring out the sickos in society. Thats why I showed that there is not only no evidence of there being a relation between the two, but that even the opposite
might be the case.
Thats OK. I wouldnt mind being wrong on that point, since it achieved diverting your attention during the debate and allowed you to realize that there is no correlation between sex-crime and public nudity
Sexuality, Nudity, Parental Nudity, Public Nudity...I think its been shown that we cannot separate these aspects from the overall topic.
The parents who live in constant fear of their children seeing someones skin are also the ones who close the bathroom door in panic as not to be seen even semi-nude.
"Public Nudity is OK" does not entail a free-for-all disrespectful exhibitionist anarchy. It entails stuff like:
* Not being hassled, discriminated against or arrested by religious bigots for a bit of nudity at the lake or in the sauna...for goodness sake!!!!!
* Not making a 5-week media-scandal of a few seconds of Janet Jacksons nipples showing. This is just one example of our backward ways...we have to get over it already!!!!!!!!
* Allowing for some leeway in public places such as nightclubs, swimming centres, beaches, lakes, parks, camping sites, etc.
* Returning to appreciating nudity not only in a sexual sense but in the sense of naturlness, art, beauty.
* Allowing for more freedom of choice on what to wear and how much to wear.
The Definition of "Nudity" does not only refer to total nudity but also to partial nudity. When visiting a funeral it is not appropriate to be showing legs, imo. But when walking in a hot summer park, it is totally appropriate to show legs and we should all be able to do so without being hassled by religious and political bigots who mask as "family friendly" at the expense of normalcy and naturalness.
I have no problem with nudity being contained to specific areas (such as beaches). However, we are, in many places in the world not even allowed that by our authoritarian leaders who constantly wish to restrict our freedoms.
Make no mistake dear reader, this is about authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. Dictators absolutely hate to see bare skin because it symbolizes and represents FREEDOM.
Could have, might, maybe, possibly....wont do for a debate-challenge-match.
The effects of us being OK with public nudity here and there seem to be positive in the countries in which it is OK. In the city I live, there is a public park in which it is permitted to be bare breasted. Adverse effects? None. Liberating effects? Plenty. Children grow up knowing that the human body is something natural rather than something criminal and dirty.
Wrong. The restrictions in place in our society originate from authoritarian forces...which are, in many cases, religion-based.
They are very much what we are talking about here. The put it bluntly: The more backward a society, the more nudity is not OK.
Exactly.
The fact that nudity is widely availible on the public platform of the internet is irrelevant? I think not.
I think that is an indicator that the new generation has already accepted nudity to be a normal fact of life we neednt be ashamed for.
Once stripped from its stigma and shame, the perversion will stop too.
Closing Statement
Its been a quick-paced, intense and totally enjoyable debate, probably the most enjoyable debate Ive had in a long time.
Coming to the close of this debate we can re-address the question: Is being nude in public indeed OK....or is it not OK? Putting all rhetoric, speculation, debate-tactic aside:
I truly believe that public nudity is not the crime it has been made to be in the U.S. I truly believe the time has come to chill-out on the subjects of sex, nudity, sexy clothing and public nudity. Even the Pope has become more relaxed on the issue. Maybe us Americans can learn something from the majority of Europeans or from the ancient greeks.
I feel my opponent has invested a lot of humor and intelligence into this debate but has failed to provide justifications for the criminalization of nudity in designated areas.
We live in the year 2008, not in the year 1808. Lets not kid ourselves: We all know what humans look like underneath. We neednt go to such great lengths and expenses to hide it. We neednt criminalize bare breasts. We neednt punish people who are guilty of nothing other than being themselves.
Free-For-All Exhibitionism is not OK. A bit more public nudity Is OK.
I now end my side of the debate and look forward to meeting my opponent over in the Fight Club Pub for...
We are given statistics that show that countries that have less strict nudity laws have lower sex-crime rates. I fail to see how this in any way relates to those nudity laws. Could the lower rate of sex-crimes not easily be attributed to something else?
Waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit a second here. It was my opponent he has built much of this debate around the claim that public nudity will bring out the sickos in society. Thats why I showed that there is not only no evidence of there being a relation between the two, but that even the opposite
might be the case.
On that same token, I would argue that there is no correlation between public nudity and a decreased sex-crime rate. So while attempting to cancel out my argument, my opponent has canceled out their own.
Thats OK. I wouldnt mind being wrong on that point, since it achieved diverting your attention during the debate and allowed you to realize that there is no correlation between sex-crime and public nudity
Parental nudity? Aren't we debating public nudity?
Sexuality, Nudity, Parental Nudity, Public Nudity...I think its been shown that we cannot separate these aspects from the overall topic.
The parents who live in constant fear of their children seeing someones skin are also the ones who close the bathroom door in panic as not to be seen even semi-nude.
The simple fact of the matter is that nudity is something not everyone wants to be exposed to. Just because nudity is readily available anywhere, does not make it right. There are many people who do not want themselves or their families exposed to nudity while trying to enjoy themselves. If people want to be nude, fine. I only ask that they do so in appropriate areas.
"Public Nudity is OK" does not entail a free-for-all disrespectful exhibitionist anarchy. It entails stuff like:
* Not being hassled, discriminated against or arrested by religious bigots for a bit of nudity at the lake or in the sauna...for goodness sake!!!!!
* Not making a 5-week media-scandal of a few seconds of Janet Jacksons nipples showing. This is just one example of our backward ways...we have to get over it already!!!!!!!!
* Allowing for some leeway in public places such as nightclubs, swimming centres, beaches, lakes, parks, camping sites, etc.
* Returning to appreciating nudity not only in a sexual sense but in the sense of naturlness, art, beauty.
* Allowing for more freedom of choice on what to wear and how much to wear.
The Definition of "Nudity" does not only refer to total nudity but also to partial nudity. When visiting a funeral it is not appropriate to be showing legs, imo. But when walking in a hot summer park, it is totally appropriate to show legs and we should all be able to do so without being hassled by religious and political bigots who mask as "family friendly" at the expense of normalcy and naturalness.
As stated above, nudity is something not everyone wants and/or needs to be exposed to. There is also no reason that nudity cannot be contained to specific areas, instead of anywhere in the public.
I have no problem with nudity being contained to specific areas (such as beaches). However, we are, in many places in the world not even allowed that by our authoritarian leaders who constantly wish to restrict our freedoms.
Make no mistake dear reader, this is about authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. Dictators absolutely hate to see bare skin because it symbolizes and represents FREEDOM.
Also, given that there are is no real evidence either way, it cannot be discounted that public nudity could have an adverse effect on society.
Could have, might, maybe, possibly....wont do for a debate-challenge-match.
The effects of us being OK with public nudity here and there seem to be positive in the countries in which it is OK. In the city I live, there is a public park in which it is permitted to be bare breasted. Adverse effects? None. Liberating effects? Plenty. Children grow up knowing that the human body is something natural rather than something criminal and dirty.
We are not debating whether or not public nudity should be allowed or not allowed based on religous reasoning. We are debating whether it should be allowed. Period.
Wrong. The restrictions in place in our society originate from authoritarian forces...which are, in many cases, religion-based.
I cannot claim to speak for Islamic societies. I'm also not sure how this has much bearing on our debate. The things that are punishable under some Islamic law, such as showing ankles etc., are not what we are talking about here.
They are very much what we are talking about here. The put it bluntly: The more backward a society, the more nudity is not OK.
an art gallery is a public place
Exactly.
nudity on the internet does have safeguards to keep people who do not wish to be exposed to such things away. The fact that many of these safeguards are easily avoided is irrelevant.
The fact that nudity is widely availible on the public platform of the internet is irrelevant? I think not.
I think that is an indicator that the new generation has already accepted nudity to be a normal fact of life we neednt be ashamed for.
Once stripped from its stigma and shame, the perversion will stop too.
Closing Statement
Its been a quick-paced, intense and totally enjoyable debate, probably the most enjoyable debate Ive had in a long time.
Coming to the close of this debate we can re-address the question: Is being nude in public indeed OK....or is it not OK? Putting all rhetoric, speculation, debate-tactic aside:
I truly believe that public nudity is not the crime it has been made to be in the U.S. I truly believe the time has come to chill-out on the subjects of sex, nudity, sexy clothing and public nudity. Even the Pope has become more relaxed on the issue. Maybe us Americans can learn something from the majority of Europeans or from the ancient greeks.
I feel my opponent has invested a lot of humor and intelligence into this debate but has failed to provide justifications for the criminalization of nudity in designated areas.
We live in the year 2008, not in the year 1808. Lets not kid ourselves: We all know what humans look like underneath. We neednt go to such great lengths and expenses to hide it. We neednt criminalize bare breasts. We neednt punish people who are guilty of nothing other than being themselves.
Free-For-All Exhibitionism is not OK. A bit more public nudity Is OK.
I now end my side of the debate and look forward to meeting my opponent over in the Fight Club Pub for...
Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has once again danced around the issue and provided no real evidence that suggests allowing public nudity will have
any positive effects.
Through several instances, my opponent has clearly attempted to mislead you and paint a picture of those opposed to public nudity that is obviously inaccurate. Apparently my opponent would have us believe that anyone opposed to public nudity is a religous bigot who discriminates against everyone not like themselves.
My opponent also wants us to believe that because I am not for public nudity being OK, that somehow I am opposed to people wearing shorts and the like. Obviously this is not true, as I can't imagine anyone else classifying wearing shorts as "partial nudity."
On top of referring to people such as myself as "religous bigots", my opponent furthers the assault with this comment:
So now apparently not wanting to allow public nudity classifies me as an authoritarian who wants to squash the freedoms of others!
There is also one particular part of the above comment I find particularly revealing...
There you have it folks. My opponent agrees that having specific areas set aside for nudity is not a problem. So why change that? If we need to create more specific areas for nudity in the world, so be it; but why expose everyone else to it against their will?
---------------------
Closing Statement
As my opponent has said many times before in this debate; there is nothing inherently wrong about the naked human body. We should not be ashamed of our bodies, or feel pressured to hide them.
The fact remains though, that not everyone agrees, and therefore should not be subjected to witnesses such activities against their will.
The topic of this debate was that "Public Nudity is/is not OK". As my opponent and I seem to agree, there is no reason that nudity cannot be contained to reserved areas in which people have a choice to see this kind of activity. If we need to create more places for such things, fine. However, there is no reason that we should all have to bear witness to nudity in public to satisfy the demands of a few.
---------------------
Thanks for a great debate Skyfloating! I agree this was the most enjoyable debate I've had in a long time. Excellent stuff!
Through several instances, my opponent has clearly attempted to mislead you and paint a picture of those opposed to public nudity that is obviously inaccurate. Apparently my opponent would have us believe that anyone opposed to public nudity is a religous bigot who discriminates against everyone not like themselves.
My opponent also wants us to believe that because I am not for public nudity being OK, that somehow I am opposed to people wearing shorts and the like. Obviously this is not true, as I can't imagine anyone else classifying wearing shorts as "partial nudity."
On top of referring to people such as myself as "religous bigots", my opponent furthers the assault with this comment:
I have no problem with nudity being contained to specific areas (such as beaches). However, we are, in many places in the world not even allowed that by our authoritarian leaders who constantly wish to restrict our freedoms.
So now apparently not wanting to allow public nudity classifies me as an authoritarian who wants to squash the freedoms of others!
There is also one particular part of the above comment I find particularly revealing...
I have no problem with nudity being contained to specific areas
There you have it folks. My opponent agrees that having specific areas set aside for nudity is not a problem. So why change that? If we need to create more specific areas for nudity in the world, so be it; but why expose everyone else to it against their will?
---------------------
Closing Statement
As my opponent has said many times before in this debate; there is nothing inherently wrong about the naked human body. We should not be ashamed of our bodies, or feel pressured to hide them.
The fact remains though, that not everyone agrees, and therefore should not be subjected to witnesses such activities against their will.
The topic of this debate was that "Public Nudity is/is not OK". As my opponent and I seem to agree, there is no reason that nudity cannot be contained to reserved areas in which people have a choice to see this kind of activity. If we need to create more places for such things, fine. However, there is no reason that we should all have to bear witness to nudity in public to satisfy the demands of a few.
---------------------
Thanks for a great debate Skyfloating! I agree this was the most enjoyable debate I've had in a long time. Excellent stuff!
Well Done, Gentlemen, and very quick!
We are off to the judges.
We are off to the judges.
The winner, by split decision, is nyk537.
Well fought gentlemen and here are the judges comments...
Well fought gentlemen and here are the judges comments...
Challenge Match: Skyfloating vs nyk537: Baring It All In Public.
nyk537 actually kicked it in high gear in his opening; especially in his answers to Skyfloating’s Socratic Questions.
Skyfloating made an initial mistake in the Socratic Questions in his opening. While Socratic questions can be useful, in this case they only served to give nyk537 an incredibly powerful start.
In his first reply, Skyfloating immediately tried to recover from nyk537’s opening, but it seemed he waffled in attempting to define the parameters that he was debating.
It seemed like Skyfloating was arguing that “Public Nudity is OK” sometimes and basing his argument on that premise. That was an interesting take on the topic but limiting and could have as easily been attributed to nyk537’s argument, which nyk537 did later on.
In nyk537’s first reply, he effectively took Skyfloating’s argument apart. Again he answered the Socratic questions effectively in regards to his stance and quite easily refuted Skyfloating’s use of “Public” vs “Private”.
Skyfloating made a good recovery, yet lost some ground he had gained in his time spent on pornography that completely fell short of the topic of the debate and appeared irrelevant.
Skyfloating gained a lot of ground in opening the debate up to a world wide venue instead of a U. S. only debate, as well as excellent use of source material where nky537 failed to provide much source material at all.
Skyfloating also gained a lot of ground in his correlation to sex crimes and nudity.
Skyfloating had the most convincing closing without a doubt, but lost too many points early on to recover.
Over all this was a very fun debate to watch evolve. Because of the topic I was hoping for more humor, but both debaters quickly became very serious and the debate continued that way. Both should be applauded for their research and presentation.
Decision
Nyk537 by a VERY slim margin.
This was an excellent debate to read, both Skyfloating and nyk537 did an outstanding job in delivering their key points. However nyk537 did manage to wear down Skyfloating in the end and show conclusively that public nudity is not ok everywhere.
The semantics of this debate aside, I believe that nyk537 had brought forth a more realistic and prudent view of the subject matter, whittling away at his opponent until Skyfloating caved in the end.
I want to thank both members for a most interesting and well thought out debate. You both made some very valid points on both sides of the issue. You also found some common ground where both parties could agree.
I did find some specious argument on both sides, one in particular being the media driven sensationalism concerning Janet Jackson. In fact she had a pasty on under her costume and never exposed a nipple or even her areola.
The points on aesthetics of the human body also fall in this category.
Having been given a criteria to follow while judging the debate, and having read through the entire thread several times, this is my objective decision.
The winner is Skyfloating.
But again, thank-you both for your participation.
Good job nyk. You broke a 4-debate winning streak...and I enjoyed your posts a lot. The constuction-worker analogy is a classic I will remember.
Thanks to Memory Shock.
No thanks to the Judge who wrote this:
"Public Nudity is OK" was the topic.
Thanks to Memory Shock.
No thanks to the Judge who wrote this:
It seemed like Skyfloating was arguing that “Public Nudity is OK” sometimes and basing his argument on that premise. That was an interesting take on the topic but limiting and could have as easily been attributed to nyk537’s argument
"Public Nudity is OK" was the topic.
new topics
-
Half-Life 2 is 20 Years Old - its Also Free on Steam until the 18th
Video Games: 32 minutes ago -
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People: 3 hours ago -
Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden administration overtime rule
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 6 hours ago -
Don't cry do Cryo instead
General Chit Chat: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Don't cry do Cryo instead
General Chit Chat: 11 hours ago, 11 flags -
Gen Flynn's Sister and her cohort blow the whistle on DHS/CBP involvement in child trafficking.
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 17 hours ago, 8 flags -
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People: 3 hours ago, 8 flags -
Tariffs all around, Except for ...
Dreams & Predictions: 13 hours ago, 6 flags -
Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden administration overtime rule
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 6 hours ago, 6 flags -
Half-Life 2 is 20 Years Old - its Also Free on Steam until the 18th
Video Games: 32 minutes ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People • 25 • : Coelacanth55 -
Tariffs all around, Except for ...
Dreams & Predictions • 23 • : KnowItAllKnowNothin -
WATCH LIVE: US Congress hearing on UFOs, unidentified anomalous phenomena
Aliens and UFOs • 92 • : Lazy88 -
Trump sues media outlets -- 10 Billion Dollar lawsuit
US Political Madness • 52 • : EyeoftheHurricane -
Half-Life 2 is 20 Years Old - its Also Free on Steam until the 18th
Video Games • 0 • : gortex -
Thune selected as Senate Republican Leader
US Political Madness • 79 • : WeMustCare -
Mike Tyson returns 11-15-24
World Sports • 61 • : matafuchs -
Anybody else using Pomodoro time management technique?
General Chit Chat • 11 • : Athetos -
Mind Blowing - SpaceX Successfully Catches Super Heavy Booster Rocket
Space Exploration • 57 • : gortex -
How long till it starts
US Political Madness • 18 • : EyeoftheHurricane
5