Comments about ‘Cambridge to host debate titled "This House believes pornography does a good public service"’

Give me a break.

Pornography a "good public service"?

There's no way this is a serous debate.

Noooooo way....

@A Guy...

Why? Because serious debate only means that people agree with you and the puritanicals?

it's a debate, people. let both sides present their arguments and let the audience choose which side they agree with. are we against free speech if it means one of the two sides is arguing favorably about pornography.

this is a debate. it's called free speech. is the Des News concerned that the anti-pornography argument won't be able to hold up? is that why Des News seems to be advocating against any debate?

My first comment wouldn't go through because it was too "graphic" in health details.

Just so it's out there - there is more to this story than what will ever be published - good and ill. If it's going to be put on the site, the comments should not be subjected to 'careful' and biased editing. This is purely evil - no matter how you may soften the blow.

washcomom... careful. you can't say blow in Utah.

A lot of people in Utah despise porn on the surface, but are at the same time fixated on it. Don't sweat it, these people are having a debate. Regardless of the outcome, you won't have to watch shrek blow bubbles in the swamp.

My apologies, but I have not being able to stop laughing just thinking in how many people have rush to read the article because of the word 'porn" on the headline. Then get all offended despite of being curious. Of course as righteous people they would have to blush and criticize the filth of society. Then wait about three minutes until their heart palpitations come back to normal.
Really, I don't mean any offense. On the contrary I think is kind of cute. We humans are funny!

Just thought I should make sure the good people of Utah aren't being misled here. That picture is not of the union debating chamber, as its caption suggests, but of the library. I'm sure something like, I don't know, google image searching "cambridge union debating chamber", would get a real picture. Oops. Also, I absolutely love the suggestion that an ex-porn star from California is going to find Cambridge a culture shock because of how depraved it and its students are. I'm pretty sure anyone from Cali would find Cambridge laughably tame, but I'm flattered at how fun you make us out to be. My prediction is that the debate will turn into an orgy by about half way, but the bookies are saying more like ten minutes. (Just kidding- I hear Americans need you to say that if you want to use sarcasm...) Peace.

Thanks - it's interesting to see that the news has spread this far. As some have mentioned, you seem to have used a picture of our library rather than the debating Chamber.

The Union is an institution that exists for free speech. That means once or twice a term, we have very controversial debates. We took a lot of flak last term from certain quarters for holding a debate entitled "This House believes that Islam is a threat to the West". A while back, there was a really controversial motion about homosexuality.

One thing you learn at our debates, however, is that the sensationalist titles often give way to a real discussion of the issues. I think that anyone who behaves childishly would deservingly get the contempt of the audience. Debate titles are usually not intended to give one side an advantage, but to provoke thought. The Union took the decision not to allow speakers to distribute pornography at the debate, partially to ensure that speakers focus on the moral issues.

Call this what it is: a great way to get morality discussed with an attention-grabbing title. I think that's something we can all support.

anyone care to guess how many men look at porn rather than going out and getting a "massage", etc? so yes, porn does do a public service.

how many of you men posting here used to have a worn copy of playboy hiding under your bed when you were a kid? how is this any different?

granted, there is regular porn and then there is illegal things like child porn, snuff porn, women being used, etc. but focus on the illegal part. don't worry about a penthouse video on the internet.

the biggest problem with your church's position is it makes no distinction.

and I still don't understand this "addiction" thing. if the wife knows about the use of porn, she can easily get the other person to stop. just be more giving then the video.

it is prudishness that allows pornography to impact a marriage.

and many a single guy has been able to use the internet to "relieve stress" rather than go out and break the law with some "working girl". so if you think all it does is harm, you are wrong. normal porn does more good than bad.