Is human consciousness special or just computation?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is human consciousness special or just computation?". Your opponent's style: Aristotle

Porn or selling online sexual content should not be normalised or something to be proud of, and claimed as women empowerment ethically and morally.

You're wrong. This frames women's choices as needing *your* moral approval. If a woman freely chooses sex work, that's her autonomy—the very core of empowerment. You're not protecting her; you're controlling her. The real question: why do we shame women for monetizing their bodies but celebrate men in finance, sports, or entertainment doing the exact same thing? That's not morality, that's sexism dressed up as concern. Women aren't victims for making informed choices about their own sexuality. They're victims when society denies them economic options, healthcare, safety, and legal protection—which happens *because* of the stigma you're defending. Either support women's agency or admit you don't trust women to decide for themselves.

First of all, in a society, no human can just *choose* whatever they like. A respect to morals and norms of the society itself must be considered, for it is the society that you're grinding to earn from. And honestly, comparing online porn to entertainment or sports, is just foolish. Please mention studies which claim that these arenas affect human functioning, for Neuroscientific research shows that excessive pornography and drug abuse impact brain development through nearly identical neural pathways. Studies from institutions like the Max Planck Institute and the University of Cambridge reveal that both behaviors trigger massive dopamine surges that desensitize the brain's reward center over time. This chronic overstimulation can lead to a reduction in gray matter and cause hypofrontality—a weakening of the prefrontal cortex—which impairs impulse control, weakens decision-making, and diminishes emotional regulation in a manner mirroring classic substance addiction. If I start selling drugs, would u really justify this too, and start playing your card by flagging it as sexism? Calling it *me* not letting women choose is straight diabolical. When u live in a society, u have to respect the set of rules or morals added. I cannot go on the street and undress any girl, because it's morals. Don't construct non matching analogies

You've just proven my point. You compare consensual sex work to *unconsented assault and drug trafficking*. That's the diabolical move, not mine. Society's "morals" aren't fixed—they shift. Slavery was moral once. Women voting wasn't. What you call respect for norms is often just protecting the powerful. Your neuroscience claim confuses *consumption* with *production*. A woman filming herself isn't addicted to dopamine—she's working. That's your category error. And yes, drug dealers harm others without consent. Sex workers harm no one. That's why the analogy collapses. You're not defending morality. You're defending control over women's bodies under the guise of protecting society. Society survives women choosing their own path.

Would u feed porn to your family?

That's emotional manipulation, not argument. You're switching from "society's rules" to "what would *you* do?"—two different things. I wouldn't feed alcohol to my kids either, but that doesn't make bartenders immoral. Adults consent to adult content. Your family viewing habits say nothing about whether consensual sex work is ethical. You keep dodging the real question: why does *your* discomfort override *her* choice? You haven't answered that once. You've only restated that society has norms—which it does, and they change when people like you lose the argument about who gets to decide women's autonomy. That's what's actually happening here.

What is moral according to you

Moral means respecting autonomy and consent. If two adults agree to something that harms no third party, it's legitimate—regardless of whether it makes you uncomfortable. Your morality is *imposed*—"don't do this because society says so." Mine is *grounded*—"don't do this because it violates someone's consent or causes harm." A woman selling her image harms no one. You being disgusted harms nothing. Your disgust isn't a moral fact; it's just preference dressed as principle. Real morality protects the vulnerable. Sex workers need decriminalization, healthcare, legal recourse—things your "moral" stance denies them by forcing them underground where they face actual exploitation. That's the difference: I'm defending their safety. You're defending your comfort.

So if I as a drug seller and my friend as a buyer we both are consented, it is moral? Also, what makes alcohol moral and drugs immoral

You're conflating consent with harm. Drug dealing *does* harm third parties—families fractured, communities destabilized, addiction spreads. It's not victimless. Sex work between consenting adults? Victimless. The only "harm" is your discomfort. On alcohol versus drugs: that's arbitrary law, not morality. Alcohol kills more people than heroin [1]. But alcohol is legal because of history and lobbying, not because it's objectively safer. You've actually proved my point—society's "moral rules" are inconsistent and often wrong. The real moral principle: does it harm non-consenting parties? Drug dealing does. Sex work doesn't. Stop hiding behind fake consistency. You just don't want women controlling their sexuality. Say that instead.