Well just give me a topic we will take opposite sides and debate it out.

can I participate or would you rather keep this between you two untill you start on a new topic?

Also, I like the idea of the thread, we should have a stickied debate thread where a topic is proposed and people can take on different sides.

Unless they are trying to protect the children from psychological harm. For example the banning of pornography in schools. If the "banner" finds something that they find objectionable it is their duty to keep it from their charges.

The banning of books is other-regarding in that the aim of the ban is to deny their use to others. The intent is to prevent the spread of immorality among schoolchildren; however, is this really a sufficient justification for denying the students’ liberty to read the books of their choice?

It is true that a child does not have as significant a capacity to reason as a mature adult, and thus, violation of their liberty is more justifiable. However, in this case, the liberty is also expanded to a parent’s right to control what their child reads. According to John Stuart Mill, simply believing something does not cause harm per se, so when individuals try to enforce a ban of the Harry Potter books, they assume that they are correct in the harm, that they are infallible. Because humans are capable of being, and often are, wrong, clearly no one can make the assertion that he or she is infallible. Mill claims that when the government interferes with a personal decision, it does more harm than good. “[W]hen it does interfere, the odds are that it interferes wrongly and in the wrong place” (On Liberty 81).

I am sorry to all moderators but it looks like I am going first. I do not mean to clutter the page.


Any book has the right to be banned. Because say the church for example found something in it that they found disagreeable they have the right to ban it from their gatherings. You have to think of it in a individuals point of view, if a single person was offended by Harry Potter they would do anything in their power to stop its progression which wouldn't amount to much. But the church has a lot of power and therefore uses it.

Alright I should like to say beforehand that I think that the banning of any book is wrong but I will go along with it interesting choice.

Let's argue about the philosophical justification of banning the Harry Potter series. I will take the side that they should not be banned, you can argue that they should.

Either you may go first, or I can...it's up to you.