Instigator / Pro
4
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2480

pedophilia is not immoral

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Safalcon7
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1569
rating
12
debates
66.67%
won
Description

Pedophilia: sexual feelings directed toward children.

Let me show you how it’s done

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Sources: Tied, but very nearly went to PRO.

- CON, your use of Source 6 was a mess.

"Another Proof of Neurobiological Study. This one is a more complex study than the previous one I cited and guess what, with all the data analysis through not only hypothetical statistics but also with MRI involvement, the result is wonderfully obvious."

- The conclusions of academic papers are never "wonderfully obvious".
- "Another Proof of Neurobiological Study" doesn't make any sense as a sentence.
- The study concludes that there is a measurable difference between a healthy control and a pedophile. (Quote, "As hypothesized, healthy controls showed significantly higher ratings of moral reprehensibility regarding all three types of offenses compared to pedophilic non-offenders.") In what way does this support your argument that "pedophilia is hardly any disorder"? I see two possibilities - I strongly suspect the former.

1. That CON has misinterpreted the source entirely.
2. That CON has not adequately explained why the source backs up their argument - especially not adequately enough to use the phrase "wonderfully obvious."

Spelling and Grammar: Tie.

No serious errors.

Conduct: Tie.

No serious issues.

Argument: Vote cast for CON!

PRO had to show that pedophilia was a mental illness, and mental illnesses are not inherently 'immoral'. Immoral was defined by CON without contention in R1, as "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles". So, with a little bit of reading between the lines, PRO had to show that:

"Pedophilia doesn't conflict with generally or traditionally held moral principles.", or:

"Sexual feelings directed toward children do not conflict with generally or traditionally held moral principles."

It is this voter's position that PRO did most definitely not prove this statement. Further RFD below in comments - specifically comment #10.