Is Child Sexual Abuse Harmful by Itself? V2
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Pro argues that the vast majority of the harm that is correlated with kids having sex with adults stems from the stigma against it and failing to control for other confounding variables.
Con argues against this view.
Child sexual abuse: A person that is under 18 years old having sex (that they chose to have) with someone that is five or more years older than them.
- Pro is arguing that the sexual abuse of children is not harmful in any capacity. For me, as the contender, to win this debate, I must simply exhibit that it is harmful.
- I have no particular idea as to why pro is trying to direct our attention to their argument in another debate. This should obviously be ignored. Evidently, as pro has not made a constructive case, con will simply resolve this round as an extension of our opening parameters.
- Analyzing the sole definition in the description, pro has given us a definition of child sexual abuse that seems to be incorrect (mostly because abuse doesn't tend to be a choice). I suggest rather than using fake and/or made up definitions we use real ones.
- Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) labels it as: Child sexual abuse is a form of child abuse that includes sexual activity with a minor.
- Wikipedia defines it as: a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation.
- Either one of them should suffice, but the goal here is simply to establish one that is not fundamentally incoherent. In addition:
- Harmful: causing or likely to cause harm.
- Harm: physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc.
- injury, damage, or problems caused by something that you do
- The Burden is somewhat shared, however pro bears the larger burden in proving that child's sexual abuse isn't harmful.
- My opponent cites (for essentially all their claims) a literal pedophile website. I am not joking or exaggerating; it openly states that they are a community for people sexually attracted to minors and show several sexually explicit images of children. This is disgusting. I will not link it but it is within my opponent's round one ("BoyWiki") and is also mentioned in the comments section.
- The debate art code of conduct states: "you may not post or link to pornography or other explicit adult sexual material."
- This is not to be accepted as a valid source for our debate as it violates the code of conduct. All of my opponent's claims with this source should be dismissed. My opponent's account should be banned for this talk less of even having this debate.
If you are familiar with philosophy then you have probably heard something like "the burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim and is not upon anyone else to disprove.
- Pro is claiming that child sexual abuse is not harmful by itself and con is arguing against this.
- In the description, pro states "pro argues that the vast majority of the harm that is correlated with kids having sex with adults stems from the stigma against it and failing to control for other confounding variables," and that con simply "argues against this view."
- Looking at pro's own words the burden of proof is easy. Pro holds the larger burden of proof and con's burden is simply to argue against pro's view. It is essentially a shared burden where pro as the instigator holds a larges BOP.
I am saying that something is not existing in the world.
- So in the same way, if you claimed water does not exist in the world, you are burdened to prove this.
I'm not going to waste time arguing about semantics. If you don't want to argue about child sexual abuse as I defined it then you should not have agreed to this debate.
- I don't see any rules that hinder the Kritik of definitions.
- According to the code of conduct, these tend to manifest themselves as good and productive practices.
- Now we are debating the sexual abuse of children. One of the reasons your definition is insufficient is the basis that children often do not choose to be abused. Choice in itself as I argue harm exists as is a continuum. There are degrees to informed choices stipulated by the subject's ability to rationally consent to actions, especially actions that impact their own body. Because of this, pro's definition doesn't even make coherent sense. I am arguing that it must be replaced because it is incoherent.
- I extend my previous proposed definitions:
- Harm as we have established is physical or mental damage or injury.
- I posit as anyone that harm exists as a continuum in the natural world. A continuum is a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct. This means there are simply put, different degrees of harm.
- To further illustrate the continuum of harm: Biting your tongue is harmful by itself—it causes a painful experience and damage to an organ. But it isn't as harmful as stubbing your toe. Stubbing your toe is harmful, it causes horrendously negative physical sensations of pain. But it isn't as harmful as being, for example, stabbed with a knife. I illustrate this as harm to express that any level of damage or injury is harm in itself.
- My eagerness to accept the debate is now apparent. Nearly everything we do as humans is harmful by itself. I mean this, nearly everything. Pro, unfortunately, commits himself to argue that there is absolutely no harm from the action of sexual abuse of children. Nothing that would even fall within the continuum of harm.
- I conclude: now that we understand what harm is and how it exists, we see pro's position as untenable and it becomes a daunting task for pro to uphold their side of the burden of proof.
- Child sexual abuse is the involuntary imposition of the will of innocent children. Children have underdeveloped brains  and cannot be considered rational or even fully moral agents. I argue that children do not have the ability to give rational consent to actions that involve their sexual subjugation of them.
- This is intrinsically harmful to their perceptions. The damage is the illusion of choice, the facade of a cognitive ability to make intimate decisions about your body and psychology. This, while it on the surface seems more mundane, is a form of slavery.
- The inability to give proper consent is a form of psychological harm when taken advantage of in the same way that forcing a child into a simulation against their will is classified as such.
- We have established a continuum-based existence of harm in the natural world.
- p1. Any action that is physically painful is by itself harmful.
- p2. Sex is often physically painful
- c. Sex is often harmful by itself
- Premise one is a truism. A painful experience causes not only psychological damage but physical damage while invoking negative and torturous physical sensations.
- Premise two is also simply a fact: "3 out of 4 women have pain during intercourse at some time during their lives" . This comes to a rate of about 75%.
- The conclusion is thus justified.
- p1. An action that causes unwanted/unplanned pregnancy is by itself harmful.
- p2. Child sexual abuse causes unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.
- c. Child sexual abuse is by itself harmful.
- Premise one of course is a truism. Pregnancy is an extremely taxing process that has evident and dramatic physical and emotional impacts . It causes pain, mood changes, body changes, psychological impacts, etc. Pregnancy causes harm and most self evidently falls within our continuum.
- Premise two is also a truism. 48% of pregnant adolescent children reported sexual abuse . This is even more prolific in less developed countries. In Africa for example "children who undertook the research discovered that when girls became pregnant, it was often as a result of sexual abuse by an adult, including school teachers" .
- The conclusions soundly and validly follow from both premises. I also will add that this argument applies to all pregnancies as well and not just unplanned instances of such.
- "To my knowledge" doesn't mean anything.
- Pro has shown examples of societies where child sexual abuse has been practiced but has not demonstrated that there was no harm resulting from it. We can essentially just discard this claim because "to my knowledge," is not acceptable evidence.
- Pro divides this section into humans and animals with assorted citations to each category. In humans, two of the links are links to old web archives and they don't even open. We can simply discard these sources.
- In fact, nearly all of my opponent's sources are simply links that don't work, and the ones that go straight to the aforementioned pedophile website that breaks the rules of this website and may not be used.
- Ultimately, none of my opponent's arguments refute my cases. All of my arguments refute pro's position because pro is arguing that no harm exists from the action itself. Absolutely no harm. I shall engage with subsequent and larger rebuttals in the next round.
- Weirdly my opponent chose to respond to something the user Wylted said in the comments section of a different debate and here they go on a random tangent, but in essence, repeat what has already been stated,
- Pro admits that:
- They used a pedophile source.
- The source has literal child pornography on it.
- Both extensively violate our code of conduct and thus, this source is discarded in its entirety from our debate.
- Tentatively dropped
- We have established a continuum of human harm that stems as a baseline from the most minimal forms of bodily damage, pain, and injury, to the most excruciating forms of it. Harm exists in nearly everything humans do but to differing degrees. Minimal harm is still harm, and harm exists in a range of severity.
No. From the description of this debate: "Pro argues that the vast majority of the harm that is correlated with kids having sex with adults stems from the stigma against it and failing to control for other confounding variables."
- Right, so pro must argue that in the vast majority of cases pro must argue that there is absolutely no harm associated with child sexual abuse.
"Vast majority" is vague. It could be anywhere from 70% to 95%. I define it as 75%. In fact, the whole quote is vague.
- This was not predefined. I define it as 95%.
Lmao. So by that logic, everything that kids do is damaging to their phycology because they don't really make real choices and every choice that they make is a form of slavery.
- It would be an obvious hasty generalization to say "everything," but we can first try to extrapolate certain harms that can register on our previously established continuum so this point is understood.
- Giving a child an unhealthy diet would harm them in the case where they can't consent.
- Not teaching a child forms of hygiene such as brushing teeth would harm them.
- As we continue to extrapolate harms that exist on different degrees of our continuum, forcing a child into sexual intimacy without their rational ability to agree to this is perceptional and psychological damage. Slavery is simply treating another human as property and this would be equivalent to making them a sex slave. This means 100% of child sexual abuse is harmful.
- All premises dropped. Extend.
- I already showcased in round one that 75% of women experience pain from sexual activity. Other sources label it as very common. I simply argue that the majority if not all of sexual activity is harmful in some way that would register on the continuum of human harm. This itself disproves the resolution.
- In addition, I argue:
- p1. Having sex before your body develops is painful/harmful
- p2. Children have underdeveloped bodies
- C. Child sexual abuse is harmful
- Premise one is a truism. Engaging in such before-developed bodily is physically painful. The rest follows conclusively.
- Ultimately, all sexual intercourse comes with a form of physical harm even if minimal. It still exists on our continuum. This makes the resolution fail inherently as it indicates close to 100% of child sexual abuse is harmful.
- Pro here implicitly concedes every premise of the argument and thus the argument itself.
- They only object to the number of children that may get pregnant.
Re. ""To my knowledge" doesn't mean anything."I should have been more specific. I mean't that I had read through 100% of the boywiki links and I did not find anything that showed that the minor-adult sex was harmful.
- This means absolutely nothing.
I only read roughly 1/10th of it...
- An admission that my opponent has hardly read their own sources. Extend my argument. "To my knowledge," means nothing. "I think," means nothing in the rationally based preponderance of evidence expectation. Con somewhat concedes this point in its validity below:
This is a valid point, as I am pretty sure that I mentioned. However, why would adult-minor and minor-minor sex continue to be permissible and practiced by kids in any society if it was harmful
- Non-sequitur. The argument pro makes is that if something is harmful it would never continue ot be permissible. Slavery was harmful and it was permissible for thousands of years, same with human sacrifice and other forms of torture.
- Many harmful things continue to be permissible in different societies. This is a fully incoherent objection.
- Starting from "humans" 4/9 of my opponent's sources are just dead links and unavailable sources.
- The source has literal child pornography on it.
- Both extensively violate our code of conduct and thus, this source is discarded in its entirety from our debate.
- "Having sex before your body develops can physically hurt.
- Emotional pain. Having sex before you’re ready can make you feel bad about yourself. This also causes anxiety."
Why does using a "pedophile source" violate the code of conduct? What specific quote(s) from the code of conduct can you give to support this claim.
- Already shown in the first round?
- p1. "The debate art code of conduct states: "you may not post or link to pornography or other explicit adult sexual material."
- p2. BoyWiki as a pedophile source (with sexually explicit depictions of children) is explicit adult sexual material.
- c. BoyWiki violates the code of conduct.
No, I never said that. I sure have not seen any and I highly doubt it. All I saw was a boy with their shirt off on the home page (which was not sexualized). This is not child pornography.
- It shows a depiction of a naked child playing an instrument under the "boy lovers" (pedophiles) hyperlink and "boys" (innocent minors) hyperlink after that.
If you want to make this argument, you can since technically, I didn't make the description specific enough to ward against someone making such a pointless argument (ex there is .0001% of harm when children have sex with adults so technically there is harm) for no good cause except for winning the debate. I am not going to try to argue against this argument because I find it to be a waste of time, I simply don't care about it, and this is basically not what I meant to debate about.
- Pro has conceded my argument on the ontology of harm saying they "simply don't care about it," and that they won't even try to argue against it.
I would personally look at this from a perspective of whoever shows that minor-adult sex is not harmful 'within reason'
- All harm is within reason. I made a rationally structured argument on the continuum of harm concerning human senses, perceptions, and experiences. This is irrefutably how harm exists in the material world. So my argument is perfectly within reason frankly, it is the most reasonable assessment of the ontological nature of harm.
"This was not predefined. I define it as 95%."Fair enough.
- Pro agrees, thus we have set the baseline for the "vast majority," at 95%. Pro must argue that 95% of child sexual abuse isn't harmful. I only need to show that over 5% is harmful and as I have already shown that 100% of it is harmful, I have already won this debate.
I specifically excluded forced CSA in my definition of CSA. Also, you got a source for that?
- My argument was that the imposition of such actions upon an individual who cannot rationally consent is a form of force or coercion.
- Also, what do you require a source for? I am arguing that this is damage to the child's perceptions because it stipulates the involuntary imposition of the will of innocent children, (already said in round one), especially in actions that relate to their intimacy and the violation of their body. Have you even rejected any aspect or premise of my argument thus far? (The answer is no)
- Regardless, this shows that 100% of child sexual abuse is harmful.
The authors of the article do not cite any sources to back up this claim.
- Um, what? The website is the source. It is literally run by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the information was reviewed by a medical doctor (Deepak S. Patel, MD, FAAFP, FACSM- viewable on the source), so this is clearly not only valid but an extremely credible source for this debate.
- Extend my argument on physical development.
- You also dropped my previous point that showed 75% of women report experiencing pain from sex as well as the feeling being very common.
- In addition, sex has side effects like discomfort, exhaustion, tensed muscles, and cramps, that can be somewhat temporal or lasting .
- I will also add that "STIs are extremely common, with roughly 1 in 5 people in the U.S. having a sexually transmitted infection at some point during the year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)" . It is a truism that such diseases are harmful. Upon all the harm I have given around 20% of people will contract such diseases through sexual contact.
- All these arguments show that in some way, the major overwhelming majority if not all sexual activity is harmful.
You are misunderstanding what I argued or are misrepresenting it. I will write the argument here again...
- Right...so you are conceding that my argument, as in, the two premises and its conclusion are both valid and sound.
- You are only objecting to the number of children who actually get pregnant from child sexual abuse, correct? You are not objecting to the premises and conclusion. I am only saying you conceded the argument, which is true.
- You also dropped my point on less developed countries: This is even more prolific in less developed countries. In Africa for example "children who undertook the research discovered that when girls became pregnant, it was often as a result of sexual abuse by an adult, including school teachers" [4 round 2].
- I already showed that 48% of pregnant adolescent children reported sexual abuse [1 round 1]. This may not mean the child sexual abuse caused the pregnancy but it certainly gives us a figure of the impact abuse has on pregnancy.
- In addition, for every report of child sexual abuse, 2 more go unreported" , meaning that the figure for pregnancy is a lot higher and more unprecedented than we could imagine. Combine that with extreme rates I have shown in less developed countries as well.
- Dropped. Extend that half of my opponent's links are dead.
"you still have not responded to X, Y and Z"
- Well, first of all, you are using a pedophile source which is against the code of conduct, secondly literally half of your links are dead, thirdly a lot of your case is irrelevant because we are debating whether the majority of child sexual abuse is harmful at all.
- I don't need to respond to 100% of what you say. My arguments show that close to 100% of child sexual abuse is harmful so I have already won the debate with my contentions. Realistically, you need to refute my arguments.
I actually agree. Didn't think that one through.
- Pro concedes this argument here.
Pro agrees, thus we have set the baseline for the "vast majority," at 95%. Pro must argue that 95% of child sexual abuse isn't harmful. I only need to show that over 5% is harmful and as I have already shown that 100% of it is harmful, I have already won this debate.
My argument was that the imposition of such actions upon an individual who cannot rationally consent is a form of force or coercion.
- Epstein, Robert (2010). "Adultness," Teen 2.0, 148-157."After reviewing the relevant scientific literature, interviewing many adults, and consulting with three other psychologists and two psychiatrists with expertise in adult development issues, we concluded that there are fourteen different skill-sets or "competencies" [love, sex, leadership, problem solving, physical abilities, verbal and math, interpersonal skills, responsibility, managing high-risk behaviors, work, education, personal care, self-management, and citizenship] that distinguish adults from non-adults. [...] For three of the competencies--love, leadership and problem solving--we did find statistically significant differences between the mean scores of teens and adults, with adults outscoring the teens. But the absolute differences were small. [...] On two other scales--work and self-management--the differences between the adult scores and teen scores were marginally significant (at the .05 level), again in the adults' favor, but the absolute differences were less than 4 percent. On the other nine scales, we found no significant differences at all between the adult and teen scores. [...] fifty five of the adults in our sample were college graduates--more than double the rate of college graduates in the United States."
- Epstein, Robert (2007). "The Myth of the Teen Brain," Scientific American Mind, April/May, 57-63."Visual acuity, for example, peaks around the time of puberty. "Incidental memory"—the kind of memory that occurs automatically, without any mnemonic effort, peaks at about age 12 and declines through life. [...] In the 1940s pioneering intelligence researchers J. C. Raven and David Wechsler, relying on radically different kinds of intelligence tests, each showed that raw scores on intelligence tests peak between ages 13 and 15 and decline after that throughout life. Although verbal expertise and some forms of judgment can remain strong throughout life, the extraordinary cognitive abilities of teens, and especially their ability to learn new things rapidly, is beyond question. And whereas brain size is not necessarily a good indication of processing ability, it is notable that recent scanning data collected by Eric Courchesne and his colleagues at the University of California, San Diego, show that brain volume peaks at about age 14."
- Waber, D.P., et al. (2007). "The NIH MRI Study of Normal Brain Development: Performance of a Population Based Sample of Healthy Children Aged 6 to 18 Years on a Neuropsychological Battery," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13(5), 729-746."Perhaps most intriguing are the age-related trajectories for raw score performance. For most tasks, proficiency improved dramatically between 6 and 10 years of age, leveling off during early adolescence (approximately 10 to 12 years of age), suggesting that for many neurocognitive tasks, children approach adult levels of performance at that age. For a few measures, scores increased linearly throughout the age range. These were tasks that assessed basic information processing, such as Coding, Digit Span, and Spatial Span. Still others were associated with a non-linear component during adolescence. Some showed a flattening of the curve followed by another period of acceleration, suggesting another spurt in mid-adolescence. Verbal learning actually reversed direction with performance declining in later adolescence."
- Adler, N.E., & Matthews, K. (1994). "Why do some people get sick and some stay well?," Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 229-259."However, empirical tests show that adolescents are no less rational than adults. Applications of rational models to adolescent decision-making show that adolescents are consistent in their reasoning and behavior after the salient set of beliefs is assessed (Adler et al 1990). Quadrel et al (1993) demonstrated that adolescents are no more biased in their estimates of vulnerability to adverse health outcomes than are their parents."
- Weithorn, L. A. & Campbell, S. B. (1982). "The competency of children and adolescents to make informed treatment decisions," Child Development, 53(6), 1589-1598."In general, minors aged fourteen were found to demonstrate a level of competence equivalent to that of adults. [...] The ages of eighteen or twenty-one as the "cutoffs" below which individuals are presumed to be incompetent to make determinations about their own welfare do not reflect the psychological capabilities of most adolescents."
- Offer, D. (1987). "In defense of adolescents," Journal of the American Medical Association, 257, 3407-3408.Mike Males describes this study: "Northwestern University psychiatrist Daniel Offer, the nation’s leading researcher on adolescents, studied 30,000 teenagers and adults from the 1960s to the 1990s. He and his colleagues found 85% to 90% of teens held attitudes and risk perceptions similar to that of their parents, were not alienated, did think about the future, were coping well with their lives, and did not display psychological disturbances. "Decision making for adults is no different than decision making among teenagers,” Offer reported in 1987 in the Journal of the American Medical Association."
- Offer, D., and Schonert Reichl, K.A. (1992). "Debunking the myths of adolescence: Findings from recent research," Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 1003 1014."[T]he effects of pubertal hormones are neither potent nor pervasive (Brooks-Gunn and Reiter, 1990). [...] Adolescence does not occur in a vacuum and is significantly affected by the sociocultural context in which it occurs. A recent investigation by Enright et al. (1987) illustrates this point. This study was based on the careful reading of 89 articles in the Journal of Genetic Psychology for the past 100 years. The articles were rated for their conceptions about the nature of adolescence. Enright et al. demonstrated ideological bias in approaches to understanding adolescent psychology, specifically in relation to economic conditions. Specifically, in times of economic depression, theories emerged in the literature that portrayed adolescents as "immature, psychologically unstable, and in need of prolonged participation in the education system" (p. 553). In contrast, during wartime, the psychological competence of adolescents was accentuated. The authors point out, "The field of adolescent psychology is not free from the societal influences that impinge upon legislators, educators, and parents in shaping American adolescents" (p. 554)."
- Quadrel, M. J., Fischhoff, B., & Davis, W. (1993). "Adolescent (in)vulnerability," American Psychologist, 48, 102-116."Three groups of subjects were asked to judge the probability that they and several target others (a friend, an acquaintance, a parent, a child) would experience various risks. Subjects were middle-class adults, their teenage children, and high-risk adolescents from treatment homes. All three groups saw themselves as facing somewhat less risk than the target others. However, this perception of relative invulnerability was no more pronounced for adolescents than for adults. Indeed, the parents were viewed as less vulnerable than their teenage children by both the adults and those teens. These results are consistent with others showing small differences in the cognitive decision-making processes of adolescents and adults. Underestimating teens' competence can mean misdiagnosing the sources of their risk behaviors, denying them deserved freedoms, and failing to provide needed assistance."
- Haidt, J. (2001). "The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment," Psychological Review, 108, 814-834."Turiel (1983) has shown that young children do not believe [that actions are wrong just because they are punished]. They say that harmful acts, such as hitting and pulling hair, are wrong whether they are punished or not. They even say that such acts would be wrong if adults ordered them to be done."
Also, what do you require a source for? I am arguing that this is damage to the child's perceptions because it stipulates the involuntary imposition of the will of innocent children, (already said in round one), especially in actions that relate to their intimacy and the violation of their body. Have you even rejected any aspect or premise of my argument thus far? (The answer is no)
Um, what? The website is the source. It is literally run by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the information was reviewed by a medical doctor (Deepak S. Patel, MD, FAAFP, FACSM- viewable on the source), so this is clearly not only valid but an extremely credible source for this debate.
You also dropped my previous point that showed 75% of women report experiencing pain from sex as well as the feeling being very common.
In addition, sex has side effects like discomfort, exhaustion, tensed muscles, and cramps, that can be somewhat temporal or lasting .I will also add that "STIs are extremely common, with roughly 1 in 5 people in the U.S. having a sexually transmitted infection at some point during the year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)" . It is a truism that such diseases are harmful. Upon all the harm I have given around 20% of people will contract such diseases through sexual contact.All these arguments show that in some way, the major overwhelming majority if not all sexual activity is harmful.
You are only objecting to the number of children who actually get pregnant from child sexual abuse, correct? You are not objecting to the premises and conclusion. I am only saying you conceded the argument, which is true.
You also dropped my point on less developed countries: This is even more prolific in less developed countries. In Africa for example "children who undertook the research discovered that when girls became pregnant, it was often as a result of sexual abuse by an adult, including school teachers" [4 round 2].
Dropped. Extend that half of my opponent's links are dead.
Well, first of all, you are using a pedophile source which is against the code of conduct, secondly literally half of your links are dead, thirdly a lot of your case is irrelevant because we are debating whether the majority of child sexual abuse is harmful at all.
"In my study—no differently from other research— the exact amount of time it took for victims to reconceptualize what had happened to them varied. It depended on the individual victims, on how old they were when abused, what educational and life experiences had taught them about sex, and what kinds of cues had triggered their thinking about what had hap- pened and recognizing it as abuse. Victims described the point of realization in different ways: “A light went on.” “It was like, aha!” “I said, ‘Oh my God.’” For more than a few it was “like a bomb went off. . . . Holy shit! I was abused!” For many, the realization was a “long, drawn-out process” that slowly built up to a new perception of the abuse. One thing did not vary: only at this point—when victims understood the abuse as such, once they had reconceptualized these formerly ambiguous and confusing events—did the experience become psychologically traumatic and begin to exert its negative effects. . . . It is the retrospective interpretation of the event that mediates subsequent impact . . . . there is almost always a period in which the victim reports a lack of awareness that they were abused and then subsequently reconceptualizes the experience . . . ."
"As I discussed at length in chapter 2, according to victims, they did not experience the abuse as awful when it happened because most simply did not understand clearly the meaning or significance of the sexual behaviors they were engaging in. That being said, at some point later on in life, they do. Over time, the “cloak of innocence lifted,” as one victim described it. Victims reconceptualized the formerly “confusing and weird experiences” and understood them for what they were—sexual in nature and clearly wrong. Only at this point—when the sexual abuse is fully apprehended— does it begin to damage victims. . . ."
"If you experience psychological distress after sexual abuse, then the sexual abuse must be the cause[, right?]. But it is not actually that simple. What, specifically, about the abuse has triggered the distress? Does it have to do with objective characteristics of the abuse (for example, how many times it happened or whether penetration was involved)? Does it have to do with subjective characteristics about the abuse (how painful, frightening, or shocking it was)? Perhaps it has less to do with the actual abuse and more to do with, say, the particular child (how old he or she was and how genetically predisposed to long-term psychological problems) or the environment. the abuse occurred in (one characterized by poverty, physical abuse, or neglect). Maybe it has to do with the cognitive or social consequences of the abuse (how the victim’s family or health professionals handled it or how the victim understood or conceptualized it later on in life). There are numerous ways to understand how and why sexual abuse damages victims. [In other words there are many different theories that claim to know why when a child has sex with an adult the child is harmed in the short term or in the long term.] For decades, however, the main focus has centered on one—the incident itself. . . .
Lucy Berliner and Jon Conte in their 1990 study noted that a majority of the children they interviewed reported not knowing initially that they were being sexually abused. Berliner and Conte quoted victims as saying such things as . . . . “I didn’t know there was any- thing wrong with it, because I didn’t know it was abuse until later. I thought he was showing me affection.”10
More recently, two cognitive psychologists, Michelle Epstein and Bette Bottoms, specifically hypothesized that due to the confusing and secretive nature of the abuse, many victims may fail to understand the meaning of the sexual acts committed (and subsequently forget them for periods), but then, at a later point, come to “relabel” the experiences as “traumatic.”11
In my study—no differently from other research— the exact amount of time it took for victims to reconceptualize what had happened to them varied. It depended on the individual victims, on how old they were when abused, what educational and life experiences had taught them about sex, and what kinds of cues had triggered their thinking about what had happened and recognizing it as abuse. Victims described the point of realization in different ways: “A light went on.” “It was like, aha!” “I said, ‘Oh my God.’” For more than a few it was “like a bomb went off. . . . Holy shit! I was abused!” For many, the realization was a “long, drawn-out process” that slowly built up to a new perception of the abuse. One thing did not vary: only at this point—when victims understood the abuse as such, once they had reconceptualized these formerly ambiguous and confusing events—did the experience become psychologically traumatic and begin to exert its negative effects. . . . It is the retrospective interpretation of the event that mediates subsequent impact . . . . there is almost always a period in which the victim reports a lack of awareness that they were abused and then subsequently reconceptualizes the experience . . . ."
- Effectively dropped. It has been proven that my opponent used a pedophile source that contains child pornography on it, something that undoubtedly violates the code of contract for this site. Predicated upon this:
- Anything pro states with this source is effectively discarded.
- I appeal to a sense of obligation to the site and the rules placed to guide the conduct of interactions within it. Posting websites with literal child pornography on them should by truism warrant a conduct violation.
That is not what I meant. I stand by my vast majority means 75% but you can think it means 95%.
- If you have not defined vast majority at this point of the debate, here you are essentially giving voters the discretion to use my estimate over yours. For a more objective source, it typically means 80 to 90% so 85% would be the average of both modes.
- Dropped/ Conceded: as my opponent stated "I am not going to try to argue against this argument."
You are making an assumption.
- I am not making an assumption, I made a rationally structured argument with premises and a conclusion as well as scholarly sources. To quote my argument: " I am arguing that this is damage to the child's perceptions because it stipulates the involuntary imposition of the will of innocent children, (already said in round one), especially in actions that relate to their intimacy and the violation of their body."
- So I made an argument as to what stipulates the perceptional harm, that being, the involuntary imposition of will. You have not rejected a specific premise of my argument at all. You simply asked for a source, which again, is not necessary for my argument as I specifically outline what entails perceptional harm.
However, for the sake of argument let's say that this is true. Now by that logic kids cannot rationally consent to anything. Everything a kid does is now coercion (or "slavery" as you said earlier). So by that logic everything a kid does is wrong/harmful to themselves.
- This was already responded to previously, right? What is the sense in repeating the same thing? We can obviously find harms that arise from a child's interaction with others in their ability to consent such as an unhealthy diet under the guise of an irresponsible parent, but for the ontological assertion of slavery, we reserve this for impositions that violate the bodily autonomy of individuals or de facto treat them as property such as child sexual abuse.
con has provided no evidence whatsoever that supports the assumption that kids cannot rationally consent.
- False. I clearly provided a scholarly source from the National Library of Medicine for this claim written by psychologists and Ph.D. doctors, and I cited this specifically next to my claim in the first round. I politely ask voters to deduct or consider deducting conduct points for pro openly lying about my case.
- The ability of children to consent: Pro here brings up several new points in the final round to argue that children can rationally consent. Many of the sources are behind paywalls and are otherwise unaccessible such as #5. Without this, we can make no claims with respect to the sources. The issue with pro's case is that none of his sources analyze prefrontal development. As demonstrated:
Although the overall size and gross organization of the brain is similar in adolescents and adults, dynamic changes in brain structure, function, and features of neuromodulatory systems are occurring throughout adolescence. Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have revealed developmentally normative reductions in the volume of gray matter across adolescence [1,2] that are thought to reflect experience-dependent pruning processes. Lagged structural development of the prefrontal cortex, particularly dorsolateral regions, has been linked to a number of functional outcomes during adolescence, including continued improvement in impulse control , working memory , and complex reasoning . As such, late development of the prefrontal cortex could constrain components of decision-making that rely heavily on deliberation or integrating complex sources of information.By contrast, certain properties of dopaminergic signaling exhibit adolescent-specific peaks. Structurally, there is a proliferation of D1 and D2 receptors in various targets within the mesolimbic dopamine system, which prune 50% or more from the transition of adolescence to adulthood  paired with a peaking tissue concentration of dopamine . Corresponding studies in humans using functional MRI have demonstrated an adolescent-specific exaggeration of response to various forms of reward [8,9**] and stronger parametric tracking of expected value  in the ventral striatum, a key target of dopaminergic signaling.
- Conclusively "Although adolescents appear to have full access to many of the cognitive foundations of decision-making, several aspects of decision-making such as intertemporal choice, prospective evaluation, and integration of positive and negative feedback are not yet tuned to typical adult levels" so children cannot consent.
- Secondly, 34% of child sexual abuse occurs before the age of 12, much before the age pro's sources even dispute consent so we can conclusively say that even if we assume all pro's sources are correct my argument would prove that 34% of child sexual abuse is harmful and that in of itself is enough to win the debate.
if you were to say that since "75% of women report experiencing pain from sex as well as the feeling being very common" child-sexual abuse is harmful overall 75% of the time than you would also be arguing that adult-adult sex is harmful overall 75% of the time which is obviously false.
- Absolutely. Adult sex is harmful to some degree in almost every case just like child sex. But in addition, remember all the side effects of sex I have shown and the risk of contradicting infections as well as the commonality of other pain which cumulatively indicate that all sex is physically harmful in some way.
You are arguing against people having sex right now.
- Incorrect, I am arguing that all sex is ontologically harmful in some way. My argument does not stipulate any action upon people. This claim can be considered discarded.
I intend to argue that child sexual abuse is not as bad as people think it is.
- Moving the goalposts the resolution is clearly "Is Child Sexual Abuse Harmful by Itself?"
Of course there are some amount of people who get pregnant from CSA. However, for each sexual incident (in terms of both CSA and adult-adult sex) there is not necessarily more pregnancy from the CSA than from the adult-adult sex.
- No one is saying there is necessarily more pregnancy than adult sexual abuse but that sexual abuse results in child pregnancy frequently and therefore is harmful in and of itself. As cited, when accounting for less developed countries this is much more frequent and common.
Pro: Dropped. Extend that half of my opponent's links are dead.Con: The links that were dead are not important for making my points. If anyone finds a dead link that they feel is important just request an unbroken one and I will provide it.
- It is not anyone's responsibility but your own to provide sources for your arguments. If you fail to do this it not only impacts your case but casts doubt upon the veracity and legitimacy of your arguments.
- Half of my opponent's construtive links are dead. This they do not even deny nor try to amend. Conclusively, that gets rid of half of your respective claims in addition to the discarded one that makes use of a source that violates the code of contract and contains sexually explicit depictions of children.
Again, first of all, con has not responded to my conversation with wylted about The Trauma Myth (book)
- I have, just not directly. My arguments all respond to this contention in its entirety because I have shown that literally, all sex is physically harmful in some way and that children can't rationally consent thus stipulating the involuntary imposition of will upon them, etc. So my contentions entirely refute the notion that child sexual abuse isn't harmful if they already prove it is.