Instigator / Pro
0
1309
rating
269
debates
40.71%
won
Topic
#3596
Pedophilia should not be punished
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
0
2
Better conduct
0
2
After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
Pedophilia definition:
Sexual activities between adult and a child
Round 1
Pro
#1
When a little girl feels strong desire for an adult, nobody should prevent her to make such a relationship. You cannot decide for the little girl if she wants it or not. You have no right to tell a little girl that she should not have relationship with an adult. Little girl has her power of will. If she says she wants to spend some time with an adult man alone, who are you to tell her what to do? Children are not your property.
Con
#2
Current Status of Pedophilia:
This is how Pedophilia is being defined here.[1]
n. an obsession with children as sex objects. Overt acts, including taking sexual explicit photographs, molesting children, and exposing one's genitalia to children are all crimes. The problem with these crimes is that pedophilia is also treated as a mental illness, and the pedophile is often released only to repeat the crimes or escalate the activity to the level of murder.
The definition defines it as a type of crime, one that objectifies children as sex objects, often having sex with kids against their will. Now, it should be obvious that crime should be punished. Well, you see, the definition article itself states what happens to pedophiles who are not punished: They go around the streets committing the same crimes, so that is what happens. For example, child predators are so much of a problem they got the attention of FBI[2].
Researches show that: [3]
- 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse;
- Self-report studies show that 20% of adult females and 5-10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident;
- During a one-year period in the U.S., 16% of youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;
- Over the course of their lifetime, 28% of U.S. youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;
- Children are most vulnerable to CSA between the ages of 7 and 13.
This is sexual abuse and sexual victimization we are talking about, where the kids did not agree to sexual harassment. The Pedophiles still went on without any consent, and that is why they are punished. The definition article shows that pedophilia is not something that could be easily just stopped. When they get out of prison, they do it again, so they deserve punishment and probably should be away from children for the rest of their life.
Rebuttals
When a little girl feels strong desire for an adult, nobody should prevent her to make such a relationship. You cannot decide for the little girl if she wants it or not.
You are missing the problem. The problem is that pedophiles just start harassing kids without their consent. There is pretty much no prepubescent children who asks people for nudes, and pretty much nobody before puberty would want to forcefully have sex. Pedophiles harass these kids, essentially even creating childhood trauma for them. Almost all of them don't like it.
Having this one specific scenario is like saying "When a 3rd world country feels a strong desire to be invaded, nobody should prevent the US from invading it through a war. You cannot stop the US". That is how utterly absurd the opening statement is. It accounts for a scenario that barely exists. If it does exist, Please link reliable evidence here that can prove so, don't forcefully text children, please.
...aaaaand, the whole argument made by Pro R1 was accounting for this single scenario! That by no means was shown to exist(well for the survey of [3], there weren't any listed entries of any victim that says "they loved it when they were young".)! By all means, even if the consent of a child counts in every measure, Pro's R1 argument would be a weak one.
What Pro is arguing for is Statutory Rape[4], and there is space for negotiation. For example, a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old in a place where the age of consent is 16 would likely be punished less than a 43 year old with a baby. From the experiences that we have had, we make the laws upon[5]. If statutory rape is always harmless to both parties, then there would be no crime on it. The law is trying to protect people, and while the little girl in Pro's scenario would be displeased at most, were we given a green light to what she wants to do, chances are that she would be hurt after the act has been done due to the fact her body is not developed enough for this. There is a reason we don't allow small girls to drive cars, smoke weed, shoot guns, etc. I will directly ask a question: If the girl gets hurt and regrets this and is left with semi-permanent damage to her own body leaving childhood trauma, who is gonna pay for this?
Round 2
Pro
#3
The violent hate that you spread against pedophiles serves you no great value. Obviously you think all pedophiles are evil monsters and not human beings with love and care. Little girl is not your private slave. You cannot demonize her relationship with an adult if she says she actually wants it. Who are you to violently take away such a precious choice from her...Who are you to tell her that she is wrong... To even think that all pedophiles are the same is in itself a sign of hatred you feel towards them in general. Being a free human being, little girl has every right to decide whether she wants an adult. If she doesnt want him, he should leave her alone. If she does want him, no one should tell her that she shouldnt do what she really wants. What especially shouldnt be done is sending an innocent man to prison. This is her personal life in which you should not interfere against her will. You want to destroy their love by ending it. Love is strong, cannot be defeated, as it always rises to fight another battle.
Con
#4
The violent hate that you spread against pedophiles serves you no great value. Obviously you think all pedophiles are evil monsters and not human beings with love and care. Little girl is not your private slave.
Hey, it is not my problem that the legal definition literally categorize it as crime, people being displeased about it, the FBI tracking them down as criminals. It is not my problem that pedophiles often repeat the same crimes when they are let out due to the mental illness they have.
The topic assumes NO restrictions. What this means is that Pro has to prove that ALL pedophiles are innocent, when we clearly have statistics that a large amount of pedophiles make kids uncomfortable, as far as them having childhood trauma later in life. The Burden of Proof is undefined, so the burden automatically shifts to Pro, in which the entirety of Pro's argument was ...restating a case that has been dismantled, or never being proven to exist in the first place.
The reason we see pedophilia as harmful is because it is inherently linked to crime.
Also, Ad hominem. Again, it is not my problem. Surely, little girls are not my private slave, but some pedophiles view little girls as their private slaves due to their mental illness, so...
You cannot demonize her relationship with an adult if she says she actually wants it. Who are you to violently take away such a precious choice from her...Who are you to tell her that she is wrong...
Who are you to disallow little girls from killing themselves? Who are you to disallow little girls from smoking weed? Who are you to disallow little girls to drive a toy car and become a danger to local drivers on the street?
Because it hurts the wider society, and most importantly it hurts the little girls themselves. Pro provided no counterevidence against that. I will provide more: The Psychological torture from rape is nearly unbearable even for an adult[1], let alone little kids. If the kid knows what "Pain" is and the parents tell the kid that this will bring unbearable pain, chances are that he will refrain from doing that, with himself feeling stupid. Just because a kid wants it with no prior experience is not enough. I want to blow up the white house(at 16), do I have excess permission? What if I want a clone army? What if I want to disassemble the US senate? We can't just allow everything in the basis that they are choices, especially since these choices would be made by someone unaware of the damage it could cause and that it could cause possibly permanent damage to society.
You want to destroy their love by ending it. Love is strong, cannot be defeated, as it always rises to fight another battle.
I am of no experience as a parent, but I am pretty sure a relationship between a little girl and a grown man is skewed and unhealthy. The grown man(who is degenerate enough to like a little girl) would likely distill behavior unfit for her age, which messes with her brain that just absorbs knowledge everywhere. Do you trust behavioral learning with a school with friendly teachers and kids the same age, or would you trust a pedophile who just shows sexual attraction to her?
So yeah. If I am the father of such a little girl, I would try to end their "love" if it exists, if you can even call it one.
I will ask: What if one day your son just decides to rape a dog? Would you keep allowing it? If Yes, Why?
Conclusions
- Pro restates points with a side of ad hominem.
- Pro did not prove, in a general front, that all pedophiles should be considered innocent, especially with no refutations on statistics of their crimes.
- Just because it is a choice doesn't mean it is automatically valid, especially since the choice arguably destroys them and they are unaware yet of the negative impacts of their thoughts. This argument fails.
- Pro failed to uphold the BoP. Con successfully dismantled this "argument".
Round 3
Pro
#5
There are some people who seem to belive that children cannot feel pleasure from adults and that children should be considered a property. To these people we provide the greatest opposition. Children want adults, just like they want other children. Only a person who considers children as a private property can say that children do not feel desires and pleasure.
Violating childs will while saying that you dont consider children as property is dishonest.
When I see the rights of pedophilia being so violently attacked by a large group of very aggressive people, I feel the overwhelming need to act to protect those rights securing their existence from those who know not for the pity. Harming which they claim that pedophilia carries is greatly outmatched by the harm they have done to the world. Having violated childs consent in so many ways while at the same time claiming that pedophiles are the ones violating childs consent, opposing to pedophilia has done nothing except destruction of lives. Treating children as their private property, being destined these groups couldnt have produced a better argument than the argument of consent revealing their natural habbit of seeking to control children to use them as the excuse to conduct violence against pedophiles. Protecting children wasnt their aim but having the excuse to commit violence was the thing that made them very happy.
Violently taking away childs ability to choose for herself a partner is the example of brutal control conducted by violent people without consideration for the child or human values.
You talk against rape, yet when pedophiles are sent to prison they are often raped and beaten, even when they didnt hurt the child.
You talk of sex and rape, pedophiles who dont have real sex with a child but stay within other sexual activities and do them when child wants it dont seem to find their place in your argument.
When a little girl wants to be with the man she is in love with and has feelings for, you tell her that she cant.
Desires dont appear at puberty. They start earlier being very strong.
You want to stop these desires at children. Hence, you first convince yourself that these desires dont exist. Then you want to convince children in these lies. Then you want to convince me.
Childs desires are very strong. Having no counter to them, you decided to reduce children to incapable beings violating their will.
If a man is in relationship with a little girl and does nothing against her will, you should really reconsider your hatred towards the man.
Opposing people like you is the sign of ultimate struggle in which I fight to give power to little girls, something which many dont understand.
Little girls deserve such freedom. Only they can say who should or should not be their partner.
Go ahead now. Its your turn.
Con
#6
There are some people who seem to belive that children cannot feel pleasure from adults and that children should be considered a property. To these people we provide the greatest opposition.
This is equivalent practically to, for example, allowing all children to drive cars just because one kid can actually drive cars, or allowing all children to draft into the army just because one strong kid is actually that rigorous. No. Letting young children join the military just because they want would leave the children dead if they are ever allowed in due to the lack of required strength.
Children should not be considered property. I agree. What I don't agree is that children are considered property just because we deny them something they don't know what the impact would be and could permanently hurt them for the sake of protecting them. No. In fact, our shift would be of more "disposable" if we just baselessly allow them to do things that could hurt them in more ways than they know and resulting in them getting hurt. I will ask Pro, again, What do you do if you allow a young girl for such deeds, and she returns hours later telling him that this feels horrible and damaging?
If Pro's approach is reliable, then any education ever, as long as it is new, would be considered abuse to the children, consider it blows their mind and gives them a new way of thinking. Pro likely would think, based on this, that we should just allow children to not go to school whenever he wants. The endproduct of such approach would result in a spoilt child, without any meaningful skill, just for the sake that they refuse to learn anything and refuse to be treated "badly". And this is as if they don't get hurt by their wild thoughts. If your kid desperately want to see live dinosaurs while not learning the event of their extinction, would you sack billions to find cloning technology?
So yeah, Pro's approach to education is likely wrong.
Children want adults, just like they want other children.
Keep in mind that this entire scenario exists only on paper as of this point and Pro has never proven such existence despite my demand. I highly suggest Pro prove the existence of this case, as I have mentioned as early as R1, or else this case will be treated no differently than a baseless one, which is what it ought to be by then.
When I see the rights of pedophilia being so violently attacked by a large group of very aggressive people, I feel the overwhelming need to act to protect those rights securing their existence from those who know not for the pity.
I guess you are talking about this.
You talk against rape, yet when pedophiles are sent to prison they are often raped and beaten, even when they didnt hurt the child.
The prison is an entirely different problem, which is just a part of a larger overall problem in prisons: Violence. As for "Rights", sure they should be kept alive and not just "executed on the spot", but what do you consider a violation of their right? We probably agree on the fact that they should not be allowed rogue on the street, grabbing whatever kid they like regardless if they want it or not. And to say it once more: Most of the kids do not want it according to statistics done in research. Those who actively want it is statistically negligible and does not even show up on the survey. To sacrifice the interests of many children just to satisfy the illusion of desire for the statistically negligible is...backwards, I would say.
Pro has not illustrated:
- The "sexual desire" is possible at a young age, or even that, is a healthy desire and should be fulfilled.
- To sacrifice the lot for the interest for a group that barely exists is a just act.
You want to stop these desires at children. Hence, you first convince yourself that these desires dont exist. Then you want to convince children in these lies. Then you want to convince me.
No, no, no. I am saying that either these desires are illusions and not genuine, or that they can suppressed. I am not saying these desires do not exist, they can feel like that, they probably just have too little information to have a more objective outlook in life, which is normal for their age. I have mentioned this earlier, Pro never refuted.
Then, comes the delay of gratification, which is just a form of suppressing urges. Delay of gratification is vital for school-age children for the choice of doing homework and play. If there is no education attempt on delaying gratification in one's entire life, such child would:
- Never get any good grades if they find this subject unfun, because they disallow themselves to stop having fun.
- Allow themselves to get hurt in ways they did not know was possible, cases mentioned above.
- Even rape random strangers on the street every time they feel sexually motivated, and possibly get themselves hurt because almost nobody likes that.
- Eventually be a failure at life. That is what Pro wants?
So in conclusion, if I stop her from trying to have a relationship with a grown man, I am probably helping her. I am helping her to realize that the other guy was possibly just mentally ill and such a relationship will be unhealthy more likely than not, and I am teaching her to delay the gratifications, in which probably after brief explanation the girl would realize it wasn't gratification all along.
If a man is in relationship with a little girl and does nothing against her will, you should really reconsider your hatred towards the man.
I get it. You think you can't arrest someone with no clear damage. However, that just means damage has not yet emerged. Pedophiles, in the definition article provided in R1, have a tendency to abuse kids, so the faster you get the kids away from them, the better. Not arresting a local gun-carrying terrorizer for the sake they haven't fired shots is absurd, the same absurdity of not pulling over a wrecky driver for the sake they didn't hit anything. If we only act as late as possible, we might be too late, and the child might be frightened and hurt.
Opposing people like you is the sign of ultimate struggle in which I fight to give power to little girls, something which many dont understand.
You are fighting for a group you haven't shown to exist while the masses suffer. You haven't responded to anything headon to anything I have said. All you did was ad hominem and repetition of the same point which I have shown to have little impact. Please do better, you can do better.
I end my argument here.
Round 4
Pro
#7
If I saw a little girl dating an adult man, if I saw she was happy with him, I would never say to her that she shouldnt be with him. I would never try to convince her that she is a victim. I would never spoil that precious love she found. I would let them have their fun. Maybe, just maybe, if you didnt treat pedophiles like they are the worst most evil monsters that exist, maybe we would see more examples of child-adult love with gentle feelings without pain, fear.
Attacking the beautiful relationship of child-adult with desperate degradation is the evil. If I allow this corruption, I will be defeated immediatelly. I will not allow it. Little girl knows who she likes. You claim she has no ability to properly choose. So you conclude that you should make this choice instead of her. Depriving her of choice of who will she love is in itself an act so terrible that for me it is unimaginable. I hope you can see the the error of your arguments. I hope you can see the truth. Helping pedophiles and children is the great achievement that cannot be disregarded by any means. This is the struggle of today which can only result in total victory or defeat. Every destroyed child-adult relationship is the impossible pain that can never be healed. It always comes back to haunt us. I cannot stand idle watching as children are being forcefully taken away from their friends and their bond is forever destroyed. This is why I had to speak up in their name. This is why I had to stand up for their rights. I expect of every human with a sense of compassion to do the same.
Con
#8
*sigh*
All points that have been mentioned by Pro by the 4th round have been debunked one way or another, with at least Pro unable to address my questions.
Pro has failed to:
- Prove that the ONLY effective group according to Pro in his arguments at least, which are children who actively try and voluntarily to build romantic(and even sexual) relationships with older people, is large enough to have an impact, or at least shown to exist, after continuous demand of such evidence.
Since there is no further specification on the burden of proof, it defaults to Pro. The lack of specification in the topic statement also has to prove that ALL pedophiles should be exempt from punishment, something yet to be proven by Pro.
What about the pedophiles who killed children for their own desire? You can't just justify murdering kids just because they are kids, and according to common sense, "If I am a kid who wants to be killed by pedophiles I should be able to be" would be too much of a stretch, really. Most children fear death and that would make such acts extremely difficult to justify.
Plus, there is no response on the fact that rape has psychological torture so severe an adult can't bear it anymore, let alone a kid who does not know what is coming. Pretty sure when kids are being raped, they would hate it, and by stopping such an opportunity they are saved. By Pro's logic, no one should hold me from running in the middle of an active train track, because it is my choice, even though if I were held, my life would be saved and I would be thankful.
The correct response to a small girl trying to "date" an adult man would be telling her the consequences and possibly the dangers of doing it, and not to allow her to do whatever she wants. Even telling her "A normal person would be attracted to people their age, and not a grown adult to children like you. The most common explanation would be that the adult attracted to you has a mental illness which makes them do that, and if you get close to them, they would hurt you because they see you not as a lovely kid as you are, but merely as a tool" would be better than letting her experience the darkness and pain that could be brought upon her, something she clearly should not handle.
Most child molesters get through to their victims by using the victim grooming process. Here is the overview of its stages:
- The predator establishes a nonsexual relationship with the child
- The victim’s family gets tricked into trusting the pedophile and leaving the child alone with them
- The relationship gradually becomes sexual in nature
- The child remains silent and fulfills the predator’s demands out of guilt
A typical pedophile offender will commit around 117 crimes, while serial predators can go well beyond that if they aren’t discovered and arrested.
This is on top of that pedophiles make it seem like so that they are friendly, when in reality they are not. Normal grown adults would treat children respecfully, and not even trying to lure them into dating them. So yeah, it probably was a trap, an illusion, not to be trusted, and will probably lead to the kid being in pain.
Attacking the beautiful relationship of child-adult with desperate degradation is the evil.
Pretty sure the adult do the attacking first, if the adult is a pedophile.
You claim she has no ability to properly choose. So you conclude that you should make this choice instead of her.
Neither is she allowed to drive, drink, join the army, etc... The children are in a stage of development without the complete formation of a distinct moral system constructed. They cannot definitely tell that what the perpetrator is harmful due to their mind being blank without a complete moral system. I am more interested in Pro's proof of why a little girl is mature enough to choose so, something that concerns ethics that she may have no way of possibly learning beforehand, if there is even such proof.
There is a reason for the creation of the age of consent and Pro never rebuttaled straightfowardly.
Every destroyed child-adult relationship is the impossible pain that can never be healed.
Once again, the adult, if a pedophile, does the destruction and painmaking first. These people should be away from kids. If there is no pedophile and they are just friends(like an old professor and his colleague's granddaughter who he treats with respect and as a person her age), then this scenario is out of consideration considering just what exactly the topic is.
Helping pedophiles and children is the great achievement that cannot be disregarded by any means.
Pro brings no evidence backing this claim except evidence that are already being defeated what, 2 rounds ago? You can do better. Provide real evidence, please, even if it is just a single link, and please do not forcefully harass children while you are at it.
Round 5
Pro
#9
The power which I have been granted with I use to defend those little ones which have been attacked by the predatory system which I was forced to live in and observe its crimes. The torturing of pedophiles and children, their separation, the hate against them, and all those attempts to destroy child-adult relationships are the things which I oppose to despite the great effort of society to enslave me to think like the majority. However, I was not born to agree with the popular opinions. I cannot be put under control of the current society, as I know for the better and greater. You can say a lot of things, but its like you havent said anything. My ears are deaf to your hate. The protective layers of my mind defend me, securing me from any ideological invasion of the mind. This is especially so in the case of pedophilia.
Terrible violation of desires of little girls will not find its place in the heart of the human who has heart. Little girls are not your little toys that you will control. They will break free from the chains which bind them. If a little girl expresses powerful desire to be with an adult, your disruptive involvement is unwanted. Your restrictions are the true harm. Allowing a little girl to choose who is the person she will spend time with represents choice so greatly valuable that it cannot be outweight by your corrupt desire to enslave her to serve your goals of what you think is right for her. You are not allowed to make this important choice for her. Your evil arguments have no place in the pure minds. Power of love between adults and children will overcome all obstacles which you have set against them. Then we will be closer to peace so greatly desired. Then there will be less violence. We will win.
Con
#10
Literally nothing new, not even any valuable rebuttals. *sigh*
Despite Pro purposefully setting himself a task in which the burden of proof is assumed to be on him to prove that ALL pedophiles should not be subject to any punishment, his argument fell short miles ago.
Pro STILL haven't given a source crediting the validity and existence of the group he mentions to be existent despite the psychology clearly makes this group unlikely. No links present, the most "evidence" to back up such claims of such groups existing was, I guess, circular reasoning.
I have given evidence why rape, in general is bad for all people, including children, how pedophiles may seem friendly but may rape and even kill children. That is bad. Obviously the pedophiles that do that should be punished because they have inflicted damage onto children, psychologically or physically.
The little girl in the story should not choose for herself because she has not yet a formed moral system to choose what is really right and wrong and she cannot look through the deception the pedophiles set up for abuse. Adults have the job of educating them what it is and the dangers of it objectively, not to allow her to do whatever she wants, as it could hurt her and make her regret beyond any illusion of joy.
As a result, Pro fails to fulfill his BoP.
Most of my arguments went dropped. Vote CON.
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:
Args:
Con consistently demonstrates multi-faceted logical approaches to upholding their burden of proof, offering more than enough evidence to demonstrate that at least some pedophiles should be punished. While there is a lack of clarity in regards to the specifics of the resolution, pro offers almost nothing more than assertions and ad hominems against con. I don't think I have to get very specific here, Con's argument that pedophiles usually hurt people, and we should punish people that hurt others in this way - is simple and works in this context.
Sources:
Con is the only one to use sources, further, the sources are backing up their argument in a way that creates impact to their case.
Spelling/Grammer:
A rare case where there is a substantial difference in grammar and spelling, to the point where Pro's ultimate point is hard to understand, some examples for readers: "When a little girl feels strong desire for an adult, nobody should prevent her to make such a relationship. You cannot decide for the little girl if she wants it or not. You have no right to tell a little girl that she should not have relationship with an adult. Little girl has her power of will." From pro's first round argument
Conduct:
Pro repeatedly called Con's arguments "evil" and said they wanted to make little girls their slaves... I think this is very clear.
Yeah, this is one of my best debates ever.
5 days left. Votes anyone?
Bump, this needs votes.
what the hell
No. But if you forfeit, I dont care.
This has to be satire.
After this one is over, yes.
Can we also have this debate?
You should really stop your violent hate by doing something more useful instead.
Are you even trying? Well, makes sense for such little defense for such a topic because you aren't supposed to defend it.
Dont worry. This will be excellent.
At this point I believe you are either an alt of Type1 or an alt of Wylted. Even if you are not, the fact that you believe in this shows, and this isn't what we call exactly "good".