Instigator / Pro
0
1341
rating
72
debates
18.75%
won
Topic

Nevermind a child consenting.

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Health
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
24,000
Contender / Con
0
1468
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Description
~ 1,319 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Let us establish that for the sake of this topic, child consent exists legally and all other capacities like an adult to include sexual matters.

Ok so there, for those of you that basically argue just off of the consent issue , there's no world that exist for that point to be based on.

We're in this different reality , different world for the point of discussion.

I still will argue that pedophilia, the act of sexual relations between adults and minors is still harmful, wrong and everything else.

Just like any consenting pair of people to include homosexuals, heterosexuals, "incestuals ", it's adverse.

Now any questions about the topic, please leave a comment and or send a message.
Let me say this. I know some leave comments that I may not respond to but when the debate challenge is already accepted, it goes by the wayside.

Round 1
Pro
Well  my my, I believe you said you probably won't be reading my arguments.
Also not contributing any arguments of your own.

Well let me ask from person to person.

Couldn't a child experience harm from consensual sexual relations?

A grown person could. A child wouldn't have any special immunity . 
Con
Pretty dreams about children being owned by adults will all collapse. Children will gain power to decide for themselves. Even a girl at the age of 5 could decide whether she wants a child or an adult to be her partner. They could have a relationship together. Adult could teach her a lot of things, while at the same time she could teach an adult about her way of life. Maybe the age difference could be a small problem if she is 5 years old and he is 45 years old, but they could overcome that and continue their relationship. Adult could treat her with care, so she likes the attention and gifts he gives her. She could even marry him. If he does something wrong, he could apologize to her and tell her that he will improve and try to work on his character so she likes him even more. Imagine everything we could achieve if we could focus on educating pedophiles on how to treat children. Instead, this world wants to destroy their love, but only ends up corrupting it.
Round 2
Pro
Couldn't a child experience harm from consensual sexual relations?

Please answer yes or no. I'm not in debate about consent.
Con
I have no way of knowing that, so I have no answer to your question. 
Now, of course, its funny that you even mention harm, considering that society harms children every day. Maybe work on that.
Round 3
Pro
You say you have no way of knowing.
I don't know if you are choosing to be blind to the world but do you know anything about sexual relations?
Do you know about sexual transmitted diseases and infections?

If there are cases of two adults contracting HIV , herpes, etc., do you think children have special defenses against all of that?

Do you mean to tell me you don't know anything about unwanted pregnancy, financial burden, things to affect a person's life adversely?

Well ignorance is no justification of course. Always be willing to do the research.
Con
Do you know about sexual transmitted diseases and infections?
-Thats not consensual. I dont think children will consent to get a disease. Maybe they will. I dont know.

If there are cases of two adults contracting HIV , herpes, etc., do you think children have special defenses against all of that?
-I already said I dont know if children will consent to get a disease. So we cant know.

Do you mean to tell me you don't know anything about unwanted pregnancy, financial burden, things to affect a person's life adversely?
-I am pretty sure unwanted pregnancy is not consensual... unless you have two personalities: one agreeing with pregnancy and one not.

Round 4
Pro
"-Thats not consensual. I dont think children will consent to get a disease. Maybe they will. I dont know."

Excuse me but , this debate is not about consent. We know a disease, an infection is harmful. The attempts to derail from that reality, don't even try it.

"I already said I dont know if children will consent to get a disease. So we cant know."

This thing called disease must not be harmful to you . Either that or you're playing the wait and see game. But it's known that these things that exist harm us as people.

"I am pretty sure unwanted pregnancy is not consensual... unless you have two personalities: one agreeing with pregnancy and one not."

Well at least you're not ignoring what I'm saying like you said you would. I guess you're not.
I think you're playing this wait and see game which reminds me of another person online that supports pedophilia.

In other words, pedophilia is not harmful until the end result is established. Before then ,who can know if it is harmful?

However, it has already been established that harm has occurred from pedophilia.

Thereby harmful pedophilia exists, pedophilia is harmful.

You can argue someone just started smoking cigarettes, we can't say they'll die of lung cancer.

Doesn't change the fact of a harmful disease from cigarettes.


Con
Excuse me but , this debate is not about consent. We know a disease, an infection is harmful. The attempts to derail from that reality, don't even try it.
- Yeah, not all sexual activites can transmit disease. For example, if an adult man mastrubates in front of a little girl and she watches him, it wont give her any disease. Same if they masturbate together.

I could list you all sexual activities that transmit no disease, but I am pretty sure you can figure out yourself.



This thing called disease must not be harmful to you . Either that or you're playing the wait and see game. But it's known that these things that exist harm us as people.
-Society harms both pedophiles and children. But you dont seem to be complaining about that. So you really dont care.

In other words, pedophilia is not harmful until the end result is established. Before then ,who can know if it is harmful?
-Yeah, if a pedophile didnt cause any harm, causing him harm would be bad. Maybe if you made clear the difference about what is harmful and what is not, there would be a way to tell.


However, it has already been established that harm has occurred from pedophilia.
-Plenty of harm was caused by society. So should we kill the entire society? Why do you support the idea that pedophiles should be harmed for causing harm, while at the same time ignoring harm done by society?
You even support the punishment for pedophiles who didnt cause harm. This obviously has nothing to do with harm. You simply hate pedophiles and want them to suffer. If you really were against all harm, there would be an entire list of things you would oppose to and one of the first would be imprisoning pedophiles. Pedophiles are tortured in prison. But you dont care. You dont care for harm. You dont even care about children being harmed. Your society harms children every day. Why are you focused on pedophiles and not on society in general? 

Thereby harmful pedophilia exists, pedophilia is harmful.
-Eating meat is harmful. Smoking is harmful. Cars are harmful. Buildings are harmful. Electricity is harmful. Do you want to ban everything thats harmful? Maybe start by ending the torture of pedophiles in prisons. Apparently, being raped and beaten for the rest of your life and spending it in a box doesnt exactly sound as non-harmful.
When that same pedophile didnt hurt a little girl but she liked spending time with him, hurting him because you have some crusade against pedophiles is in itself harmful not just to the pedophile but to the little girl as well. You are taking her friend away forever. What if she doesnt want him to be taken away? Your choice matters, but not hers? She doesnt get to say? How very lovely of you.

Round 5
Pro
"- Yeah, not all sexual activites can transmit disease. For example, if an adult man mastrubates in front of a little girl and she watches him, it wont give her any disease. Same if they masturbate together.

I could list you all sexual activities that transmit no disease, but I am pretty sure you can figure out yourself."

No debate there. Never said "all". Still doesn't negate the existence of sexually transmitted infections. Will you attempt to negate them anyway?

"-Society harms both pedophiles and children. But you dont seem to be complaining about that. So you really dont care."

Ok, I'll say it this way. No debate there. I can make a debate challenge or discussion about harm all over the place. But the epicenter of this is between adults and minors. Still doesn't negate the existence of harm involved.

Don't attempt to negate that point taking the light off of it. See here's what, I got a flashlight of my own, heavy duty batteries. I'm keeping the light on it.

"-Yeah, if a pedophile didnt cause any harm, causing him harm would be bad. Maybe if you made clear the difference about what is harmful and what is not, there would be a way to tell."

So the pedophiles that harm children would mean harmful pedophilia exists, doesn't it?

"Plenty of harm was caused by society. So should we kill the entire society? "

This is so amusing you taking that light off. I got my flashlight to shine it back on the issue at hand everybody, fret not.

Should we kill the entire society?

For what? Who in the world is proposing that?

"Why do you support the idea that pedophiles should be harmed for causing harm, while at the same time ignoring harm done by society?"

I can't answer that LOADED question. You've got me confused with somebody else. You'll have to quote where I made that statement.

"You even support the punishment for pedophiles who didnt cause harm. "

At this time I would like to request upon you to ask me what I support rather than tell me please.

"This obviously has nothing to do with harm. You simply hate pedophiles and want them to suffer. "

I'm sensing an emotional argument here. If true, don't commit that fallacy.

"If you really were against all harm, there would be an entire list of things you would oppose to and one of the first would be imprisoning pedophiles. "

My friend, my friend, my dear friend, you got this all wrong. This debate is not about every type of harm you can come up with in the world.
Now quit moving the goalpost.

"But you dont care. You dont care for harm. You dont even care about children being harmed. Your society harms children every day. Why are you focused on pedophiles and not on society in general? "

Wow this looks like a complete lashing out at me. Well I tell you what, I have to be focused on the topic concerning pedophilia. If I were to be all over the place which is apparently what is desired here, not from me, then making a centralized topic is pointless.

"-Eating meat is harmful. Smoking is harmful. Cars are harmful. Buildings are harmful. Electricity is harmful. Do you want to ban everything thats harmful? "

Yes .
Not the point of the debate but I will answer straightforward to that. The point is when something is harmful, that's what it is. That's all I'm saying and it looks like you don't deny pedophilia is harmful because you want to conflate everything, fine.

Still makes it harmful.

"When that same pedophile didnt hurt a little girl but she liked spending time with him, hurting him because you have some crusade against pedophiles is in itself harmful not just to the pedophile but to the little girl as well. You are taking her friend away forever. What if she doesnt want him to be taken away? Your choice matters, but not hers? She doesnt get to say? How very lovely of you."

So in all simple terms, you do agree that harm comes out of pedophilia regardless of consent.

You're not angry with me , are you?



Con
No debate there. Never said "all". Still doesn't negate the existence of sexually transmitted infections. Will you attempt to negate them anyway?
- If not all sexual activities, then why do you want to ban them all? Why ban sexual activities that transmit no disease? Why punish those pedophiles who only did those sexual activities which cant transmit diseases? Why punish those pedophiles who limit themselves to do only non harmful sexual activities?
To remain consistent, which is impossible in your case, you would have to punish entire society for the harm that many people commit. So because some people smoke, entire society must be punished. You punish all pedophiles for crimes committed by some of them. You want to ban all sexual activities because some of them are harmful. So using your logic: since bad people are people, all people are bad. Conclusion: people are bad. 

Ok, I'll say it this way. No debate there. I can make a debate challenge or discussion about harm all over the place. But the epicenter of this is between adults and minors. Still doesn't negate the existence of harm involved.
- So you are saying its okay for your logic to be inconsistent? You are saying its okay to punish an entire group of people because some of them committed harm? Plus, you only punish those groups that you choose, such as pedophiles. But you dont punish other groups of people that literally committed the same crime of harm.
You say that non-harmful forms of pedophilia are harmful because they have the same nickname as those forms that are harmful.
All humans are evil because some humans are evil.
Since you cant tell which one could become evil, the only solution is to punish them all? Maybe instead you should teach them about the right ways first. Maybe you should allow pedophiles to do those sexual activities that are not harmful to children.
You want to generalize pedophilia, but you dont want to remain consistent and generalize other groups in society? Literally, harm is the inseparable part of every group of people.

Don't attempt to negate that point taking the light off of it. See here's what, I got a flashlight of my own, heavy duty batteries. I'm keeping the light on it.
-You literally want me to accept the logic of generalization, but without applying it generally.
Thats an obvious nonsense.

So the pedophiles that harm children would mean harmful pedophilia exists, doesn't it?
-Just because there are bad people, doesnt mean all people are bad. Your logic literally says that humans in general are bad because some humans are bad. So if humans are bad and you are a human, where does that put you exactly?


This is so amusing you taking that light off. I got my flashlight to shine it back on the issue at hand everybody, fret not.
- So you think you can generalize, but you hate when someone else generalizes?

Should we kill the entire society?
For what? Who in the world is proposing that?
-Well, by your logic, society is harmful. Maybe the problem is that you dont understand your own logic of generalization. 

I can't answer that LOADED question. You've got me confused with somebody else. You'll have to quote where I made that statement.
- Yeah, you saying that pedophilia is harmful can only lead to conclusion that you think pedophiles should be punished. So you cannot defend yourself with denial.

At this time I would like to request upon you to ask me what I support rather than tell me please.
- Well, you didnt bother to explain what exactly you support. And you didnt even have to explain. Its obvious to anyone with a brain. 

I'm sensing an emotional argument here. If true, don't commit that fallacy.
- Your entire debating is filled with fallacies, inconsistencies, assumptions and generalizations. So you shouldnt be surprised when people get angry at you.

My friend, my friend, my dear friend, you got this all wrong. This debate is not about every type of harm you can come up with in the world.
Now quit moving the goalpost.
- This debate is about your logic being inconsistent, irrational and impossible to apply. I dont see what part of this you dont understand.

Wow this looks like a complete lashing out at me. Well I tell you what, I have to be focused on the topic concerning pedophilia. If I were to be all over the place which is apparently what is desired here, not from me, then making a centralized topic is pointless.
- In other words you have to focus on punishing one group of people for harm while ignoring the harm done by other groups? Those are double standards.

Not the point of the debate but I will answer straightforward to that. The point is when something is harmful, that's what it is. That's all I'm saying and it looks like you don't deny pedophilia is harmful because you want to conflate everything, fine.
-  Did you deny that society causes harm?

I said:
"When that same pedophile didnt hurt a little girl..."
From my sentence, you then concluded:
"So in all simple terms, you do agree that harm comes out of pedophilia regardless of consent."
- By your logic, harm comes out of everything. So if the only way for you to make pedophilia look harmful is by using the logic that makes everything else harmful as well, it is you who have failed. And you shouldnt confuse your logic with mine. Your logic is inconsistent. I have never said that pedophilia is harmful. 


You're not angry with me , are you
-Your logic fails. Not mine. So no, I am not angry.