Instigator / Pro
7
1432
rating
361
debates
42.11%
won
Topic
#5011

Curing pedophilia will further solidify it as an illness debunking it as a sexual orientation.

Status
Finished

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

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

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Mall
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
3
1315
rating
297
debates
40.4%
won
Description

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.

Questions on the topic, leave a comment.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Let us just walk through this with questions and answers. 
The opposing side can jump in with theirs too. I invite them to.
Curing pedophilia will further solidify it as an illness debunking it as a sexual orientation.

Why is that?
Well what is a sexual orientation?
What is an illness ?

One is curable granted a cure is available.

So the premise is, if something is curable, it's not an innate or inherent factor.

This leaves the fact that if pedophilia is cured of a person , it can't be a sexual orientation.

This would further solidify it for what it is. To cure it would not prove it's a sexual orientation. If the opposing side believes that, they can prove it.

To put that in perspective though, it be like curing heterosexuality from a person which can't be done based on what heterosexuality is.

You can brainwash, influence and exploit a person to manipulate their behavior particularly under psychotic or mental duress. Perhaps even under chemical infliction. 

Then there's physical infliction such as inside a prisoned institution. A same sex inmate can dominate sexual tasks and behaviors over another same sex person under submission. This doesn't mean the one whom has been made submissive non heterosexual.

As a late great comedian said what you like has nothing to do with it.

Well that'll do it for now. I kindly request of the opposing side to put their best foot forward in this exchange. Especially being this type of topic.




Con
#2
Curing pedophilia will further solidify it as an illness debunking it as a sexual orientation.
I disagree.

One is curable granted a cure is available.
I dont think that being curable has anything to do with what sexual orientation is.

Of course, my opponent used the word "cure" (removing disease) which already labels pedophilia as a disease in the topic itself.

So my opponent first needs to prove that pedophilia is a disease in order to cure it.

You cannot say "its a disease because I can cure it". That would be circular reasoning where premise is same as conclusion.

So the premise is, if something is curable, it's not an innate or inherent factor.
This again, depends on my opponent proving that pedophilia is a disease.

This leaves the fact that if pedophilia is cured of a person , it can't be a sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is simply defined as:

"Sexual orientations include gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, and asexual."

Pedophilia can obviously be gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual.

If you think about it,

most people have certain age they like.

If you say "no", then you like all ages, so that includes liking children, making you a pedophile.

If you say "yes", then you concede that your sexual orientation is based on age, just like pedophilia is.


To put that in perspective though, it be like curing heterosexuality from a person which can't be done based on what heterosexuality is.
Since heterosexuality is attraction to persons of opposite sex, and children are often persons of opposite sex, then really you cannot have heterosexuality without pedophilia.

Well that'll do it for now. I kindly request of the opposing side to put their best foot forward in this exchange. Especially being this type of topic.

Alrighty, here are the basic arguments.

Pedophiles generally arent violent. They are not some monsters from horror movies. They are just regular guys and girls who happen to have a misfortune of having sexual attraction to children. 

Its a misfortune because the world hates them for it. It is also a misfortune because they did not choose to have those urges.
Life in which you are not attracted by adults at all but by children is mostly a terrible life filled with judgment, and self-judgment where person begins hating self for being so different.

As the old saying goes: "They make you a monster, then they call you one".
The society's view is clouded by the layer of lies they built, and this is true in case of pedophilia. Nothing can be done about it, because there are too many lies and too much hate. 

But neither lies nor hate make pedophilia a disease.

No. The society that has to use lies and hate is the one that has a disease.
Round 2
Pro
#3
"I dont think that being curable has anything to do with what sexual orientation is."

Of course it doesn't as sexual orientation is not curable as it is not an illness. The two are totally separate.

"So my opponent first needs to prove that pedophilia is a disease in order to cure it."

Right curing it as the topic states would prove that. I think you'd agree with that. I'm using curabilty as the premise to conclude it as the proof.

You can only cure a disease that's a disease, ain't that right?

If you say yes, that's all my position is saying. 

"You cannot say "its a disease because I can cure it". That would be circular reasoning where premise is same as conclusion. "

The premise is "if something is curable ". A particular condition was taken away or remedied. It is concluded what was taken away was an illness.

The premise is curabilty. The conclusion is what was cured. The two are not the same.

I mean just asked yourself the straightforward question. Can you be cured of a sexual orientation?

"This again, depends on my opponent proving that pedophilia is a disease."

A cure again would prove that. Something that is inherit to your DNA such as sexual orientations cannot be cured. If they can be , be it that you are the challenger, provide proof that they can be.

"Pedophilia can obviously be gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual."

This is too broad. Pedophilia involves adult and child sexuality.

If it's truly a sexual orientation, do you agree it can't be cured?

"Since heterosexuality is attraction to persons of opposite sex, and children are often persons of opposite sex, then really you cannot have heterosexuality without pedophilia."

Heterosexuality is attraction to persons of opposite sex. You just said it. You didn't say it is attraction to persons of opposite sex that must include children.

So no it does not require pedophilia.

"But neither lies nor hate make pedophilia a disease."

Would curing pedophilia mean you're curing a sexual orientation or disease?


Con
#4
You just need to accept that not everything different from what is common is a disease.

People have this silly idea that everyone must be the same, and then they label people who are different as ill.
Its a very rude thing to do. Not everyone has to be like you.
Round 3
Pro
#5
You're either conceding now or you're going to give rebuttals to all my points.

I'm not dealing with this half-hearted arguing you've been doing. 

Give the rebuttals to ALL my points. Answer all my questions directly,  answer yes or no to the yes or no questions. If you don't, you forfeit.

Con
#6
No.

Round 4
Pro
#7
Ok so you're forfeiting. I would too because it's obvious.

You mentioned about curing something means to rid of an ailment, disease, sickness whatever.
 That's the premise .
So curing pedophilia would of meant it was an ailment, disease, sickness, etc.

That's the conclusion. 

Straightforward and works out clear cut.

I'll add this too because the other topic is not controversial. Applying the premise to homosexuality would have the same conclusion.

Would it not?

Of course it would. Apply the premise to anything, it works. 

If you can cure me of heterosexuality, what would make that what I was remedied?

I guess a disease could have benefits as well as side effects.

But the opposing side is conceding. They're not looking to voice that but more so judging that others judge pedophiles judging that they have hatred on them. 
It's like this, because society doesn't see children and adults as equals and parents are over children, the power dynamic is automatic abuse from an adult over a child in a sexual situation.

I'm curious to know if the opposing side has heard of Amos Yee and their thoughts on this person.

The arguments are quite similar. But this topic is not about arguing for or against pedophilia. Likewise with the topic involving homosexuality. This particular topic is just the basic starting point in what can be determined or concluded about what is told to be a sexual orientation.

Con
#8
Great. You are using even more circular logic.

Again, its not a disease. Its just a sexual attraction.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Would curing pedophilia mean you're curing a sexual orientation or disease/disorder?

Will you answer this question?

If you're not going to answer, will you explain why?

Is it because you know you can't cure a sexual orientation?

I think you see the dilemma you're stuck in and are evading the questions. 

You say I'm arguing in a circular fashion well why can't you give direct answers to the questions to further solidify that?

Is it because if you answer the questions, the answers will debunk your circular claim?

See these questions and answers go a long ways. You're making statements and claims with not much or any elaboration at all. You're lacking rebuttals, counterpoints. Just making charges without any foundation of solid evidence. You learn from police detectives, they don't make any charges on the suspect without any incriminating proof.

Would curing pedophilia mean you're curing a sexual orientation or disease/disorder?

If you're not going to answer that, a non answer will solidify refutation in your position.



Con
#10
How can pedophilia be a disease? How? How?