The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
17 Points

Christians Deceived US On Harm Caused By CSA With Intent To Suppress Premarital Sex

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,038 times Debate No: 67002
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)




The Case.

Since this country began, the Christian Right/Conservatives have been attempting to mold the American Society to conform with their interpretation of God's Law.

In the late 1800's Christian Women's Groups ... Reformers ... decided to change the prevailing sexual status quo. It was their view that prostitution by young girls was getting out of hand. At the time, the age a female could legally consent to sex without parents knowledge and/or approval ranged from 10 to 12 in the US. Delaware was the one notable exception at 7.

The Christian women successfully pressured state legislatures to drastically raise the sexual age of consent. They hoped to raise it to 21, but settled for 16 to 18.

!0, 11, 12 year old girls could no longer prostitute themselves, their regular clients ... many of whom were the husbands of the Christian reformers, legislators, and others of power and influence did not dare risk getting caught. The 'market' dried up, and most prostitution dried up with it.

The added benefit from the reformers view was, there was far less fornication.

Fast forward to today. There have been several more 'righteous' movements. What the reformers started is now a concerted effort by conservative Christians to both keep a tight lid on fornication, and preserve feminine purity for marriage.

To that end, they extended their 'campaign of shame' in the 1980's with the assistance of sympathetic mental health professionals to systematically exaggerate the harm young people suffer from sexual activity, and created a 'villain' in the form of the pedophile.

They have hyped the damage. They have instilled shame and guilt. They have repressed factual sexual information. They have created a public hysteria who in turn=n demanded ever more draconian punishment's for sex offenders.

They introduced new words into the lexicon. 'Experts' backed them up. Pejorative terms. Predator. Victim. Molester. Survivor. Child sex is now CSA ... Child Sex Abuse.

They have 'associated' every possible social negative behavior with sex abuse, repeating the message so many times, it is now 'fact'.

It's NOT fact. It's a lie.

Proof that it is a lie, is the marital exemption in the child rape law posted below. There are 27 other states that make the same exemption.

If a child is incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse, as the Christians claim,

then she is also incapable of consenting to marriage and sexual intercourse.

If a child suffers egregious harm from having sex with an adult, as the Christians claim then she will suffer the same egregious harm with a marriage certificate.

If all men who desire sex with little girls are sexual perverts, as the Christians have claimed, then he is still a pervert if he marries her.

Some of the claims made by Christians ...

We know that a child's brain doesn't finish developing until early 20's. Clearly, a child is incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. And one can only imagine the terror the child experiences when attacked by those sick perverts.

And then there are the inevitable physical injuries. Again, it's impossible to imagine the agony the child (especially a delicate fragile female) suffers when an adult physically assaults her. According to CSA websites, the injuries are invariably grievous, often life threatening, requiring reconstructive surgery.

Certainly these are traumas that we, as a society, must spare no effort to prevent.

Yet, I am troubled. I can't quite put my finger on it, but as I listen to Christians argue in favor of putting child molesters to death, something just doesn't seem right.

Perhaps part of my misgivings stems from the knowledge that until the beginning of the 20th century the Christians have been (arguably) the West's misogynistic poster children, and as such, it's difficult to look past the irony in their cries for revenge and retribution.

We all know that in the Old Testament, a rape victim was to be stoned to death ... by her father. There was some improvement in the New Testament; a fine paid to the father and the victim is given to the rapist to rape again ... as his wife. Hmm.

Of course, this barbaric practice was stopped thousands of years ago.

RCW 9A.44.073

Rape of a child in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four months older than the victim.

(2) Rape of a child in the first degree is a class A felony.

[1988 c 145 " 2.] [1]

Apparently it wasn't. And I am in awe of Christian hubris, duplicity, and hypocrisy.

This is current child rape law in Washington State. There are 27 additional states that make the same exception. Oh, and District of Columbia, too.

Child rape is a crime so heinous, so we are told, it's on par with first degree murder. Many Christians would argue it is a crime far worse than murder.


Please note that per the Washington State Legislature, this law applies to girls 11 years old and younger. There is no lower bound set by the state.

Nor did the state choose to set an upper limit for the age of the perpetrator.

Christians wrote this law. Christians voted on and passed this into law. And this same marital exemption applies to any statutory sex crime.

What about those other states? Not surprisingly, Christians control those legislatures too. You can find those 27 states at this link. [2]

There are an additional 6 states that modify rape law to some degree in favor of marriage.

Christians have made a plethora of claims surrounding this issue. Clearly the law speaks quite eloquently on it's own.

However, just one more glaring hypocrisy ...

The Yemen child bride.

America learned of her death, and we were sickened. The story lived for weeks ... then months ... Christian child advocacy groups never let it get too far from our thoughts.

Strangely, it apparently never occurred to the American public to ask why they had to go all the way to Yemen to find a girl who died solely from sexual intercourse, as Christians all over the blogosphere were screaming about our own child rape victims, with the clear implication that they were dying too.

2 years ago, conservatives succeeded in having rape redefined on the federal level to include penetration of any type of any bodily orifice no matter how slight.


The marital exemption contradicts Conservative assertions that all adult/child sex causes egregious harm. The Christian Right, in attempting to force society to conform to religious law is committing an egregious injustice, both to the perpetrators and the victims.




Terms to know:
ECWRGs- Evil Christian Women"s Rights Groups

Let"s begin".
"Since this country began, the Christian Right/Conservatives have been attempting to mold the American Society to conform with their interpretation of God's Law."

The interpretation of god"s law is vast and ununiformed, there is absolutely no collective effort to do the conspiracy you claim
You say, since the beginning of this nation"s creation conservatives have been attempting to conform the rest of the country. A few facts, one is that Conservative is a vague word and you must define it. Here is the link to a site which has 20 definitions of the word conservatism, I believe you mean the one listed in 3 or 4, please specify. 3 and 4 are really the only ones which don"t logically eliminate themselves in this context.

1.An aversion to rapid change; a belief that tradition and prevailing social norms often contain within them handed down wisdom; and mistrust of attempts to remake society so that it conforms to an abstract account of what would be just or efficient.
2.A desire to preserve the political philosophy and rules of government articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
3.A belief that it is imperative to preserve traditional morality, as it is articulated in the Bible, through cultural norms.
4.A belief that it is imperative to preserve traditional morality, as it is articulated in the Bible, using cultural norms and the power of the state.
5.An embrace of free-market capitalism, and a belief in the legitimacy of market outcomes.

You are exclusively talking about the religious aspect of conservatism. Which really means that you aren"t talking about conservatism at all, you are talking about Christianity. Specifically, a Christian conspiracy attempt to preserve innocence for marriage.

We know that you aren"t talking about Conservatism because the definition of it would be, to stick with traditional values-in most cases. Traditional values of this time however accepted the acts of child sex and had no problem with it, so it was in fact this was very liberal movement was it not? Christianity does not equate to conservative outlook if that is what you are trying to say.

Christianity is not unified
Christianity is not a unified force, working to some conspiracy goal, you obviously aren"t aware of the huge social divisions between Christian sects all over the world. There are 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches worldwide, and to say that they are all somehow in agreement to act on issues together is a ridiculous hyperbole. If you think we have just look back to 1830"s when political tension between Mormons and opposing sects which lead to what is now known as the Missouri Mormon War this lead to the issuing of executive order 44 (since called the extermination order within the LDS community) by Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs, which declared that "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State. For many more examples of this visit: ( )".You have fantastical ideas about Christian cooperation and control. Your beliefs border on conspiracy really.

The real story of the London prostitution "craze"
The groups who promoted raising the age of consent were women"s rights groups, who saw the inequality in London and the disgusting situation concerning prostitution. They were not specifically any Christian group, everyone then was Christian but they weren"t specifically any Christian organ. On another note, the reason that marriage exemptions exist today for marriage is because not everyone agreed on the Crazy idea that having sex with children was wrong. They rationalized their acts then, by using the guise of marriage and god as people usually do to justify child rape. Women have had a hard enough time just getting the right to vote, they couldn"t have simply, completely eliminated the perversion prevalent in traditional society, obviously the men are going to resist and still find a way to get what they according to your view "entitled to".

Your rights as male
As a man, you have no right to dictate over a girl. You cannot understand what it is like to be a girl, you need to get off of your high horse and step away from foreign ground which you have no sovereignty over. You Don"t understand what a girl would or would not like or how she would feel, so you need to stop your attempts at dictating their lives.

Sex with children damages them
This might be hard to believe but sex with children is bad for them. I would like to state that the Pro side, claims that ECWRGs have employed the help of experts in psychology and doctors to promote their findings in support of their agenda. However, why would doctors and psychologist lie and falsify studies, and why is it that the supposed lies would go unchallenged by the rest of the scientific community? I contend that he has practically admitted that sex with children causes harm because psychologist and Christians rights groups have different agendas.
Sex with children promotes sexism and inequality. When men are accustomed to sleeping with little girls, they lose respect for them as they mature into adults and can no longer view them as more than sexual objects.

No consideration to the child has been mentioned
This guy never says that child sex is bad, but what is worse, he never considers how the child feels in his entire argument. What exactly is he worried about in that case? Male rights being violated by evil Christian women"s rights groups? Men losing their right to children"s bodies? Think about that. This guy just went on an 8 minuet rant about how child sex is alright because of x, y, and z. But he absolutely never considered how his beliefs made the child feel, The only thing he said about physical damage was the equivalent of "Nun-Uh, this is just a conspiracy by ECWRG and evidence was covered up" and then provided no evidence to counter the consensus. He spat political garb and never once considered the impact on the children.

Marriage exemptions
He implied that we have such strict rules about child sex but that the big secret is that they can just marry and then have sex anyway, therefore, he said, we can see that child sex is not actually wrong it is just the way that the ECWRG (Evil Christian Women"s Rights Groups) promoted their ideology on purity. Here is the age of consent and marriage laws in the US: ( ) Almost all of them say you can"t marry a minor. I was surprised that more states than I anticipated state that with parents" permission and legal permission adults and minors can marry and therefore have sex (keep in mind not all of these states allow sex during marriage as only 27 states have the exemption clause). Now let"s be rational for a second and think about how many courts would really allow a: 5, 8, 11, 13 year old girl to marry to an adult? Is there a child marital exemption, yes, would the courts allow the marriage in the first place, I say Hell no. Basically, although the wording of the laws allows child sex and marriage, People in our culture and in the government wouldn"t let that happen. There is no secret exemption that was allowed because of the ulterior motives of Big Woman, it was men, and women"s rights groups have helped change the way that we view this topic. We have a semi-decent system in place to keep the corrupt pedophile from having his way.

Do you believe that crimes against children can be considered worse than equal crimes on adults?

I have 2 more things to say which I will post in the comments section......
Debate Round No. 1


Nothing is as simple as it seems. Christianity is a complicated religion, often at odds with itself. Still, despite the discord among the thousands of denominations people manage to find common ground. In the US, our form of government has forced a split into two major factions : Liberals ... and Conservatives, #4 on my opponents list ... aka The Christian Right.

The Right take the Bible's mandates more seriously, and far more literally. Although this has not always been the case, they are currently more motivated and better organized than the liberals. [2]

In Matthew 28:18, Jesus says, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

The Right interpret this to mean Jesus has assumed authority over all earthly authority. Secular law. [1]

This believe it's not only their God-given right to force Society to conform to God's Law, but their duty. Not coincidentally, God's Law tends to align with socially conservative policies, and the Right strongly support these policies. They principally seek to apply their understanding of the teachings of Christianity to politics and public policy by proclaiming the value of those teachings and/or by seeking to use those teachings to influence law and public policy. ~ Wiki [2]

They consider themselves the only 'true' arbiters of morality and have organized against abortion, pornography, homosexuality and fornication of any kind. They see the government's role in society as cultivating virtue. The Bible is their moral guide, and contrary to some who claim otherwise, they wield disproportionate power in our government, and use that power in their ongoing agenda to circumvent secular law and impose God's Law, enforced by legislation. [2]

Why do they lie? Why does anyone? Numerous reasons. For starters, the Right believe they are righteous. Good. Moral. Sinners, yes, but saved. And the rest of humanity is evil, corrupt. Possessed by demons. Not saved. The Enemy. There are numerous scriptures that cover this, and I would hope my opponent has at least some familiarity with the Bible, as I could easily use my allotted space and then some just on this one issue.

The Right (as you should know) are also convinced they are in a squeeze for time, for the 'signs' are in place for the return of their lord, and they believe they are to 'prepare' the world for the return. This means, convert as many souls as possible, and make every effort to 'encourage' purity.

The Enemy ... non believers ... being evil, are, of course, tricksters and liars ... per the Bible, and the righteous are free to trick them in return. Yes, it gets a little fuzzy, as they end up lying to each other, too, but this is all part of the irrationality of religious belief.

There are other, less 'spiritual' reasons to lie. Greed. Power. Status in the community. Sexual abuse is a huge industry in America, in the mental health field, law enforcement, the courts, prosecutors, private prisons and more.

Of course there are many who accept it as 'truth'. But there are also many who know it's a lie, but fear the consequences of speaking out. The Christians have done their job well. Any who dare to challenge the 'conventional wisdom' can expect to be attacked on multiple levels. Vilified, threatened with personal injury, their character assassinated. They can even expect death threats.

The Rind Study is a glaring example of the Christian Right suppressing an unwelcome truth. The scientific paper was peer-reviewed not once, but two times, and it was determined the methodology was sound. The study concluded that CSA was not always harmful, and that some of the pejorative terminology was inappropriate. The authors recommended using more neutral terms. [3] [4]

The Right was outraged, and the machine went into overdrive, eventually resulting in an official condemnation by the U.S. Congress. The first such condemnation in our history. [4]

The Leadership Council, a prominent conservative organization, and one of the strongest advocates of the debunked 'recovered memories' of the 1980's was at the forefront of the attack on the Rind Study. 17 years later, it still is.

The Leadership Council is a nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, journalists, and public policy analysts.

Our mission is to promote the ethical application of psychological science to human welfare. We are committed to providing professionals and laypersons with accurate, research-based information about a variety of mental health issues and to preserving society's commitment to protect its most vulnerable members. [5]

And although they don't advertise this, it is a Christian organization.

Many scientific researchers were appalled, the event summed up in this paper, Censoring Sex Research. [6]

The Right have long claimed CSA causes serious, if not fatal physical injuries. RAINN is the largest CSA/Rape website, to my knowledge. While most other sites have backed off the internal injuries claims, RAINN continues to provoke outrage by exaggerating them. [7]

Depending on the age and size of the child, and the degree of force used, child sexual abuse may cause internal lacerations and bleeding. In severe cases, damage to internal organs may occur, which, in some cases, may cause death. Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum and sexual mutilation. ~ Wiki [8]

I searched, found nothing.

The Christian Right have always insisted that CSA invariably causes severe and life long psychological injury. Back to RAINN and a laundry list of problems attributed to sexual assault. [9]

On the contrary, the studies (and there have been many) are unable to show a direct cause and effect. They show a 'link' to, or an 'association' with. But scientific paper after scientific paper on the subject has this disclaimer : "No direct cause and effect can be determined, after controlling for family environment."

But the Christians, the CSA sites, magazine articles, news programs ... all leave that disclaimer out. The litany of psychological issues on the RAINN site are NOT proven to be directly caused by CSA. The Christians flat out lie about this.

The following is typical of the scientific research.

Early Sexual Abuse and Lifetime Psychopathology ... A Co-Twin Control Study

Thus, our findings give further support to the conclusion that, rather than being a pure cause-and-effect relationship, the association between CSA and subsequent psychopathology in fact reflects a complex interplay of factors, very likely related to parenting. [10]

However, the Christians ARE directly responsible for the feelings of shame, disgust victims experience. That's how they want it to stay. As stated, the Christians are committing and egregious injustice to both perpetrators AND victims.





6. file:///C:/Users/James/Downloads/excerpt.pdf




10. file:///C:/Users/James/Downloads/CV260Dinwiddie_UQ_Copy.pdf







More in comments.


TheJuniorVarsityNovice forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


"When the facts conflict with the belief, change the belief ... not the facts." ~ Pywakit

My opponent's casual dismissal of the laws I posted suggests these marital exemptions really have no intended purpose, and were thrown on the laws for no apparent reason. That could not be farther from the reality. Below is a very abbreviated taste of what those laws go through. Please go to the link provided and get the more comprehensive story.

Once a member introduces a bill, the legislative process begins. The process has a number of specific steps. If the bill makes ...

Profiling: Members can prefile bills for introduction in ...

Introduction, or First Reading:The first thing that happens to bills on the "floor" is introduction ...

Committee Action: The chair of each committee works with leadership and ...

Rules Committee: Once a bill has been reported by the appropriate ...

Rules Review /Rules White: The first step in the Rules Committee process is called Rules Review in the House and ...

Rules Consideration /Rules Green: The next step is called Rules Consideration in the House and Rules Green ...

Calendars/Bill Report Books: The Rules Committee decides which bills will be scheduled ...

Second Reading:It is on second reading that the chamber discusses the merits of the legislation ...

Third Reading: Third reading is where the roll call vote on final passage is taken. If the bill finally passes ...

Concurrence, Dispute, and Conference Committees: If the bill has been amended by the second house, the first house has to ...

Enrolling: Once a bill has finally passed the Legislature, it is enrolled. A certificate proclaiming ...

Governor's actions: The Governor reviews the bill. The Governor may ... [1]

The Christians have thought about these laws very carefully. We go back to 1960 ...

In 1959, Francis had sex with a willing 14 year old girl and got caught ,,, and convicted. He appealed on the basis that while he did have sex with her, the law stated he had to have had carnal knowledge and committed carnal abuse. Since she wasn't injured, there was no abuse.

1960 debate among Supreme Court Justices on interpretation of Washington statures. Further complicating this issue, the state legislators had removed 'and abuse' in the past, then put it back in.

57 we.2d 122, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. FRANCIS F. CUNDAY, Appellant

[No. 35072. Department One. Supreme Court October 20, 1960.]


CUNDAY, Appellant.«

"The `abusing' is no part of the common (or statute) law definition of rape. We first find it in the Statute of 18 Elizabeth, Chap. 7 (Queen Elizabeth I 1558-1603), when the abominable wickedness of carnally knowing and abusing any woman child under the age of ten years' was made a felony without benefit of clergy (not married); in which case the consent or nonconsent is immaterial, as by reason of her tender years she is incapable of judgment and discretion. [2]

9.79.010 RAPE

Rape is an act of sexual intercourse with a person not the wife or husband of the perpetrator committed against the person's will and without the person's consent. Every perpetrator of such an act of sexual intercourse with a person of the age of ten years or upwards not his wife or husband:


Every male person who shall carnally know and abuse any female child under the age of eighteen years, not his wife, and every female person who shall carnally know and abuse any male child under the age of eighteen years, not her husband, shall be punished as follows:
(1) When such an act is committed upon a child under the age of ten years, by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for life;

9.79.070 SEDUCTION

Every person who shall seduce and have sexual intercourse with any person of previously chaste character, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than five years or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both fine and imprisonment: PROVIDED, That if at any time before judgment upon an information or indictment, a defendant shall marry such person, the court shall order all further proceedings stayed. [1973 1st ex.s. c 154 § 128; 1909 c 249 § 189; 1905 c 33 § 1; code 1881 § 816; RRS § 2441.] ~gygra£i1ity==J211 121 g [3]

Did you catch that? If a man seduces a young girl (rape) all is forgiven if he marries her before the judge sentences him to prison. Just like 2,000 years ago!

An ex FBI agent wrote a very interesting book. Although he insists that all children are victims, he also happens to be a rare one who doesn't sugar coat (or perhaps 'terror-coat',would be more accurate) [4]

Compare his book to the information at RAINN. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

So what do adult males really think?

This information is referenced on the site so feel free to track it down.

In a survey of male college students:

35% anonymously admitted that, under certain circumstances, they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it.

Really? Over a third of the college students surveyed are sick, perverted monsters?

Well, I have bad news. It's a lot more than that. Because there were some devout Christians among those surveyed, and they wouldn't admit it even on an anonymous survey.

It's hard for some people to grasp, but biological directives are just what the name says: directives. Anyway, these are some of the studies that Christians do a great job of burying. And there's more ...

A survey of 11-to-14 year-olds found:

51% of the boys and 41% of the girls said forced sex was acceptable if the boy, "spent a lot of money" on the girl;

31% of the boys and 32% of the girls said it was acceptable for a man to rape a woman with past sexual experience;

87% of boys and 79% of girls said sexual assault was acceptable if the man and the woman were married;

65% of the boys and 47% of the girls said it was acceptable for a boy to rape a girl if they had been dating for more than six months. [10]

Wow! Nearly half the girls admitted they are okay getting raped. Well, once again, there are a lot of Christian girls who are too frightened to admit it anonymously.

Go back and take a look at the RAINN material. The Christians at RAINN want desperately to terrify all the girls. They don't care about the victims. They want them to stay victims ... excuse me ... survivors.

Because Christians made them feel that way.

For thousands of years young girls have been having sex. Thousands. And Christians decided their god didn't like that.

More in comments.


In this round my opponent has succeeded in nothing except creating a laundry listing of conspiracy ideas in a chaotic manner. His quote states "When the facts conflict with the belief, change the belief ... not the facts." Yet what facts has he presented to us? Reading over his arguments after analyzing the hell out of them for the past day has shown me that a superfluous amount of his statements are distorted facts based on the simple principle of cognitive dissonance and perhaps personal wants concerning children. I have found that he has presented us with absolutely no real evidence beyond the basics such as the fact that marital exemption clauses exist or existence of certain cases. Yet all of his connections are based solely on his own extrapolation with no one to support any of the outlandish claims made. I implore the Voters to visit his second speech and visit the links he provided then simply asses if the major claims stated as supported truth are within the document. Because of his lack of evidence I will try my very hardest in this last speech to make give accurate and credible sources which explain exactly what I am talking about and/or referring to. In case anyone does not know, using the F3 key will help you quickly find previous claims made or help you search a document.

XIX) Resolution Not Affirmed, Voters Issue
The resolution: Christians deceive U.S. on harm caused by CSA
Pro must prove this true, however based on the words given he cannot win this debate. The word “Chirstians” stands out as blatantly obvious, If Christians deceived the US that would have to mean every single Christian, which is impossible. Logically it could also mean 51% of Christians, however that would imply that half of the world’s Christians have deceived the US on this single issue, this is also impossible. Because he cannot satisfy the Res. He must automatically lose because he has not affirmed the resolution.

However, let’s move onto the big case issues:

XX) Claim that conservative Christians are heading this conspiracy has been conceeded
I have stated that Christianity as a whole is incongruent in its beliefs and is always at odds with itself, (Use F3 for:”Christianity is not unified” in speech). I stated that Conservative Christians are no exception. The only manner he responds was analytically (F3:” Nothing is as simple”) not providing evidence for any form of conservative unison. Because of his lack of Clash we must apply the rule that in debate “Silence is Compliance” and he therefore concedes that this is true. (See:
Here is the important part, if conservative Christians are not unified, then there can be no concerted effort to suppress evidence. He therefore cannot affirm the Resolution.

XXI) Passing of these bills was not because of Christian Conservative groups

Reason a.) Pro argues that conservative Christian groups have started used their power and infulence to raise the legal age of consent however this cannot be
true because the Conservative group was never an influencial group until the mid 1900's:

"Historians in recent decades argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American Politicsand culture since the American Revolution,However they have stressed that an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s."

Based on this fact we can clearly see that no conservative movement took place.

END subargument

The Child Sexual Abuse laws were not an act from Evil Women’s Christian Rights groups as the opponent would have you believe, it was an act from feminists and women’s rights groups in general. We can see this because when the CSA laws were passed America was in what is now known as the 2nd (80’s)and 3rd (90’s) feminist wave which sparked global feminist movements. We can clearly see its results in laws that were passed such as:
Equal Pay Act of 1963, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974), Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Women's Educational Equity Act , Comprehensive Child Development Bill of 1972, Fair Labor Standards Act , 1965 affirmative action policy to cover discrimination based on sex,
And also a major victory in The Equal Rights Amendment which added an amendment
To the constitution reading: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

We can also see the success of the feminist movements in the court cases: Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court, Reed v. Reed, Roe v. Wade, Weeks v. Southern Bell,Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co, Eisenstadt v. Baird , Corning Glass Works v. Brennan…..there are a lot more cases, see the wiki site on the second feminist movement

There was massive social and governmental change during the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd feminist movements in the US and around the world. The ones I listed are just the ones I found on the second feminist movement (80’s) to see these, visit wiki at
Now what else might the feminist movements have wanted passed to further women’s rights? Congress passed the first Child Sex Abuse acts in 1973 and we have found that presently:
“Rates of substantiated cases of sexual abuse declined steadily throughout the 1990s with a total decline of 47% between 1990 and 2003.” – U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Clearly this was an act from feminists and not Christian Conservative groups.

END argument

XXII) The marital exemption clause
So, why does the marital rape clause exist exactly? The reason the clause exists is because of 4 main reasons:

1a.) the High Courts of the U.S. federal government cannot constitutionally contradict itself or the legal system in general.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” (U.S. Constitution Supremacy clause)

1b.) The establishment of marriage as a right to sex with the partner is longstanding, prevelant and rooted in law accepted by past cases.

“the sexual rights or privileges implied by and involved in the marriage relationship : the right of sexual intercourse between husband and wife.
First Known Use of CONJUGAL RIGHTS
1768” (see: )

There is one thing that all legal definitions concerning marriage have in common, either through written word or cultural consensus…aka common law, and that is the idea that marriage definitely entails having sex with the other party

1c.) If congressed banned marital sex with any married person because they would be governing what a religion can and cannot do, this is grounds for the entire bill to be removed.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Conclusion: When feminists proposed the final draft of this bill for congress, they understood these facts full and well. Naturally there was doubt in their minds as to if they could win in another legal argument to outlaw sex in marriage against an anti-feministic lawyer(s). Even if they managed to win it could be struck down a month, year, or decade from the ratification. So what did Feminists decide to do? Agree to the greater good. At least molestation was banned and any child possible of being legally abused would have to be a spouse requiring parental consent

P.S. The Rind study doesnt proove SCA is false, sugests term changes.pls extnd args
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago

Lol, if you guys are interested, I did some research and here is Pro singing some old song.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
RFD (Pt. 1):

So, there's a lot of things I could spend time on here, but I'll try to focus on the big points and problems. I'll start with the problems.

I ignored all arguments made in the comments. Guys, there's a character limit for a reason, and you both should abide by it. I don't view this as a conduct violation, merely wasted effort. If you have extra points you want to get out, either replace ones you have already, or improve your word economy. Don't post elsewhere.

Don't quote yourself. It comes off as hedonistic, and does absolutely nothing to benefit your argument. You are not an expert whose quotes hold any special meaning, and even if you were, this is a debate. You have vested interest in winning. Your quotes should always come from separate parties to remove that bias.

No new arguments in the final round. Once again, I was forced to disregard multiple points solely on the basis of where they appeared. I had no problems with Pro's final round in this regard, but Con made several new points about when Christian conservative groups started, the fact that feminists and women's rights groups were more likely the cause, and the logic behind marital exemption that I'm forced to ignore in order to be fair to Pro. If any of this had appeared in R1, they could each have been very big points, but it's simply too late. It's wasted time and effort.

Obviously, don't forfeit. That cost Con conduct.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
(Pt. 2)

Stay focused on the topic. This applies especially to Pro. In both rounds of debate, I kept having to reorient myself by looking back at the topic, since he often seemed to go off on tangents. If this was a debate about whether the child sex = abuse is a good basis for our laws, then this wouldn't have been such a big problem because most of his arguments definitely applied to that question. But I kept losing track of the other pieces, namely how Christians, specifically, deceived the U.S. in terms of harms caused by child sex, and that their specific goal was to suppress premarital sex. It seemed like you had separate points for that " you explained that Christians have often led the charge for laws against child sex, and that they want people to get married, but there seems to be some connecting points missing there in order to bring it full circle. I wanted to see evidence of specifically Christian groups being the sole, or maybe just the major, influence behind key legislation regarding CSA. I wanted to see that they were also advocating, specifically, for the exemptions with regards to children getting married. In both cases, I don't see those arguments getting fleshed out. He just leaves them open, which leads to some attacks that I'll get to shortly.

Identify the burdens early. Pro, you need to make it clear what you have to do to meet the resolution from the outset, and say it early and often. Your opponent was successful at establishing the burdens involved in this debate mainly because you had nothing to say on the matter. Make what you have to do clear as day to readers, otherwise we're going to be forced to go with either what the opponent says or what we think.

Alright, onto the points.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
(Pt. 3)

I've already outlined the major problem I have with Pro's case. I don't think he ever definitively linked the three points he had to establish:

1) The harms caused by the CSA are deceptive
2) The deception was uniquely the result of Christian activity
3) It was engineered with the intent to suppress premarital sex

Pro answers the first question, and only starts to answer the second and third. And all of these need to be tied together very neatly in order to win this debate, but his points were all over the place. Structuring your arguments could go a long way towards improving them.

Con essentially has two points that he takes all the way to the final round, and so those are the two points I analyze to determine who won this debate. The first of these points is burdens analysis, which Con explores through points XIX and XX. Pro straight dropped arguments by Con in R1 that he must show that there's unity among Christian groups that led to U.S. views on CSA, failing to demonstrate that such unity exists. He fails to show that there's any majority of Christians in the world that participated in crafting the views of the U.S. on CSA. Pro is forcing me to assume that he's met that threshold without ever doing it. I would have bought a response that said all Pro has to show is that Christians were a major contributor to the deception that is the CSA, but Pro never challenges him here, and so I'm forced to accept that Pro's taken on an even larger burden, one which he did not satisfy. I was uncertain whether Pro was meeting his burden in the first place, so this just tips the scale strongly against him, leading me to vote Con.
Posted by Pywakit 1 year ago
And I thank you for taking on such a controversial, emotionally-charged subject. It's unfortunate that my lack of experience in this type of venue prevented either of us from presenting all of our arguments. I apologize for my failure in this regard.

Thank you again, and in my opinion, your willingness to accept this challenge is commendable.

I must add, I am not surprised in the least that there have been exactly zero votes.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
Thank you for the Interesting round Pywakit I had a Lot More to post but sadly not nearly enough space to say all of my arguements. I would have posted them in the comments but I don't really think making new arguments should be allowed in the last speech (or at all really haha). However I will site my sources here:

Thank you for the round and may the best competitor succeed... :P
Posted by Pywakit 1 year ago
3rd Round Cont.

I had the pleasure of chatting by email with a couple of the top people at Pandora's Project. It specializes in adult 'survivors' of child rape. Which, by the way, they characterize as an act of violence. I pointed out to them, that these adult women had felt they were the only ones for all those years. The only ones who loved the sex. And it drove them insane to think they were sick in the head. And here Pandy's was just making it worse. Please peruse the site. You will understand what I am talking about.

I asked them why they couldn't just help the women think back on the experiences fondly. Let them know it was natural and human. Keep them as happy memories. Who is served by keeping these women basket cases for the rest of their lives?

Not surprisingly, the nice Christian ladies went ballistic.

From Pandy's.

A sexual response or orgasm in the course of sexual assault is often the best-kept and most deeply shameful secret of many survivors. If you are such a survivor, it's essential that you know that sexual response in sexual assault is extremely common, well-documented and nothing for you to be ashamed of.

(Extremely common. Funny, but those websites all talk about little girls screaming silently in terror. Suffering incredible agony from the horrific assaults. Too bad they had to go all those years not knowing this, of course.)

"Before you chastise yourself for one more minute, remember that your sexual organs do not have a brain. They cannot distinguish between a mauling rapist and the gentle touch of a lover. They simply react to stimulation the way they were physically designed to respond. If you climaxed or had some other sexual response to the rape, this does not mean that you enjoyed it."

""Women have been taught that sex is bad. Guilt frequently accompanies sexual stirrings, and in many rape fantasies, by imagining physical or mental pain, a woman can punish herself for having forbidden sexual desires""

Posted by Pywakit 1 year ago
Would you like an extension?
Posted by Pywakit 1 year ago
And my sincere apologies for inadvertently posting 2 pdf files. :(
Posted by Pywakit 1 year ago
Constraints on space prevent me from delving into motivations for raising the age of sexual consent as deeply as I would like, however for those who are interested, you will find this article to be fairly comprehensive. [16]

The 1960 census was the last one to give data on age at first marriage by individual year, beginning at age 14. It states in the explanations section that marital ages younger than 14 were lumped in with the 14 year old's.

The 1970 census is remarkable in that the age at first marriage begins at 15, but is grouped 15 to 17, and no mention is made of marriages younger than 15. They no longer exist in any accessible database I could find.

Some numbers from 1960.

Of males surveyed between the ages of 14 and 79, 45,155,243 had ever been married. 147,863 were married at age 14 or younger.

Of females between 14 and 79, 51,321,062 had ever been married. 825,105 were married at 14 or younger.

Of the 14 year old girls surveyed, for example, 14,758 had married at 14 or younger. [11]

It is worthy of note that not all people believe they should have to obtain permission from the state, believing this to be an infringement of their religious freedom. [12]

And now? In 2005 Texas legislators, for example, passed a law raising the age an underage girl could marry with parental consent from 14 to 16 in response to public concerns over polygamous marriages following the Warren Jeffs scandal.

They can truthfully say that it's illegal for a girl under 16 to get married with parental consent. What they don't advertise is that Texas law allowed a minor to bypass the parent. [13] How young? Texas doesn't specify ... exactly. But the 2005 amendment changed the age where the state appoints legal aid from 12 to 4. [14]

Why go behind your parents back?

"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." ~ Matthew 10:37 [15]

Oh. Of co
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited a round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments. Con. Pro presented a wildly compelling case regarding numerous beliefs and conspiracies. Con was able to show the faults of such claims by pointing out the lack of valid evidence. This was a difficult challenge on Con's part because he had to tackle a great deal of individual arguments. However, I found that by the end he was able to accomplish that. Most likely because Pro lacked alot of evidence so it was easy to show the faults of that. Previous judges pointed out the specific arguments, to which I fully agree, thus I won't waste space re-iterating what I agree with them on. Due to Pro's lack of solid evidence where it was needed most, and Con's ability to show the faults in his unproven claims, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. While Pro used many more sources, they didn't really strengthen his args. Whereas Con's did.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro due to the forfeit. Sources also go to Pro due to his significant number of sources dwarfing that of Con's. When it come down to the debate though the arguments will have to go to Con though. Reason being is though Pro brought up tons of sources that doesn't account for there actually being any evidence of the Christians justifying rape nor was there any evidence supporting justification of there being a older person dating an underaged person. Con pointed this out and since Pro really didn't have any valid arugments because of this those points have to go to Con. Grammar points go to Con due to a few noticiable grammatical errors Pro committed in his first and second round.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Proving a non-trivial generality about beliefs requires statistics. Con pointed out that Pro's long list of condemnations of Christians was not supported by evidence of how many of the diverse Christians fit the behavior Pro ascribes to them. Is it true that mainly right-wing Christians think an older person having sex with a child under 12 ought to be a class A felony? Pro offered no evidence. I think Pro makes a good point that states permitting marriage of the very young are inconsistent with laws treating children as incapable of responisble decisions on sex and marriage, but why isn't the problem with the too-permissive age of marriage? Pro argument that forcible rape of children is not as bad as many people think ignores the deterrence value of the law. Con loses the Conduct category for referencing arguments made in comments and for forfeiting a round.