The Instigator
Wylted
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Envisage
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

It is okay for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl

Do you like this debate?NoYes-26
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 11 votes the winner is...
Envisage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,477 times Debate No: 69038
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (283)
Votes (11)

 

Wylted

Con

Just wanted to see if any Muslims were interested in debating this.
Envisage

Pro

Thanks Wylted for this debate.

Framework

I am going to be arguing from moral and existential nihilism, and argue that via. egoism, that sex with 9 year olds is morally good for the man. Given that in a nihilistic world we need to take care of out self-interests, it follows that if a man wants to have sex with a 9 year old girl, he should.

Nihilism
Naturalism
I am going to present moral nihilism as an end result of non-cognitivism. But moral nihilism is also the default position since it is the most parsimonious moral philosophy. It makes no truth claims about reality regarding exististentialism or essentialism. It doesn'tneed to presuppose people have an undetectable property of 'value' or 'essence', moreover it is very much compatible with what we know from science. The universe is naturalistic, and thus humans are just part of the naturalistic construct.

There is nothing inherently right or wrong with how the naturalistic universe behaves, or how things within it behaves. Thus raping a 9 year old girl is comparably immoral to an ice cube melting. They are simply just materials acting according to natural laws.

Non-cogognitivism
Moreover, terms such as "moral", "immoral", "right", and "wrong" are non-cognitive, that is they do not refer to substantial concepts, thus they have no primary nature. This is because if these concepts WERE cognitive then we would be able to describe them in non-moral terms. However, all attempts to do so leads to a subjective definition of "moral".

For example, we have utilitarianism, which defines good according to well-being. We have theistic morality, which defines good according to god's nature. We have alltruism which defines good as sacrificing self-interest. These are all mutually inconsistent and subject to one's preferred taste in what they would like to be "moral".

IF what is defined as moral depends entirely on one's subjective preference of what they would like to call "moral", then it follows that morality doesn't refer to an actual concept, and thus is non-cognitive. It is simply a meaningless label. At best we can drop the "moral" labels and their euphemisms and only talk about desires, wants, self-interests etc.

It also forfeits the ability to say something is "wrong", since it is an incoherent and incomplete sentence.

It's okay for the rapist
If what is defined as moral, or right is entirely subjective of the subject making the decision, then it follows that whatever he chooses to do is a result of what he desires, or wants. This means that raping the 9 year old kid is almost always going to be within the self-interest of the subject involved.

Given that objective moral statements are incoherent, we can only make subvjective statements, such as:

"It is bad for me"
"It is good for her"

We must always include the subject in the statement. Thus, if we follow what naturally entails from moral egoism, then raping the 9 year old is "good for him", and thus is OK.

Summary
WTF at this 3,000 char limit.
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Con

In the next round I'll get to why the judges shouldn't accept Nihilism (at least not the simplistic version my opponent offered) as a moral framework. this round is for positive argumentation.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD IS BAD

The effects of child sexual abuse has been shown to cause a myriad of mental health problems including PTSD, http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org...

It causes anxiety, depression, eating disorders, sexual dysfunction and a bunch of other things. http://www.johnbriere.com...

Just suffice it to say grown men having sex with 9 year old girls, emotionally and mentally scars them. There is even studies that show sexual abuse of a minor (which includes, even supposedly consensual sex), actually retards brain growth particularly in showing them to be more likely to have a smaller hippocampus as an adult. http://www.nature.com...

There are some severe physical effects of intercourse with a child as well. Sex with a child can lead to a lot of internal bleeding and damage to internal organs. Resulting in an up to death. A study conducted in North Carolina between 1985-1994 found 10 deaths of children 10 years and younger as a result of sexual intercourse with an adult. http://jama.jamanetwork.com...

You might think child marriages are better but that's far from true.

According to the CFR, child marriages increase the risk of child pregnancy (duh) and put children at extreme risk of deadly complications. Also it was found the child brides are more likely to get STDs than there sexually promiscuous non married counter parts. http://www.cfr.org...
Envisage

Pro

Sexual Abuse of a Child is Bad

All of Pro’s arguments here commit the begging the question fallacy.[1] His arguments are of the form:

1. Child sexual abuse causes health effect “X”
2. Health effect “X” is bad
C. Therefore child sexual abuse is bad

Pro clearly doesn’t uphold the assumed premise 2, that the health effect is “bad”. Given that this debate is obviously in a moral context, he thus must affirm that these health effects are “bad” in a moral sense, which I argued in my opening round runs into problems of non-cognitivism, etc. Thus we can reject these arguments out of hand until Pro provides support for the assumed premise. I can concede everything Pro says for the first premise (said health effects are genuine and representative) yet Pro still had a chasm to cross before making a valid point.

This is especially important in Thomas Hegel’s Is/Ought distinction.[2] There simply is no way to get from an “ought” from a bare “is”, thus what is proposed objectively (the “is”), cannot in principle be sufficient to affirm a necessarily subjective term (the “ought”).

Islam
Since I have demonstrated so far that the definition of “moral” is plastic to the subjective preference of which definition of “moral” “good” “evil” they want to use, then we have a rather straightforward religious argument from Islam.

Essentially, what is “good” is defined according the nature of Allah. For Allah is Good in the Islamic worldview. Allah is defined according to what is documented in the Qu’ran, and the practices directed by the Hadith. The former is within the Islamic worldview to be verbatim from Allah to Muhammad, and the latter about Muhammad who dictated what Allah said to him.

Thus, it is according to Islamic tradition that a 9 year old girl was Muhammad’s wife. IF it was not OK for this to be the case, then we have very good reason to believe he would have desisted given Muhammad devotion to Allah, yet he did not desist, and did not issue any condemnation against such acts.

Therefore, within the Islamic worldview, it is very reasonable to conclude that Allah does not disapprove of a fifty year old being married to, and presumably having sexual relations with a nine year old. Thus, because Allah is omnipotent, it must be according to his nature that this is permissible in at least some circumstances.

Thus, IF one defines that is “Good” to be in accordance with Allah’s nature, it logically follows that *a* 50 year old man is okay to have sex with a nine year old girl.

Pro can reject the definition of “Good” here, but he is only giving his subjective preferential use of the word “Good”, in the same way “in accordance with Allah’s nature” is the subjective preferential definition of “Good” for Muslims. Thus Pro would be committing the fallacy of equivocation to argue against the morality of having sex with a nine year old using secular definitions, since we are then talking about two different concepts.

References
1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Con

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

These beliefs of right or wrong exist for whatever reason. They should also be followed and here is why.

1. Laws Are A Mutual Forfeiture Of Rights

Laws are a limit on what you can do. I give up my right to murder you if you agree not to murder me. We follow these laws as an agreement to trade in a bit of our freedom for some security.

I agree not to molest little girls in exchange for having my daughter protected from being molested.

2.People Consent To Laws

People consent to laws. The benefits include social welfare, roads to drive on, police to protect you etc.

When Socrates was about to be executed his followers tried to free him but he rebuked them.

He said he reaped the benefits of being a citizen of Athens, and by doing so he accepted their laws.

3. Social Contract

So far what I've established is 2 facts. One is that people come together to consent to this social contract. The 2nd thing is that they volunteer to adhere to these laws in exchange for living in a better society.

People accept this moral and legal code to not molest kids because they want a better society as a whole, safety, comfort or a myriad of other problems.

RAPING A 9 YEAR OLD IS BAD

If you're accepting the social contract theory and we all have either explicitly or tacitly than you have accepted the moral framework they are built upon and causing harm to a 9 year old by raping her is a priori bad, in this society. Even societies that do have a problem with child marriages typically have outlawed them, because they realize the harm.

MUHAMMAD WAS A CHILD MOLESTER

Sorry, I don't think my opponent made a good case for Muhammad's existence. He basically just argued a book says that God is cool with child molesting so it's cool. Which ironically enough, a child molester pretending to be the messenger of God has a ton of incentive to say that.

Good luck to my opponent.
Envisage

Pro

I conclude.

Moral Nihilism

Pro drops all my arguments for moral nihilism. Moral nihilism is the most parsimonious meta-ethical theory and the most coherent one. Thus it follows that nothing is right or wrong. Because nothing is wrong, it follows that all actions are "okay" in the context of this debate as they are all morally equivalent. Pro also drops my argument from naturalism, which shows us that we indeed are just machines, thus morality is meaningless.

I have shown that making morality cognitive at the very least mandates subjective terminology, and I have demonstrated that even in this case sex with nine year olds would be "good for the rapist". Thus *at worst* we have a perspective where sex with kids is "okay".

Islam

Whether or not Allah exists is actually completely besides the point of my arguments, as Allah is defined according to the Qu'ran, regardless of whether or not he exists. Thus morality in Islam is grounded in THAT definition. Even if Muhammad was "making stuff up", it simply would be irrelevant. Because I gave one way of grounding morality, to show that one arbitrary way of grounding morality is as good as any other. According to the Islamic way of grounding morality, sex with nine year olds is OK.

Islam holds that the Qu'ran is the verbatim word of Allah, thus also hold Muhammad in a special regard to Allah, thus Muhammad's role as a prophet is comparable to Allah's existence. The Islamic worldview and consequently the Islamic moral system thus grounds morality in both of these presuppositions.

Social Contract Theory

Laws are only a mutual consential forfeiture of rights IF people were ever given the choice in the first place. This is simply not the case. People are born into the prison of society, its rules and are given very limited options to live outside of it. There are restrictions on leaving society in that one is forced to enter another society or go somewhere uninhabitable. The only accessible place on Earth not subject to judicial law is Antarctica, which is inherently lethal to any human wishing to relocate there.

At no point is one given the choice to "abide by societal law, or go somewhere else", thus is it not consential. This is a problem because society has a monopoly over inhabitable land on Earth. One simply does not have the option to live outside of that construct. Thus Pro's argument from sociey ignores the fact we live in a societal prison that we simply *cannot* consent to.

Pro argues for equal rights, but that is going to matter little to someone who doesn't care for reciprocal conformity. If a man doesn't care if his daughter gets raped then this argument is irrelevant. If a man is given the choice that "you may rape IF you consent to your daughter also being raped" than Pro essentially concedes the debate, since we have a situation where a man made the choice to rape and accepted the consequences.

This is besides the fact that is just another arbitrary way of saying what is right or wrong. It holds no weight over my Islamic example, or any other random example one could give.
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Con

The Social Contract and Nihilism

A. I have to respond to pro's rebuttals for Social Contract Theory as this is the only chance I've had to and will have to do it.

Social Contract Theory is the response to Nihilism if it wasn't clear before. Pro by presenting Nihilism is trying to get the judges to accept his moral framework.

You can see how social contract theory is beneficial so a Nihilist as presented by pro would have every reason to accept the social contract and by extension the morality of society. If you accept social contract theory than no rebuttal of Nihilism is necessary as a reasonable Nihilist would accept it as well.

B. Pro's rebuttal to social contract theory was that it isn't optional but he didn't offer much evidence toward it being involuntary. People can move into the wilderness or set sail and live in international waters or move to other societies with a different social contract.

The truth is most people willingly accept the social contract because the enjoy the conveniences that societies give them such as access to toilet paper and tons of free porn.

ISLAM

This is silly you can't base morality on Allah if you're saying he isn't real. It's a nonsensical argument. I think the argument is made under the assumption of Nihilism being true but the Islamic argument is self contained and doesn't really make the connection.

CONCLUSION

If you accept societies definitions of what's right and wrong, and you should if you accept my arguments for social contract theory, than you accept that the negative physical effects from a 9 year crying in pain and fear while being ruthlessly plowed by a 50 year old man, are immoral to inflict.

If my opponent has convinced you that having sexual intercourse with a 9 year old is okay by all means vote for him, but if I've convinced you with my arguments that raping a 9 year old is bad than please vote for me.
Envisage

Pro

I thank Con for this debate. I am waiving this round to ensure a fair 3 round debate.

Note to Voters:
I ask/recommend objectively based on who sustained their arguments most effectively, who best address their opponent's arguments and sustained their own, and how relevant those arguments were to sustaining/negating the resolution. DO NOT vote based on one's preconceived ideas, especially in a debate like this where the resolution is obviously controversial in public circles. This debate is an academic exercise, and not a mandate. Thus voter weighting should be done entirely based on what has been presented in these three rounds.

Best of luck to Con and thanks you for reading.
Debate Round No. 4
283 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ScareCr0we 2 years ago
ScareCr0we
reading through the comments is amusing. Nobody seems to realize that it's not about agreeing, or even abut who's right or wrong. It's about who had a stronger argument.
Posted by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
I would have voted for you if I wasn't busy.
Posted by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
Congratz Envi!
Posted by Daniel_Nemes 2 years ago
Daniel_Nemes
Wow. I actually cannot believe that the pedophiliac won.
Posted by PapaNolan 2 years ago
PapaNolan
This debate should have never happened
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Of course I have a bias, and that's why I had no intention of voting. Pro can win but it won't sway my opinion on the matter.
Posted by PGA 2 years ago
PGA
My vote was removed too. This is disgusting. It is sad when you can't even vote on a voting forum without someone tapering with the vote. I AM ANGRY. This system is totally unfair. Why would anyone want to engage in a debate?

As I said before, nihilism is devoid of right and wrong as anything other than subjective personal opinion, as pointed out by Envision, and his position during the debate was inconsistent with nihilism because it can't justify anything, yet expects others to justify his view. Right to him is not something that is based on an ideal or best, just personal opinion. How does that make something right?

"IT MAKES NO TRUTH CLAIMS ABOUT REALITY regarding exististentialism or essentialism. It doesn't need to presuppose people have an undetectable property of 'value' or 'essence', moreover it is very much compatible with what we know from science." - Envisage

"There is NOTHING INHERENTLY RIGHT OR WRONG with how the naturalistic universe behaves, or how things within it behaves. Thus raping a 9 year old girl is comparably immoral to an ice cube melting. They are simply just materials acting according to natural laws." - Envisage

"It makes no truth claims about reality" as he makes a truth claim that excludes what he says as being true.

Raping is comparable to ice cubes melting??? This is sickening.

How can you vote for Envisage when he espouses this? He basically says there is no objective moral ideal then expects others to vote morally with objectivity based on something that is fix, that has to be fixed and can be none other than fixed in order to arrive at a fair judgment. If there is nothing right or wrong to base the vote against then don't expect me to vote as if there is.

Yes, this is nihilism folks! All existence is senseless.

Peter
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Two vote bombs were removed - a 7 point and a 5 point one.
Posted by Mr.Chorlton 2 years ago
Mr.Chorlton
how did Con go from 18 points to 6? What happened?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I tried to read it in a non-biased way, but I legitimately feel sick and angry just reading the arguments in favour of Pro. I can't possibly produce an unbiased vote when I just feel so utterly appalled by what was written here. I'm sorry. I know I said I would vote on this debate, but I really can't do it in an unbiased way.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As much as I am opposed to the resolution, I have to award arguments to Pro. Con convincingly demonstrated that sex with a minor is harmful but was unable to establish the logical connection that would equate that with being immoral. Pro's argument from moral nihilism demonstrated that no moral perspective is absolute. Con attempted to rebut with an argument from social contract but Con turned that with his second to last paragraph where he argues that rape of minors is not immoral if the social contract allows it. Judged by modern standards, Muhammad's actions are unspeakably wrong but judged within the social context of the time and culture they were acceptable. As Pro has demonstrated that there are no moral absolutes and that there have historically been social contracts that permitted this behavior the resolution is supported. S&G and sources are pretty much equal. Conduct was excellent on both sides on what is an emotionally charged topic.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: There's really not much to say here. Pro's arguments remain basically untouched, and Con really only has one on the table: the social contract is there for a reason, and we all agreed to it. Even if I bought that, and I'm having some trouble doing that because there's no obvious point at which someone consents to it, then I'm still having trouble deciding why, in all circumstances, that presents me with an "it's not okay" for this to happen. Pro's nihilism argument, contrary to Con's contention, is dropped, and the point that as long as it's okay under any view, the resolution is affirmed is simply not responded to. The argument that Allah allows it is similarly dropped, though in this case, the failure is just to hit at the key issue, which is that if any system of morality, no matter how illogical, affirms the resolution, then, under that subjective view, it is okay. So I'm buying two reasons to affirm the resolution, and thus, I vote Pro.
Vote Placed by Mr.Chorlton 2 years ago
Mr.Chorlton
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made the better case here. I felt like pro tried to win on a technicality which was not very persuasive. Con actually had some real things to say which made more sense. I almost gave the "source" points to Pro because he was the only one to use any, however upon closer inspection of these sources they weren't actually sources of anything other than philosophers opinions and questions which aren't proof of anything in itself.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. "My Big brother, best friend for ever, liked to pee in a pot; we did everything together"
Vote Placed by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt pro communicated the points better overall... pro argued very professionally. good conduct from both sides- though con made one nonsensical argument, it was not enough to give con the arguments... RFD forthcoming
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: rfd forthcoming.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by gannon260 2 years ago
gannon260
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I wanted to vote pro for nihilism, but the argument that rape causes negative effects on the girl is bad outweighs. Con outweighed on morals since pro didn't address why rape isn't bad aside from the context that nothing is bad. Also since nihilism adresses the fact that nothing is good or bad, the argument that raping children is good makes no sense on the part of pro.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: There are many ways to define 'bad' and 'okay'. Pro essentially proves it is morally okay--in that it is not immoral under a nihilistic viewpoint. As morality is subjective, as Pro argued, then it is not morally wrong to have sex with a child. Pro also suggested for Islamic people, they have no moral aversion to it. Thus, a large percentage of the population on this planet does not view it as a bad thing. Further, the rape is good for the rapist. Con responds noting how rape harms the person raped very significantly. Con failed to prove his harms are bad in a moral sense. They are bad in a pragmatic sense and warrant legal action, but not necessarily in a moral sense. Pro proved that, morally, having intercourse with a child is not 'bad', even though the child may be physically or mentally harmed. So, from what was presented in the debate, Pro wins. Regardless of how wrong he is, he wins. Odd debate, lolol.