The Instigator
lua
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GiantPanda
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Milo Yiannopoulos is not an advocate of pedophilia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
GiantPanda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,234 times Debate No: 100145
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

lua

Pro

In Milo's current "scandal," the media is accusing him of supporting pedophilia.
I will be defending Milo, demonstrating that he is not an advocate of pedophilia. My opponent will be supporting the claim that he is an advocate of pedophilia.
GiantPanda

Con

I am supporting the claim that he is an advocate of pedophilia.
Debate Round No. 1
lua

Pro

I. Defining terms

Definition of pedophilia: attraction to pre-pubescent children [1]

Definition of pre-pubescent: the period preceding puberty [2]
Definition of puberty: when a child's body begins to develop and change as they become an adult. The average age for girls to begin puberty is 11, while for boys the average age is 12 [3]

II. Victim of sexual abuse as a minor

Milo is a victim of sexual abuse. This is a quote from Milo:

"I am a gay man and a child abuse victim.

Between the ages of 13 and 16, two men touched me in ways they should not have. One of those men was a priest." [4]

III. Known for exposing pedophiles

Luke Bozier
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com...;/
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com...

Nicholas Nyberg
http://www.breitbart.com...;/

Chris Leydon
http://www.breitbart.com...;

IV. Conclusion

Milo has never defended pedophiles or child abusers as his reporting history shows. This was nothing but a well-coordinated attack to try to slander Milo, the ammunition to slander him was old footage of a podcast (which happened to have just resurfaced right before he released his book) called the 'The Drunken Peasants.' It would be asinine to suggest that a victim of sexual abuse and a person that has outed several pedophiles over the course of his career is an advocate for pedophilia. It is just disgusting to force a man that was actually sexually abused to resign and forcing Simon & Simon to cancel his book deal over sloppy phrasing, deceptive editing, and some "edgy" jokes about what happened to himself. He has since apologized for the joke.

But I do remember when the media praised and made Lena Dunham a modern hero after laughing about molesting her little sister several times in her biography, and guess what? That book is still for sale with no backlash from the mainstream media. Whereas Milo, a victim of sexual abuse over the course of 3 years that makes "edgy" jokes about what happened to him to cope and rationalize his trauma and his career was targeted by almost every mainstream news source in an attempt to destroy his career is just abhorrent.

V. Sources

1.) https://en.wikipedia.org...
2.) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
3.) https://en.wikipedia.org...
4.) https://www.youtube.com...
GiantPanda

Con

Definition of advocate: a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy. [1]

Proof
Here is a video of Milo supporting pedophilia.
https://www.youtube.com...

"Milo doesn't give up the name of the priest who sexually abused him when he was in his fourteens
"Milo denies that he was ever molested by the priest and claims that everything was perfectly consensual

The age of consent in the UK is 16. By denying giving up the name of a priest who was a school teacher, Milo protects a pedophile and shows that he is ok with allowing pedophiles to continue preying on children.

"Milo states that he went to hollywood parties. Again Milo protects their names and claims that many of the boys there were extremly young. Also stating that there were drugs and many were performing unsafe sex

Support
If I were an advocate of christianity, I would defend it because I believe in it. Milo just demonstrated that he was an advocate of pedophilia through protecting the various names of those who were pedophiles. The footage is right in the video and none of the sound in that video was edited to skip a few words to make it sound like Milo was advocating for pedophilia.
Secondly I find it interesting that Milo would point out that he has called out others on pedophilia when he himself is an advocator of it. He has defended more names that those that he has called out. I would also like to point out that Milo has only pointed out those that would benefit his career/make him more popular, which leads to the conclusion that Milo actually doesn't care about catching pedophiles unless it benefits him. Which means that pointing out that he called out three pedophiles is useless when they were only used to further him. You have to ask yourself, does he really care?

Funny that you find it disgusting for a man who was sexually abused to have to apologize for making extremely rude comments and defending pedophiles. So just because he was sexually abused means he gets the get out of jail free card? No, that's really not how justice works. Milo should have expected this reaction to every single comment he has ever made in his whole entire career. What I find disgusting is that some people are so blind to what Milo says, that they don't even realize who it hurts. And they'll try to justify Milo's every word to the very end with absolute disregard to anybody and anything that Milo's words hurt. Now that's truly disgusting.

[1] https://www.google.ca...;*
Debate Round No. 2
lua

Pro

"Here is a video of Milo supporting pedophilia."

Here's his statement regarding this "proof."

"My own experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation, and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, ‘advocacy,’” he wrote. “I deeply regret that. People deal with things from their past in different ways.” He went on to say, "I would like to restate my utter disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia, and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers." [1]

Milo does not support pedophilia, but rather, made some distasteful statements that are being used against him by the establishment.

I'll admit that the statements made by Milo were not well thought out and sloppily phrased, especially as a victim of sexual abuse himself, but this whole debacle is clearly a smear campaign to attack his credibility.

"Milo doesn't give up the name of the priest who sexually abused him when he was in his fourteens. [...] Milo protects a pedophile and shows that he is ok with allowing pedophiles to continue preying on children."

There are too many possible cases to take into account before labeling him an advocate of pedophilia. For instance, maybe the priest isn't practicing anymore, making it impossible to find him. Maybe he doesn't remember his full name, which is the more likely case, making him impossible to find. Maybe he doesn't remember the church he went to 20 years ago, making it impossible to find him, although this is all speculation, as is your "argument."

Also, the priest would have been able to file a lawsuit for defamation of character and he would have won because he cannot prove this.

"Milo denies that he was ever molested by the priest and claims that everything was perfectly consensual"

That is slander and an outright lie.

"Between the ages of 13 and 16, two men touched me in ways they should not have. One of those men was a priest.

My relationship with my abusers is complicated by the fact that, at the time, I did not perceive what was happening to me as abusive. I can look back now and see that it was." [2]

He clearly stated that what happened to him was abusive and wrong.

"Milo states that he went to hollywood parties. Again Milo protects their names and claims that many of the boys there were extremly young. Also stating that there were drugs and many were performing unsafe sex"

There is no way that Milo could have gone on a massive podcast like The Joe Rogan Experience and started slinging out names of people that he had seen at a party in 2008 who he thought were pedophiles, Milo does not have any evidence for his statements, and this is precisely why he didn't name them, he's not going to say outright: "I'm not going to name them" if he's actually defending pedophilia, if he did name them, they would have undoubtedly been able to file a lawsuit for defamation of character that he would have lost because, again, he cannot prove this. He's just letting you know what other people are letting you know. And again, this is how we know that the people making these accusations do not care about the subject at hand.

Elijah Wood told an interviewer with a London newspaper that sexual abuse of child stars was more widespread in Hollywood than had been reported. He did not mention any names: "though he said he was not targeted nor did he name others he thought were involved." said the NY Times. [3] And that begs the question, is Elijah Wood an advocate of pedophilia?

Corey Feldman and Corey Haim has described the pedophile ring in depth several times, saying that it is the biggest problem in Hollywood. Corey Feldman stated "Ask anybody in our group of kids at that time: They were passing us back and forth to each other. [Alison Arngrim] from Little House on the Prairie said [in an interview], "Everybody knew that the two Coreys were just being passed around." [4]

Though when asked "What level were these people? Were they studio heads, were they low-rent producers?" He said that he is not able to name names. [5] Is Corey Feldman an advocate for pedophilia?

"You have to ask yourself, does he really care?"

Yes, he wouldn't have destroyed that careers of pedophiles if he was an advocate of pedophilia.

"So just because he was sexually abused means he gets the get out of jail free card?"

He doesn't need a get out of jail free card because he didn't do anything wrong.

"What I find disgusting is that some people are so blind to what Milo says, that they don't even realize who it hurts. And they'll try to justify Milo's every word to the very end with absolute disregard to anybody and anything that Milo's words hurt. Now that's truly disgusting."

No, if that's what you find truly disgusting, then your moral compass is broken.What is truly disgusting as I stated in Round 1 is that the media praised and made Lena Dunham a hero after laughing about molesting her little sister several times in her biography, I also found it disgusting that the book is still for sale with no backlash from the mainstream media.

Whereas Milo, a victim of sexual abuse over the course of 3 years that made "edgy" jokes about what happened to help him to cope and rationalize his trauma had his book deal canceled, he was disinvited from CPAC and being forced to resign from his job. His career targeted by almost every mainstream news source in an attempt to destroy his career.

Actions speak louder than words. Actions especially speak louder than words when the words are deliberately given no context and been discredited countless times by the person who said them.

Though, regarding your statement that "they [Milo and Milo supporters] don't even realize who it hurts."

Here is Milo officially apologizing for other victims of sexual abuse:

"This is about me apologizing for saying things I did not mean, this is me apologizing to other victims of abuse for comments that may be perceived by them as insensitive or flippant, which was unintended. You know, you sort of freewheel and spitball in these boozy long, late night internet live streams, some of them go on for 3-4 hours. And you play with ideas and sometimes these things come out half-baked or they're expressed in ways you didn't intend. For the most part, I do not believe these videos show what reporting claims that they show, but for those statements I did make where I misspoke, I'm here today to apologize." [6]

Conclusion and Further Arguments

Even if your down right slandering is right, he isn't defending pedophilia, so the whole foundation of your argument collapses. He would be "defending" hebephiliac pederasty which is adult sexual interest in children after puberty, usually around 11-14. [7] But that claim is equally outrageous considering that Milo said that Germany’s sexual age of consent, 14, to be “too young.” [8]

"I'm part of a mailing list (not giving my real name or the name of the list for the sake of protecting my a*s from retaliation) but they have been sitting on the story for a while, because they thought Milo was small fries and wanted to wait until he got big enough [for] a thread to go nuclear on. [...] Expect a steady drumbeat of "Milo is a pedophile" and "Milo must be dropped from CPAC." The latter is especially important, in terms of the divide and conquer long game the press is playing: the press wants a civil war with the McCain/Graham wing of the GOP and the Trump/Ryan wing so as to weaken the Republicans in 2018." [9]

This was a 4chan post on Sunday from an insider that was a part of a mailing list on Sunday, a day before all the Anti-Milo articles came out. This is further evidence of this being a smear campaign and character assassination. The mainstream media do not care or actually believe Milo is an advocate for pedophilia, this is nothing but a hit job on Milo's career.

1.) https://www.facebook.com...;
2.) https://www.facebook.com...;
3.) https://www.nytimes.com...;
4.) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;
5.) http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...;
6.) https://youtu.be...;
7.) https://en.wikipedia.org...;
8.) https://youtu.be...;
9.) http://boards.4chan.org...;

GiantPanda

Con

So my opponent didn't even address the video that I had posted and then states that my statement, "Here is a video of Milo supporting pedophilia," as my only proof. This is a failed tactic in trying to divert the audience's attention away from living proof of Milo defending and advocating pedophilia.

Point 1
2:55-3:04

Joe:Do people know who he is?
Milo:I don't think so.
Joe:What's his name?
Milo:Well I'm not saying anything.
Joe:Well how old were you at the time?
Milo:Well I just"
Joe:You were a little kid and he was like what?
Milo:Stop it.
Joe:Was he in his twenties or thirties?
Milo:You're just trying-You're trying-You're trying"
Milo:Yet another-yet another feminist strategy you have adopted


That is the first scene where Milo defends the names of pedophiles. Notice that Milo passes off identifying the pedophiles name three times. The very last time he passes it off as a, "feminist strategy" as if that has anything to do with wanting to identify a pedophile. As you can see, Milo is clearly dodging the question of who the pedophile is and in fact go so far as to claim that Josh is attacking him with "feminist strategies" to avoid answering.

5:04-5:31

Milo:I went to other people whom I won't name, of a similar stature in hollywood. I went to their boat parties and to their house parties and things, and some of the things I have seen, beggar to believe.
Joe:Yeah, can you give us like uh"
Milo:Well just" I don't want to be indiscreet about specific people"
Joe:Right you don't have to do that, just dance around the facts
Milo:Yeah, dangerous but I can tell you the truth without dropping anyone in it. Some of the boys there were very young. Very young.


Again Milo defends pedophiles when talking about parties in hollywood. That is the proof of Milo supporting pedophilia which my opponent so conveniently neglected to even talk about or defend.

Point 2
",maybe the priest isn't practicing anymore, making it impossible to find him." Modern technology has cleared that issue up quite nicely. I'd like to direct my audience to the fact that Milo's parents could quite easily track down this school/church that Milo went to. This is highly unlikely speculation and I highly doubt Milo has forgotten it all. Speculations prove nothing.

Point 3
My opponent keeps saying that Milo would have been sued for defamation if he had reported these pedophiles.

Here is the definition for defamation, "the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel." [3] Slander, "the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." [4]

So basically my opponent has just claimed that Milo is in fact a liar who was not a victim of sexual abuse. This is true slander of the highest insult to any victim of sexual abuse. Milo is a victim of sexual abuse, therefore giving the name of his sexual abuser would not be defamation because that person didn't have a good reputation to begin with.

Milo's testimony is evidence that he could use to bring the pedophile to justice. Just like his testimony to witnessing the hollywood party is evidence to putting pedophiles in jail. Many sexual assault cases don't have witnesses but that does not make their testimony useless. By law they are committed to speak only the truth in court. By now you realize that the pedophiles would actually lose the case because they are breaking the law by lying about defamation and denying that they are pedophiles. My opponents misconception that a witness's testimony is no evidence in a court is truly messed up.

By law, Milo was obligated to report the pedophiles. Under section 4.2 Remote Health Atlas Sexual Abuse Under 18 it says, all territorians must report any harm or exploitation in anyone under 18 years (not just sexual). [2] In the other report, it says the same thing under the Frequently Asked Questions subtitle,

if the victim is under the age of 18 the abuse must be reported. [1]

Also below that question and answer it states,

The child abuse reporting law mandates a report to be made when there is a reasonable suspicion or knowledge that children may be at risk. Therefore, childhood abuse of adults should be reported if there is a reasonable suspicion that there may be another potential child victim.

Father Michael was a teacher who obviously had access to children through his career. Milo identified him as, "Quite young, quite hot." (0:40) which goes to show that he was obviously at the start of his teaching career which means he'd have years and years of access to other students. By not reporting Father Michael, not only has he defended him but allowed him to continue to attack other children.

Point 4
Then my opponent goes into a bunch of straw mans about other people knowing in depth and seeing the hollywood pedophilia and not doing anything about it. This does not prove anything other than the fact that Milo supporters are willing to pull everyone else under the bus because they're desperate to protect and defend Milo. Here's my response to this, what do they teach kids in school about bullying? They teach that standing by and watching the victim get bullied is actually supporting the bully. Do you disagree? No? Well then that makes virtue signaling others pretty void and petty.

Point 5

0:32

Joe:Did he make you suck his d*** for real?
Milo:Didn't make me, I was quite enthusiastic about it.


3:07-3:24

Milo:I told you, it wasn't pedophilia.
Joe:How old were you?
Milo:I was in my teens, in my teens.
Joe:Fourteen.
Milo:Teens
Joe:You said you were fourteen.
Milo:Something like that. I was in my teens.
Joe:That's pedophilia buddy.

There you have it, Milo denying it was pedophilia. Watch the video before claiming I'm publicly slandering, I could sue you for defamation and win the suit because you would be lying. Now do you see the difference between real defamation and false defamation? Milo and I wouldn't be lying.

Point 6
Then my opponent goes on to say that I'm actually not arguing over pedophilia and it's actually named under a different thing. Here is the definition of pedophilia, "sexual feelings directed toward children." [5] There goes your last desperate attempt at an argument.

Wrap Up
Milo had every chance to put those pedophiles in jail. They wouldn't have had even a decent chance at winning a defamation lawsuit because Milo would not be lying.
So the question is, why would Milo withhold such information when he easily could have put a stop to these pedophiles? Like I said before, a bystander who has seen the event personally and refused to step forth to the police to act as a witness against the criminal is actually supporting the criminal.
Milo is supporting pedophilia by withholding this information and allowing these child predators to continue.
Since my opponent has not refuted the fact that Milo withheld this information, he has failed to refute why Milo is a supporter of pedophilia.

[1] http://mandatedreporterca.com...
[2] http://remotehealthatlas.nt.gov.au...
[3] https://www.google.ca...
[4] https://www.google.ca...
[5] https://www.google.ca...
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: hawaiianxx// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: con's argument: giantpanda's main argument was that milo didn't expose the pedophiles on air so he must advocate for pedophile and by stating the 4.2 remote health atlas sexual abuse under 18, i don't know who he would report. his 14-year-old self or the "young" guys he saw at a party many years ago. to report the children, he has to know his they are. but none of this matters, as i will state below pro's main argument: lua's main argument was that it doesn't matter if he defended his abuser since it wasn't pedophilia, it was be hebephiliac pederasty. so, by default, that results in a automatic win for pro. but pro pointed out that milo said that 14 for the age of consent is too young, so he doesnt supprot hebephiliac pederasty either! reliable sources: con said that pedophilia is "sexual feelings directed toward children." which pro proved wrong.

[*Reason for removal*] Sources are insufficiently explained. Stating what a given debater proved in the debate is not sufficient reason to award these points. It must be clear that the voter is awarding these points after comparing sources from each side, and not merely as an extension of winning the arguments.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: PowerPikachu21// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: So Pro's argument was that Milo was raped, therefore he can't support pedophilia. He also outed a few pedos. But Con, however, presents evidence of Milo hiding names of pedophiles, and stated that he sold out who he did for personal gain. Con's argument gets ignored by Pro, who presents "Con's source" right back at him, which is apparently actually a facebook post. I thought Con only presented a YouTube video and a definition in Round 2. In the video, he does avoid mentioning pedos when asked. That source and that argument were much stronger than "he was raped and sold out guys.". Comparing him to other people is irrelevant. I have to give the win to Con, as he showed that Milo refused to sell out pedophiles, countering the ones he did sell out being for personal gain, which was never responded to. Both sides used good sources. Both had wonderful grammar. No one had poor conduct.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter analyzes specific arguments made by both sides in the debate, which is all he is required to do in order to have this vote be sufficient. He is not required to exhaustively cover arguments made in the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: hawaiianxx// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: i did agree with giantpanda before, but its unfair, milo didnt do anything, but thats irrlenvent, it would be inpossible for him to do anything wrong anyways! it wasnt pedophila and it wasnt advocacy as lua proved!giant panda had incorrect grammer and lua had good grammer. lua had more sourses and giantpanda had some unrelable sourses since lua proved the soruse he said as wrong!

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically analyze arguments made by both debaters. Merely stating that one side was correct is not sufficient. (3) S&G is insufficiently explained. It must be clear that one side made arguments that were difficult to understand as a result of how they were written. Merely having some more incorrect grammar is not sufficient. (4) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than declare that one side had more sources, as quality must be assessed. While false sources are an issue, the voter has to do more than declare them wrong without explanation.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Social-Justice_Carnist// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Sources), 3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Jesus.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by lua 1 year ago
lua
"So my opponent didn't even address the video that I had posted and then states that my statement, "Here is a video of Milo supporting pedophilia," as my only proof. This is a failed tactic in trying to divert the audience's attention away from living proof of Milo defending and advocating pedophilia."

That is nonsensical and deceiving, I responded to every one of your arguments, so what was the point of that statement?
Posted by lua 1 year ago
lua
Also, the definition of advocacy is "the act or process of supporting a cause or proposal."
Even if he were defending what happened to him as a child (which is just as outrageous), it would not be the advocacy of pedophilia.
Posted by lua 1 year ago
lua
"There goes your last desperate attempt at an argument."

It wasn't a desperate attempt at all, I'm sorry, but you can't state these baseless accusations without backing it up. Milo couldn't be an advocate of pedophilia because it wasn't pedophilia. Which you did not disprove. I don't know where you got that definition, but the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition is the "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically: a psychological disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child."

Emphasize "prepubescent," though I have also proved what you were actually accusing him of wrong as well, which you have chosen to ignore.

"Milo is supporting pedophilia by withholding this information and allowing these child predators to continue.
Since my opponent has not refuted the fact that Milo withheld this information, he has failed to refute why Milo is a supporter of pedophilia."

Yes, I have refuted the fact that Milo withheld this information, you have just chosen to ignore it.

"Then my opponent goes into a bunch of straw mans about other people knowing in depth and seeing the hollywood pedophilia and not doing anything about it."

That was not a strawman, a strawman would be just stating those examples, I disproved what you said, then went on to give examples to show how ridiculous your accusation was.

My opponent dropped almost all of my arguments and ignored the ones he couldn't defend. Vote Pro.
Posted by lua 1 year ago
lua
GiantPanda, please don't run out the clock, you've had three days.
Posted by lua 1 year ago
lua
GiantPanda also dropped all of my arguments except for one:

In response to that he was known for exposing pedophiles, he wrote:

"I would also like to point out that Milo has only pointed out those that would benefit his career/make him more popular, which leads to the conclusion that Milo actually doesn't care about catching pedophiles unless it benefits him."

Which is an assumption based on no evidence whatsoever. Pointless statement.
Posted by lua 1 year ago
lua
You figured me out, PhilosophicalUmbreon. Forgive me for being white.
Also, I meant to type "Simon & Schuster," not "Simon & Simon."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
luaGiantPandaTied
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: So Pro's argument was that Milo was raped, therefore he can't support pedophilia. He also outed a few pedos. But Con, however, presents evidence of Milo hiding names of pedophiles, and stated that he sold out who he did for personal gain. Con's argument gets ignored by Pro, who presents "Con's source" right back at him, which is apparently actually a facebook post. I thought Con only presented a YouTube video and a definition in Round 2. In the video, he does avoid mentioning pedos when asked. That source and that argument were much stronger than "he was raped and sold out guys.". Comparing him to other people is irrelevant. I have to give the win to Con, as he showed that Milo refused to sell out pedophiles, countering the ones he did sell out being for personal gain, which was never responded to. Both sides used good sources. Both had wonderful grammar. No one had poor conduct.