The Instigator
Pro (for)
56 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Parents should be able to sexually molest their Children with mutual consent

Do you like this debate?NoYes-18
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 10 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,860 times Debate No: 68236
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (108)
Votes (10)




first orundacpt
Debate Round No. 1



"1. Promotes sexual awareness
Children are currently brought up in a sexually adverse culture, especially in more conservative American and Eastern European societies. Thus talk of sex within families is rather awkward. Allowing parents to molest their kids promotes increased awareness of the topic, and would consequently promote increased awareness of safe sex practices, such as the use of contraception, etc.

2. Provides valuable sexual experience
Due to age of consent laws, millions of children enter adulthood with little or no sexual experience, which is one of the major sources of satisfaction and well-being. By allowing for molestation within a household context we promote increased sexual experience in a sterile and safe environment (within their own homes/families), thus negative the risk of having sex with strangers.

3. Entitlement
The Child's parents brought them into existance, thus have a level of entitlement over the child's autonomy (e.G. Making their children do chores etc.), thus sex is just another chore that parents are entitled to expect their child to maintain.

I am sure there are a plethora of other reasons, thus we should agree with the motion if we are intellectually honest. " [1 all of round'

source -

Disclaimer : This is sourced


Molesting children is considered extremely immoral in society, due especially to the fact that children are not considered able to give consent. It is extremely sick and twisted, and should not be accepted. I mean it's pretty obvious anyway. Molestation of children is bad, and immoral!
I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 2


Morality is subjective. For my adversary to make a claim about something being immoral he must first find an objective way to gauge that. Killing could be immoral, eating animals could be immoral, so could molestation. The issue is that it depends on the situation. This is where the Child is giving consent to the parent to physically and literally fondle them until they are happy. With consent being given, this cannot be immoral.

Granted any action is neither moral or immoral, as morality is a complete perception of our minds and absent from the world as we know it. If parents want to fondle their kids, and the kids enjoy it as sexual stimulation they should have the right

He also notes that molesting them is wrong because they cannot offer consent. HE just notes this without showing why they can't offer consent. They can literally say " I give consent" thus the consent is confirmed. This is noted in the resolution. My adversary would have to show why children giving consent differs from adults giving consent, and how it impacts this debate.

Note : He has dropped all my prior points. Including sexual experience.

He has dropped my argument from awarness

He has dropped entitlement.

Thus I affirm the resolution.


Let us focus on the morality of the subject, since that is the main part of the argument. If consent is given by the child, it is still not moral due to the fact that morality is REAL, and that there are certain things that are just plain wrong. I don't think any rational human being would disagree that molestation of children is wrong, whether they give consent or not. Therefore, no I don't think you should be allowed to molest your own children on the basis that they can give consent. Consent or not, it is still immoral.
Debate Round No. 3
108 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RealCS 2 years ago
Guys calm down the instigator's account has been closed for such an irresponsible debate.
Posted by christopher1006 2 years ago

The reason is that pro is winning is because of the word 'should'. Think along the lines of proposing a new bill or amendment to one that would allow this.
Posted by johnlubba 2 years ago
All these votes for Pro, Really?

What's up with people,

Con stated, Children are considered not able to give consent, This is a law that negates the resolution, There is no way around this for PRO

It doesn't matter if Con said a thousand words or just a few, he said the right ones that negate the resolution.

Get with it people.
Posted by PinValentine 2 years ago
21 years of age is stretching it.
Posted by WIamwe 2 years ago
We have over weight and obese children and adults all over the world. Clearly, some children and even adults do not know what is constructive or destructive for their short and long term physical and mental health.

Thus, no child (nor person) should be sexually molested with or without consent.
Children (including teens) are to be protected until they have the knowledge required to make informed decisions about what is constructive for their long term mental and physical health, and fully aware of the (+-) consequences of their actions.

After they are conscious (+21) and informed, then they can consciously determine how they wish to make use of their bodies. Sexual education can be achieved without hands on learning -- it's called the truth, knowledge of positive and negative effects for a given act.

Any individual (adult or teen - knowing positive/negative effects) engaging in sexual acts with children, could (I believe should) then be exiled to the south poll for justice -- just ice.

We are not unconscious animals, man acts deliberately to achieve a desired outcome.
Likewise, so do animals
Beast however don't care about their effects -- until they are effected negatively.
Posted by PinValentine 2 years ago
You don't read other comments very often.
Posted by OnlyLoveCuresHate 2 years ago
Children aren't capable of giving consent to something they don't know or understand. If a parent says "Hey darling, you want me to make you feel really good? All you have to do is let me touch your penis/vagina. I promise you're gonna love it!", that's not nearly enough information to base their decision off of. Not to mention that people who are molested as children are more likely to become depressed, commit suicide, develop a drug and/or alcohol addiction and sexually abuse when they are older. A child can never fully grasp these implications and make an educated decision based on them. Children will simply think "Yes! I want to feel really good! I want mommy/daddy to touch me!"
Posted by triangle.128k 2 years ago
Faith in humanity lost,
Posted by PinValentine 2 years ago
Unfairly too.
Posted by Mr.Chorlton 2 years ago
Good to see valar_dohaeris' account has finally been closed.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro put way more work into this than Con did. I hope this serves as a reminder to Con that no matter what may seem morally right, you'll lose if you don't properly argue your case.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Although I don't agree with Pro, he had stronger arguments with some facts, and Con just stated how it was immoral and bad.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con has an easy win if he would just take it. Based on law, children cannot give consent. They don't have the mental capacity to do so. Unfortunately he never makes a strong case for this point.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Lol. Con's entire rebuttal amounted to "it's just wrong" and "children can't give consent". However, Con never began to explain in adequate depth why the latter is the case, which is a shame because it could have won Con the debate. Pro's initial, essentially uncontested framework is enough to win the debate.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins, with the statement that, "Children are not old enough to consent", If Pro were to win this, he would have to change the justice system. Pro gave no good reason to show why the justice system should be abandoned that prevents children being able to consent. Clear win for Con
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: In order for Con to win this debate. He must show that morality is objective. But sadly, he did not do that in the debate. Con also has dropped whatever Pro says and goes with his own perspective that it is immoral to do so. Whereas, Pro has shown the reasons in his first round under why that is considered as right.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presents a more complete case. Rebuttals by con are mostly bare assertions, and adequately rebutted by Pro (on morality being subjective)
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 2 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: see comments - Disappointing "debate" on several levels. PRO's main rebuttals don't make sense, and CON doesn't even begin to argue. Regardless, PRO did meet minimal, unrefuted burden in the opening. Absolutely atrocious showing from CON...this should have been an easy win for him. Had I scored this, I would have voted for PRO. -- Finally, I would add that there's something seriously wrong with how this website functions, given how a debate with this title and level of quality is appearing on the home-page and that the side with the near-indefensible position is somehow winning.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I hate to have to vote pro... But CON really fails to prove his case--that molestation is immoral. Pro counters with the subjective argument, to which CON drops. CON essentially drops PRO's arguments and says "it is immoral" with no evidence.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I am against this, however, con dosesnt really show WHY molesting is wrong. He just shows morality that Pro rebutted. Furthermore, he does not show why it is bad