The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WhyAbhorReality
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Pedophiles should not be stigmatized as they are today.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 591 times Debate No: 101588
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Capitalistslave

Pro

This is not a debate on whether stigmatization of pedophiles exist. Both of us need to accept that it does(and that it does to the degree I am showing) in order for us to debate. In spite of that, here is some reference material about the stigmatization of pedophiles:

14-28% of people surveyed in this scientific study believed pedophiles "should better be dead, even if they never had committed criminal acts",[1] and here is one story of a group of people in England who even burned someone to death because they (wrongly) believed he was a pedophile[2]

As long as my opponent acknowledges and doesn't dispute how the stigma against pedophiles is, as the story and survey suggests, we should be able to continue. Since this might be new information to them, I don't mind if they tell me in a comment that they don't wish to continue the debate. I'll just cancel this if so.

Rules of debate:
1) No insults, ad hominem, or personal attacks.
2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total number of rounds minus 1 since I am not using round 1 for argument.
3) The last round used for argument should just be rebuttals: no new arguments in that round. New facts and information is okay, as long as it's in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments.

Sources:
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
WhyAbhorReality

Con

I agree that stigmatization of pedophiles exists in modern society, and also agree to rules set out for the debate.

The definition you supplied in the comment for clarification: "Describe or regard as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval."

My argument is that stigmatization should not be any different than it is today, perhaps more so than it is. However, as you have also stated another stipulation that child molestation and the attraction towards children are separate things, which I can agree with, it doesn't change my stance, although request my opponent acknowledge that I will be using arguments that connect the 2, which you are free to dispute later.

The arguments based around the scientific survey could produce similar results conducted on a vast amount of different criminal activities, such as terrorists (considered more extreme to the majority of who hold western values), rapists (similar amounts of hatred, perhaps less so due to it not being about children), or in the case of murder, probably again mixed depending on the subjects interviewed. I would estimate that not all people who were surveyed knew that much about the subject other than hear' say. In regards to clear line definition between a pedophile who views child pornography V's a pedophile who actually engages in grooming and molestation, it is not defined properly for the recipients and is likely a mixed list of differing ideas of what pedophilia is. The fault of this should be placed on the education system and effects of social media, and is enough to not count the survey as proof of anything. That is not to say the arguments made do not exist, as the second story clearly shows.

To explain what happened in the daily mail article is explained through studying the effects of 'Chinese whispers' throughout time. In the story of Frankenstein, the villagers are seen ganging up and burning down the laboratory because they are afraid and misinformed. Superstition of witches is the same effect but on a much larger scale. That is not to say that people are afraid of pedophiles, it is more likely due to a general dislike of anyone who harms children due to people having children of their own and an almost non existent education program leaving them with only hearsay to go off.

The attraction that some men exhibit can be loosely attributed to an explanation offered through a look throughout history, only mere centuries ago it was normal and had been normal for many centuries before that for girls to marry as young as 12 and earlier[1]. This differs throughout different cultures, but still exists in some parts of the world today. The first signs that a girl hit puberty was usually seen as a sign that the girl had come of age. As we progressed women and children in general were determined to be too easily corruptible at such young ages and should not be married until later ages, which as a civilized society accepted as law. The practice only continued illegally, and became something we don't do anymore. Like burning witches, or sacrificing animals to Gods - although in some cultures these things, and much more horrific things still exist today. Our culture no longer accepts the abuse of children and therefore it is my view that pedophilia should not only be stigmatized but should be treated far more seriously and tackled with greater force. However, other cultures should not really be judged without considering our culture was once similar when it comes to their practices and examples such as these should not be used as justification but as examples of how we have evolved as an ethical society.

I will leave this here as I said I will keep my first reply brief.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Pro

The stigmatization of pedophiles is so bad, many are suicidal

Many pedophiles want to die, because they have this attraction, 76% of pedophiles suffer from major depression[3] while only 6.7% of the adult population has major depression[4]. I believe the reason why the rates of depression among pedophiles is so much higher is probably because of how much stigma there is against pedophiles. It makes sense to believe that. Is it really fair that we, as society, cause a group of people to be depressed just because we dissaprove of something they can't even control? It's a fact that attractions are not controlled, and if my opponent challenges this, I'll offer some sources on that. When pedophiles are found out about, or exposed, the chances are high that they will commit suicide from all of the stigma and attitudes from other people towards them[5] This often occurs even when the pedophile has not done anything wrong.


Pedophiles are likely afraid to seek help

It would only make sense to conclude that pedophiles are afraid of seeking therapy or help from other people because of how much pedophilia is looked down upon. I argue we would be able to treat more pedophiles if we were more accepting of them. We don't need to accept it if they act on their attractions, but we should accept their attractions because it doesn't seem like there is anything wrong about just an attraction.


The stigma is unfounded

Now, I believe all of this stigma is unfounded because pedophiles rarely molest children. In a comprehensive study of 3,952 people who reported that they molested a child, 35% were not pedophiles [6] which means it is safe to conclude that about 35% of people who molest children are not pedophiles. It is estimated that 1 to 5 percent of men identify as a pedophile [6]. There have been 1.8 million children who have been victims of sexual assault in the United States [7], let's just assume each one had a different perpetrator, but that's not usually the case. That would be 1.8 million child molesters. There are 151,781,326 men in the United States[8], since 1-5% are estimated to be pedophiles, that means 1,517,813-7,589,066 men are pedophiles. If we go back to the 1.8 million number, 35% of them(as shown previously) are not pedophiles. That means 1,170,000 are pedophiles. However, given that this assumes that it's one perpetrator per victim, this is very over-estimated. In this study, it was found that half of child molesting pedophiles repeat their offense [10] therefore that 1.1 million number can be cut in half to 550,000, which is still an over-estimate since we also need to take into account how many times the offenders repeated. Let's just use the 550,000 number for now. That means that out of the 1.5 to 7.5 million pedophiles in the US, 550,000 actually molest children. In other words, around 33% to as low as 7.3% of pedophiles even molest children, and again, that is an over-estimate.


Therefore, a vast majority of pedophiles never do a single thing wrong, yet society is the cause of much distress for the pedophile, as we stigmatize them, abuse them, etc. All of this happens to them just because they were unfortunate enough to be born with conditions that would allow them to develop an attraction to prepubescent children.


Now, I'll address points made by my opponent, their quotes will be in italics:

In regards to clear line definition between a pedophile who views child pornography V's a pedophile who actually engages in grooming and molestation, it is not defined properly for the recipients and is likely a mixed list of differing ideas of what pedophilia is.

It sounds like in this paragraph you are skeptical of the study because of people perhaps mistaking pedophilia for something else, like the actions. However, it was made clear in the study that it would even be pedophiles who did not commit any illegal action(that includes viewing child porn, as that is illegal, as well as molesting children). 14-28% even said those pedophiles who did nothing illegal are essentially worthy of death. If we follow this line of thinking, essentially everyone who also ever had the thought come to mind of murdering someone is worthy of death. I guarantee you that would include everyone. I’m sure you’ve had the thought, even if you didn’t entertain the idea, enter your head of murdering someone. If not, it at least would have been in a dream and thus in your sub-conscious, I’m sure everyone naturally gets that thought enter their mind when it comes to someone you hate.


That’s essentially all an attraction is: something in your sub-conscious that gives you thoughts and desires about someone or a group of people you’re attracted to. So, why do we hold pedophiles to such a high standard when probably everyone has had the thoughts enter their head of murdering a person? It’s not a crime to have that thought enter your head, and I feel no shame in admitting that I myself have had the thought cross my mind on occasion of murdering someone. Pedophiles just get the thoughts of being with children romantically/sexually. What determines whether you’re a terrible person is if you allow these thoughts to progress and entertain the ideas to the point where you decide to even do it. As I pointed out, a vast majority of pedophiles don’t get to that point though, just like a vast majority of people don’t get to the point of entertaining the thoughts of killing someone and then doing it.


That is not to say that people are afraid of pedophiles, it is more likely due to a general dislike of anyone who harms children due to people having children of their own and an almost non existent education program leaving them with only hearsay to go off.

But is it fair to murder someone who you suspect is a pedophile, even though there is no indication they have a desire to actually act out on their attraction? Given that such a large amount of pedophiles are distressed with depressive disorders, it’s likely because their attraction is causing their depression, in addition to perhaps the stigma society gives them. They don’t feel happy about being attracted to children. Is it not punishment enough that they are generally depressed?


Re: opponent’s final paragraph

I don’t see any reason to rebut what my opponent said here, as it doesn’t support reason for why the stigma should exist. But I do agree that the fact girls would get married at such young ages in the past could have contributed to why men today are much more likely to be pedophiles than women.


I’ll leave this round at this, and turn this over to my opponent to continue.

Sources:

[3]https://www.vice.com...

[4]https://www.nimh.nih.gov...

[5]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[6]http://www.childmolestationprevention.org... (see page 9)

[7]https://www.nsopw.gov...(X(1)S(wfibniibqz121noenoddmm5b))/en-US/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

[8]https://www.census.gov...

[9]http://www.paedofiles.com...
WhyAbhorReality

Con

I accept the statistics and evidence provided and while I sympathize with anyone suffering from any mental health problem, depression or being outcast from society, there are certain aspects regarding pedophilia that set it apart from other disorders.

Throughout western culture there exists numerous different ideologies, whether based around religious thought, political allegiance, sexuality, drug laws etc. One popular argument recently is based around Transgender people, which due to the media attention and increased education on the subject it has become less stigmatized overall. There are still plenty of people though that believe they 'should die' or that they are 'mentally ill' and need to be cured. There will likely be people who are driven to depression and suicidal thoughts due to the stigma surrounding it, even now due to the vastly differing views on the subject. There are plenty of other arguments regarding that issue, which could be a debate on its own. In South America recently there has been numerous killings targeting trans women, which I think is a horrible thing to see or happen to anyone no matter what you believe.

Rapists or sex offenders are put on a register that makes them known to the public, these people also suffer in society due to their actions, whilst not to the same level which is understandable. The act of rape is even worse when committed with a child and the crime, in my view, should be seen worse.

The stigma around pedophilia should definitely exist, when compared to the stigma experienced by someone who smokes cannabis though it is not comparable. Through the accounts and trauma experienced by children who have been studied and shown how bad the effect are on their mental health, leading them to have depression and suicidal thoughts and completely broken lives from before they had chance to think for themselves, we have learned that this is something that is inexcusable. Which is partly to do with my brief history lesson from the last round, which I will return to later.

When these arguments are seen focused just on the attraction toward children and not the act, they can seem overly unfair, and while again I sympathize with wrongly accused people of any crime, the attraction toward children should be seen just as bad and with closer examination of the causes I hope to explain why.

Admittedly, due to faults in our mental health services and culture, people who suffer from disorders are stigmatized by the public, even more so when something is not understood. Some people don't even believe mental health disorders exist for example. Then again, some people believe the Earth is flat, so there we go. This also shows the problems in the education system, which throws numerous questions up about the ethical implications of many things in our society. One of them, particularly relevant being pornography.

Would the viewing of child pornography in the first place not be required for the attraction to develop? Now I am sure there are cases where this is not so, although if not from pornography then maybe from other media that included children? I highly doubt the attraction would come from seeing them in public, nor do I think an attraction to someones own children is in any way an acceptable argument. Furthermore, for child pornography to exist, there has to have been a crime committed on that child to begin with.
To further the claim of child pornography having to influence it in the first place can be seen by studying other pornography. It is quite clear there are a vast number of 'fetishes' that have developed and have converted people into becoming involved in which wouldn't have happened if not for the existence of that pornography. I would stand by the claim sexual preferences can definitely be changed. Rape is actually known to be a fetish for some, is viewing rape as bad as committing the crime? Is that person now more likely to be inclined to rape someone? Again for the viewing to occur, a rape had to take place. Is a snuff movie okay to watch? Does watching it implicate the viewer in the act or increase their chances of murdering someone? Does it desensitize them towards killing? I would argue yes for the last question.
Does viewing child pornography desensitize somebody towards the act of child molestation? Based on the same argument, again I would therefore have to say yes.

I would have to say then, to prevent more people from being convicted of pedophilia and suffering the negative stigmatization they receive would require preventing and educating people on the act of viewing pornography, the trauma of the victims and the negative aspects of society that exist that allow children to be exploited in the first place.

Current victims, while trying my best not to sound cold, need to accept they committed a crime and seek out help from the places that do exist for them to get help. Without better education and awareness the level of stigmatization people receive is unlikely to change, which as I said is unfortunately something many people have to experience for one reason or another due to our culture. I agree there is extreme hate given to some people unfairly, any minority group could probably find the same views directed at them from someone out there though.

It is never fair to murder someone, as someone who is against the death penalty I can agree with you wishing death on anyone is not right and is just yet another example of an ignorant world view from some. The same people would likely say it of a follower of a different religion, or their own President, and is just one part of human nature that unfortunately just exists. I would advise people not to do it in the first place.

As for the history paragraph, the reason was to show that as a society our education and views changed so did our practices, and while early marriages does not account for the molestation of boys which has been a recurring theme in relation to the church (resulting in another unfair stigmatization towards priests), it does show that as time progresses cultures do improve and people stop being unfairly treated. For that to happen though our knowledge needs to increase, it is of my opinion that due to mistakes made in pornography and in society in general in recent times it has allowed for these mistakes to occur. We are improving though and eradicating the problems at the source, which in time should lead to no more stigmatization of pedophilia as hopefully it will no longer exist.
Debate Round No. 2
Capitalistslave

Pro

It seems my opponent may actually be agreeing with me now. If you take a look at these quotes from the last round by them, you can see this is the case:
In the last paragraph, the last sentence, they stated, We are improving though and eradicating the problems at the source, which in time should lead to no more stigmatization of pedophilia as hopefully it[stigmatization] will no longer exist.
(emphasis added as well as what is in between brackets)

Then there is this When these arguments are seen focused just on the attraction toward children and not the act, they can seem overly unfair, and while again I sympathize with wrongly accused people of any crime, the attraction toward children should be seen just as bad and with closer examination of the causes I hope to explain why.
Which also seems to be sympathizing with the idea that stigmatization of pedophiles is unfair, and seems to coincide with what I am arguing for.

Since this debate is specifically about pedophiles themselves, and pedophilia deals with the attraction to children, their points about child pornography and child molestation don't apply in this debate. Now, they did bring up an interesting point about child pornography, which is that, if not for its existence, there would be fewer people who discover they are attracted to children. However, my question is this: did the child pornography come about due to the demand for it and people were already attracted to children, or did the child pornography cause people to determine they are attracted to children? I think it's a little bit of both. There were already pedophiles who probably discovered they were attracted to children before viewing child pornography. I can think of several times where they could discover this: if they have a sibling that is significantly younger than them. It's often inevitable, no matter how disgusting we think it is, that someone will end up seeing their siblings naked, or at least partially naked. That seems to just happen whenever you live with someone. If someone who is 7-10 years older than their siblings, they will discover in their late teens that they may be attracted to the body of their younger sibling. A second case where this could happen would be while babysitting. Perhaps the child they are babysitting takes off their clothes or something and they find themselves unable to look away. I also don't think someone needs to be naked to discover you're sexually attracted to them. These discoveries could simply happen by being around children.

Now, let's look at porn in general(I don't mean literally). Porn viewing in general has been found to have positive correlation with how sexually active a person is, but findings suggest that it's not the porn viewing that is causing the sexual activity, but the other way around: the fact the person is more sexually active means they are more likely to watch porn[10] Therefore, I don't think the child porn is actually increasing the liklihood that the pedophile will act out on their attraction, rather, pedophiles who are already acting out on it, or are already planning to, are the ones more likely to look at child porn.

So, I don't believe child porn is having much impact on whether a pedophile will act out on their attraction: they were already planning on it or have done it before viewing child pornography.

Therefore, since there seems to be causation, where the desire for sexual activity leads to an increase in child porn viewings, I contend that majority of pedophiles do not look at child porn since majority do not molest children, as established previously.

So, here is where I would agree with my opponent:
Child molesters should receive stigma
Child porn viewers should receive stigma.

Here's where I disagree with them(or so I thought until they seemed to agree with me as I pointed out)
Pedophiles should not receive the stigma.

Pedophiles are not the same as child molesters or child porn viewers. Some pedophiles do both, but not all. Why should the innovent pedophiles be punished(stigmatized) for what a minority of them do?

I would also like to point out that (likely) child porn viewers are not only pedophiles. There are many minors nation wide who swap nude pictures that would be classified as child porn, for example. These minors would not be considered pedophiles, by the definition I offered, because only older teenagers and adults can be pedophiles. Children cannot be pedophiles. Oh, and speaking of that nude picture swapping, that is ANOTHER way through which someone could discover later in teenage years or adult years that they are attracted to children: if, as a pre-teen, they swapped nudes with someone, and kept those nudes into their adulthood and found that as an adult, they were still attracted to that nude body of that child. So, there are many other ways through which a pedophile could discover they are attracted to children.

Now, I'm not going to offer any sources on pre-teens who swap nude pictures. I think that should be something we all know about by now, especially if we are young adults, and know that other peers swapped pictures themselves. You may have also heard stories where a minor swapped nude pictures and got caught and in trouble with the law for it. I think I don't need to offer sources on this. It should be common knoweldge I think.

Now, I would like to point out that my opponent used pedophilia incorrectly here:
I would have to say then, to prevent more people from being convicted of pedophilia and suffering the negative stigmatization they receive would require preventing and educating people on the act of viewing pornography, the trauma of the victims and the negative aspects of society that exist that allow children to be exploited in the first place.

Look at the part I bolded. No one gets convicted for having an attraction to children. They get convicted for molesting children, collecting child pornography, or distributing child pornography. I want people to stop associating these actions with pedophiles, because not only pedophiles engage in these activities, as I've pointed out.

Current victims, while trying my best not to sound cold, need to accept they committed a crime and seek out help from the places that do exist for them to get help.
Yes, the perpetrators of child molestation or child porn do. I agree with this. Just don't impose this idea on all pedophiles though because majority of them do nothing wrong, which has been my entire point this debate.


As for the history paragraph, the reason was to show that as a society our education and views changed so did our practices, and while early marriages does not account for the molestation of boys which has been a recurring theme in relation to the church (resulting in another unfair stigmatization towards priests),
So you believe that there is unfair stigmatization towards priests, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I am confident that you also believe it is unfair to associate all priests with the few who molest children, correct? If that's the case, then why not apply the same logic to pedophiles? Is it not unfair to associate all pedophiles with the few who molest children? Is it not unfair to stigmatize them for what the minority of pedophiles do?


Over all, I believe we need to help pedophiles, not stigmtize them. Help them come to terms with their attraction, and then find ways to allocate energy to other things and deflect the attractions they get towards children through cognitive behavioral therapy. Or, maybe even Specific serotonin reuptake inhibitors can help. According to this article, they can help in sexual disorders[11]. A third option is chemical castration if all else fails. I would use this as a last resort, especially if the person has attractions to other people besides children.

Sources:
[10] http://www.smh.com.au...
[11] https://pro.psychcentral.com...
WhyAbhorReality

Con

I think there may of been an honest mistake made there, my sentence "which in time should lead to no more stigmatization of pedophilia as hopefully it will no longer exist." was actually referring to pedophilia no longer existing, my whole argument is based around how the stigma should continue existing.

My other arguments also were to show how our culture has people that stigmatize every minority in our culture, some for things that are not even illegal like the transgender cases. Stigma exists in society for people that murder or rape, rightfully so, stigma therefore should also exist for anything criminal - for which pedophilia, in all of its forms, is.

Better education and improvements in culture are needed to eradicate the problem of extremists, however for something as sensitive as child abuse, there is no escaping the inevitable stigma that is going to come from communities that are more susceptible to extreme views and actions. It is unfair, but it is not something that means stigma surrounding pedophiles should go away, this isn't something to be normalized in the public imagination like transgender or homosexuality, it is a crime that needs to cease.

As for the arguments made surrounding child pornography, I fully disagree that any influence would arise from being around other children at a young age. If in any circumstances incestual attractions occur then it would be an isolated psychiatric problem, I would guess not common enough to come close to the numbers of pedophiles there are. Pedophilia is a bad evolutionary trait of our society, existing in pedophilia circles long before we had photography and the circulation of such imagery would have come from the same people and led to countless more abuses. There is no justification to be made for any such imagery or allowance for the attraction, not with our current ethical and scientific understanding of children's psychological development, at least without significant preexisting mental health conditions. Ignorance isn't an argument in any other crime, as I once found out when dropping a cigarette cost me 75 quid.

As for porn having a positive correlation it also has studies showing it decreases sexual stimulation and pushes a completely false take on what sex is all about, or really like in most cases. Advertising on television is tailor made through countless studies of how imaginations are shaped by what you see so your mind will remember "such a product" when it comes to wanting that particular item. That shows that there is a link to be made already, like in my previous argument i mentioned, seeing death desensitizes you to it, therefore so would watching any other criminal act if it brought you pleasure. It would certainly lead to more people doing it, and can be seen from how there's been in an increase in other popular sexual activities from porn seen in society.

For someone to be accused of being sexually attracted to children, my guess would be they would have to have been caught viewing it, or acting on it. Otherwise if the problem exists in someone who has not acted on it, then awareness needs to be around that these people should get help, discreetly. You wouldn't announce on a speaker you had murderous thoughts about a neighbor, neither should you to that. If more awareness was around to begin with then maybe the condition wouldn't occur. For example, if you believed murder was inexcusable and such a horrible ordeal for the families that have to go through it, and the witnesses, not to mention the victim etc - my guess is you would not want to do it. The same view should be instantly recognized in pedophilia, it is a crime after all and the harm it causes is there for all to see.

With the priests, again I point to the issues in society that have always existed when people are less informed, and the ignorant viewpoints that they can develop. Religion gets a lot of stick to begin with, no more so from me, but I do believe it is unfair for all priests to be labelled pedophiles because of the actions of a few. However there is no crime in being a priest, so those who get accused are being accused solely because they belong to the same religious body and are actually not guilty of anything. In that case I believe that particular cultural stigma is not really the same.

As for your final paragraph I agree that help should exist for these people, but removing the stigma from them is like asking people not to stigmatize rapists, or terrorists as it is in fact a horrific and comparable crime. Perhaps what is needed is a re-education of the term pedophilia for the people that exhibit this attraction, but are not viewers of pornography or molesters. I do not think many people would fall under this new classification to be honest.
Also agree with CBT or other neurological approaches to help them. The ultimate goal in my opinion though should be to end the rings that distribute the material, remove the material from circulation and continue to improve education about why it is wrong, both in terms of pedophilia and the consequences of extreme stigmatization of all people.
Debate Round No. 3
Capitalistslave

Pro

...was actually referring to pedophilia no longer existing, my whole argument is based around how the stigma should continue existing.
Ah, it was a little ambiguously written. Sorry for the mistake.

I'll address both of these below quotes by my opponent though:

Stigma exists in society for people that murder or rape, rightfully so, stigma therefore should also exist for anything criminal - for which pedophilia, in all of its forms, is.
And:
It is unfair, but it is not something that means stigma surrounding pedophiles should go away, this isn't something to be normalized in the public imagination like transgender or homosexuality, it is a crime that needs to cease.

But pedophilia isn't a crime. If you're going to claim that the attraction to young children is a crime, you need to provide evidence it is, such as the specific law that makes pedophilia a crime. There are laws that make child molestation a crime and viewing/creating child porn is a crime. The stigma should exist for child molestors and child porn viewers, but why for pedophiles who do neither of these things? Having attraction to children is NOT a crime. You haven't explained why pedophiles themselves should have the stigma. You've explained why child molestors and child porn viewers should, but why all pedophiles?

I fully disagree that any influence would arise from being around other children at a young age.
I don't think I argued for this. Looking back, I don't see where you got that I suggested the liklihood to watch child porn arises from being around other children at a young age. What I did say was that while you are a child, and you swap nude pictures, if you have those nude pictures while you go into adulthood, you may acquire an attraction to that nude picture of a child.

There is no justification to be made for any such imagery or allowance for the attraction
Well, we can try to treat pedophilia. I am an advocate of that.

Re: Porn desensitizes and leads people to possibly do the acts they see in porn
I decided to summarize what you were saying since the quote would be too long. I bold when I do this.
Now, as I said though, those who choose to watch porn are those who are sexually active already and more likely to do things that are seen as odd to some people sexually. The pedophiles who watch child porn are the ones who already want to molest children. A vast majority of pedophiles don't watch child porn, I would say based off of what I concluded earlier.

For someone to be accused of being sexually attracted to children, my guess would be they would have to have been caught viewing it, or acting on it.
However, there are things people pick up on. There are many physical displays that occur when someone is attracted to someone. A person can accuse someone of being a pedophile just based off of them showing these outward displays that indicate they are attracted to a child around them.

If more awareness was around to begin with then maybe the condition wouldn't occur. For example, if you believed murder was inexcusable and such a horrible ordeal for the families that have to go through it, and the witnesses, not to mention the victim etc - my guess is you would not want to do it.
The problem is that for some people, it's difficult to control their urges. Child molesters may very well recognize the potential harm they will cause to the child and families of the child, but if they are put in tempting situations, it becomes increasingly difficult to resist and you act in the moment. As for the "condition" not occuring if there was belief these things were inexcusable, I think this is false. As evidence by how majority of pedophiles also suffer from depression and low self-esteem, they probably do recognize it is a terrible thing to do a child. That doesn't stop them from having the attraction though, or have thoughts enter into their heads about sex with a child or whatever.

Now, I am personally a believer in determinism and that free will does not exist. So, I view it that it often isn't the choice of the child molester to molest the child. I was going to discuss more about this, but I feel like it would be getting off-topic. If you disagree with me, perhaps we can have a debate on free will and determinism.

The same view should be instantly recognized in pedophilia, it is a crime after all and the harm it causes is there for all to see.
Pedophilia isn't a crime... as I said previously.

Religion gets a lot of stick to begin with, no more so from me, but I do believe it is unfair for all priests to be labelled pedophiles because of the actions of a few.
This isn't the only reason it's wrong to label them as pedophiles: 35% of people who molest children aren't even pedophiles! You need to stop connecting pedophillia with child molestation. Pedophilia is not a good factor for determining whether someone will molest a child. Less than a third of pedophiles even molest children, and 35% of child molestors are not pedophiles. Sure, there is an increased chance someone will molest a child if they're a pedophile, this is true, but they are far more likely to not do it than they are to do it.

Perhaps what is needed is a re-education of the term pedophilia for the people that exhibit this attraction, but are not viewers of pornography or molesters. I do not think many people would fall under this new classification to be honest.
Why don't you think people would fall under this new classification? As I pointed out, a vast majority of pedophiles don't molest children, and through the logic of how the people who usually act out on their sexual urges are more likely to view pornography, I made the connection that it's likely mostly the pedophiles who molest children who even consume the child pornography. Therefore, it would also likely be the case that a majority of pedophiles do not view child pornography.

You haven't offered any reason to believe that many pedophiles wouldn't fall under this "new classification", whereas I have.

Conclusions:
My opponent has only offered reason to stigmatize child molesters and child porn viewers. They haven't offered reasons why pedophiles as a whole need to be stigmatized. I've offered reasons why not all pedophiles deserve the stigmatization by bringing up how a vast majority of pedophiles don't molest children, and thus that likely a vast majority of them don't view child pornography. A vast majority are law-abiding citizens who suffer from major depression likely due to having their sexual disorder and from stigma society holds for them. I have offered strong sources for my facts, including a few scientific studies. My opponent hasn't provided any sources or supporting evidence as of yet. For these reasons, I believe voters should clearly vote for me for both convincing arguments and sources.

Thank you for this debate.

Note: I would like to remind my opponent that they have, as of yet, waived a round from argument. One of the agreed upon rules was that we each would not use one round for argument. So, I would suggest you use round 4 for waiving the argument, or else this would be reason for voters to vote for me in conduct as well. You're allowed to offer a conclusions section, kind of like the one I did at the end of this one, if you want. I don't mind that. Just no more rebuttals or arguments please. Thank you.
WhyAbhorReality

Con

Conclusion:
My opponent does not seem to recognize my arguments about the attraction of pedophilia being as bad as the act, where as someone who views child pornography and then develops the attraction actually has an excuse for the condition that is not a pre-existing mental condition. Also the assertions that having pictures from a young age can trigger the condition and make people unable to control their sexual urges; pedophiles who watch child porn are the ones who already want to molest children; and that pedophiles 'struggling' with their urges may be likely to act, despite them also not watching child porn. These arguments to me do not hold up to closer inspection.

I do not dispute my opponents arguments that there is a mental condition where there are pedophiles that do not act or view it. I do stand by my argument that the amount of those people that have this rare disorder and are not influenced through the societal problems that exist, such as pornography, are a minority and can only prove they didn't view it by saying they didn't which I doubt many would admit. There is nothing to normalize due to the condition causing harm to others, but to treat and better educate to prevent it from even being a thought. People who get urges to kill are treated as needing treatment, so are pedophiles, the goal is not to accept their condition as a non stigmatized problem, a normalized attitude in any way would endorse it.

I may have broken the rules there I'm not sure, although there a fallacy arguments I could make also if I were being pedantic lol, I do not believe sources were required for my arguments due to the argument only requiring me to show why "Pedophiles should not be stigmatized as they are today." is a false statement.

I leave it up to the reader to decide. Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 9 months ago
Capitalistslave
I have most of my round 2 arguments done, and will have it ready within the next 6 hours. You won't have to wait too much longer.
Posted by Capitalistslave 9 months ago
Capitalistslave
WhyAbhorReality: That seems to be a position that differs enough from mine. However, to make things clear, this isn't a debate about what the punishment for child molestation is. Child molestation and pedophilia are two different things. The former is punishable, the latter is not. What you should specifically argue is that most or all of the stigmatization that pedophiles get is justified. You can focus on "why pedophilia should be opposed" as you put if you want. Just keep in mind: don't mix pedophilia up with child molestation. Again, the two things are completely different, and people often conflate the two. If you make that mistake in the debate, don't expect me to not point it out. I warned you now lol.

Again, if any of this makes it that you don't want to debate, let me know, and we can have this debate cancelled.
Posted by WhyAbhorReality 9 months ago
WhyAbhorReality
I agree with all your terms and rules and agree with your definition of stigmatize. I also agree and acknowledge the problems that exist in society for people who have been convicted and accused of pedophilia, and of course the very important connection with psychology. I feel as though the argument doesn't adequately explain what I am arguing for, so I will keep my first reply in the debate brief with a basic outline of my argument. I agree stigmatization by small minorities in the extreme make it bad and that the actual definition of stigmatization can make it a dangerous thing, my argument would be in favor of no change in laws in penalties or incrimination of pedophiles but a continued effort to teach a deeper and more widely accepted understanding of why the condition exists and why it must be strictly opposed. I will outline this a little clearer in my first reply. Does that sound acceptable?
I also wish I had a different topic for my first debate haha! I will need to read up a little on some of the knowledge I do know, it's not a subject I read about very often haha. Will reply shortly.
Posted by Capitalistslave 9 months ago
Capitalistslave
And here's a definition of stigmatize while we're at it: "Describe or regard as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval."

Source:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Posted by Capitalistslave 9 months ago
Capitalistslave
Oh, and I got the definition from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Forgot to cite that.
Posted by Capitalistslave 9 months ago
Capitalistslave
I forgot to define terms, but here is a definition of pedophile I wish to use:

Pedophilia: a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

Thus a pedophile is someone with said psychiatric disorder.

Let me know if you agree to the definition of that term. Thanks!
No votes have been placed for this debate.