The Instigator
ReggiePyfrom
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Pedophilia is not a sin

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 5 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,150 times Debate No: 35039
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

ReggiePyfrom

Pro

Pedophilia is not a sin.

There is no minimum age of marriage, no age of consent, and no maximum age gap. In fact, there are no age rules at all.
Ragnar

Con

Thank you Pro for starting this debate. As Con it is my job to refute your arguments, and when possible present my own case against the resolution. If you have any questions about the debate process, please use the comment section (to include if you spot fallacies, but don't know their names [1]).

Definitions (key to all debates, as pro and con must be clearly arguing the same issue):
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary...
  • Pedophilia is "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object" [2].
  • Sin is "an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible sin to waste food>" [3].
(as in instigator pro is welcome to challenge these, taking from any respected dictionary of his choosing)

"Minimum age[s]..." (to clarify points, headings taken from the other sides own words are great)
In most counties there are minimum ages for marriage (arranged marriages not being consummated until adulthood) and sexual consent. This includes national theocracies. Is there a certain area of the world pro wishes to argue?

Sources (the numbering shall continue forward into future rounds, for ease of reference):
[1] http://www.informationisbeautiful.net...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ReggiePyfrom

Pro

I am not sure if I have the right words for the following definitions. You may correct me if I'm wrong.

Pedophilia: Marriage between someone under 18 years old and someone who is more than 2 years older than them.

Sin: Something God tells us not to do.

In several US States, you can marry someone below age 18.
http://pbump.net...

There is no real minimum age for marriage in Pennsylvania and Saudi Arabia.
Ragnar

Con

"Sin: Something God tells us not to do"
I find this simplified definition acceptable (from the source I provided, there were also religiously toned meanings). Shall I assume this debate shall be over the Christian God? Or religions in general? Or is there a different one you have in mind?

"Pedophilia: Marriage between someone under 18 years old and someone who is more than 2 years older than them."
I disagree with this definition, mainly due to specifying such a late age for children. Please cite a dictionary.

More Definitions:
  • Children are "a young person especially between infancy and youth" [4].
  • Youth is "the time of life when one is young; especially: the period between childhood and maturity" [5].

The exact age of maturity varying person to person, but each culture has expectations on when it should be archived by. Generally I view children as pre-pubescent, and youths as usually teenagers.

"In several US States, you can marry someone below age 18."
The United States is a democratic-republic, instead of a theocracy. Thus the source cited is irreverent so long as your definition for Sin is to remain religious.

"There is no real minimum age for marriage in Pennsylvania"
Semantically true. From US Marriage Laws "Applicants under 16 years of age must have both the written approval of a judge of the Orphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas AND a parent or legal guardian given written consent" [6]. Is this debate to be changed to focus on the judgement of the Orphans' Court Division? Also what cases call their judgement on this into question?

"Saudi Arabia"
A valid argument only if the definitions are selected which match that nation.

Suggestion:
To give you rounds to build your case, we may want to use the comment section to narrow down definitions.

Sources:
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[6] http://www.usmarriagelaws.com...

Debate Round No. 2
ReggiePyfrom

Pro

I am arguing that the Christian God does not prohibit a marriage between a 30 year old and a 10 year old.
Ragnar

Con

Now that we have a clear goal for this debate, let us begin (my comment section suggestion, would have saved you a round, giving you more time to make a case).

The Seven Deadly Sins.
From the biblical book of Proverbs 6:16-19: "These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:" It goes on to specify both "hands that shed innocent blood," and "an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations" [7]. These both fit the definitions of a man bedding a little girl, as it would both require a heart full of wicked imaginations, and almost certainly the shedding of innocent blood.

Sources:
[7] http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 3
ReggiePyfrom

Pro

"a heart full of wicked imaginations"
Prove it.

"the shedding of innocent blood."
Nobody's dying here.
Ragnar

Con

"Prove it."
See round3.
It is not my duty to prove something as sickening as pedophilia to be wicked and otherwise, merely that the it is a sin to Christians. As their holy book the bible speaks against such forms of lust (lust being among the 7 deadly sins).

"Nobody's dying here."
I never specified death, nor did the source I cited.
Debate Round No. 4
ReggiePyfrom

Pro

Pedophilia =/= lust.

Children are harmed by sex because their brain is not fully developed yet.

The brain does not fully develop until age 25.

Something does not compute here.
Ragnar

Con

"Pedophilia =/= lust."
That you believe pedophilia to not be a form of lust, is your opinion which you have given no supporting evidence to back up.

"Children are harmed..."
A decent attempt at a pathos appeal (emotions), yet such was never in question. Thus irrelevant to this debate.

"...age 25."
Utterly irrelevant. Doubly so since the resolution was changed to one you could more easily support of "the Christian God does not prohibit a marriage between a 30 year old and a 10 year old." Now saying that anyone having relations (perhaps limited to marriage) with someone under 25 (say 24) is a pedophile, seems to really "not compute here."

Conclusion:
My argument of the seven deadly sins stands. According to the bible lust is a sin, in the case of pedophilia that's two sins within the ever-popular seven deadly ones [7]. As legally marriage must be consummated at least once, lust is a required factor within it. Pedophiles are therefore of the worst sinners.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TrollGod 2 years ago
TrollGod
Pro's arguments weren't even arguments... they were mere speculations and opinions. What a fail debater cough Pro cough cough.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
This was a weak showing from me. Granted I clicked accept before thinking of anything solid I know about the bible, that would actually specify that one crime as sinful (not exactly a church person here).
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Uhhm, Ragnar, I see it a bit differently. My view is more like this:

R1. Pro makes blatantly false claims which Con completely destroys. Con wins this round.
R2. Pro provides definitions even though Con already did (and had the right and burden to, since Pro did not in R1.) Con continues to destroy his arguments. Con wins this round.
R3. Both sides assert their own claims with no actual evidence. Tie.
R4. Pro finally starts to actually debate (at least by refuting Con's arguments), but fails to provide any evidence for his position. Meanwhile Con continues to refuse to even clarify what he means, and denies he even has to make an argument. Pro wins this round.
R5. Con still fails to argue, but Pro makes an argument which supports Con's side. Con wins this round.

The first 2 rounds seemed to be the only point where any actual DEBATING occurred, R3 onwards were more just people talking past each other.
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
The debate needs clear definitions.

Both pedophilia and sin were unclear.

"pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13). An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia."[1]

sin according to the Bible
Anything that displeases God [2]

The debate might have included . . .

Pro
There is no place in the Bible where age restrictions are put on marriage. We do know that Abraham was 10 years older than Sarah [3] but there are no other couples in the Bible where both individuals" ages are given. [4]

Con
There are medical, legal and social reasons to oppose pedophilia.
Medical -
Sex with prepubescent children does physical damage. This is not pleasing to God.
Sex with prepubescent children does emotional damage. This is not pleasing to God.
Legal -
The Bible says to obey the laws of the land.[5] It is illegal.
Social -
Adults feel a need to protect children from sexual predators.
The social hostility towards pedophiles is huge.
The Bible says to live at peace with all men [6]

The scriptures tell that a husband must love his wife[7] and that the wife must respect the husband. Both these are difficult to do when one partner is too childish to know adult love or respect.
- Sex with prepubescent children is often about control and not love.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Romans 14:23 - http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3] Genesis 17:17
[4] http://www.gotquestions.org...
[5] Romans 13 - http://www.biblestudytools.com...
[6] Romans 12:18
[7]
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
I have a feeling that Pro is going to be on Chris Hansen's show.
Posted by hightreason 3 years ago
hightreason
I would have voted, but can'r because of the identity verification system. I just checked and was initially excited to see more countries offered, but still no Korea.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
@Voters in general: Probably best to skip rounds 1 and 2, as those were just setup. I encourage you to consider giving pro favorable conduct. He showed bravery in starting this debate; and I aimed pathos insults at him; and drove him crazy enough to change the resolution mid-debate. I also don't believe my sources were significantly better, as in the final debate I only had one.

@Hightreason: I suggest when something is a fail debate, still voting (zero points for either side; or toss in a CVB if needed). I do agree that my argument was pretty weak, refuting pro, but failing to contribute more than an argument by assertion (fallacy)... Basically I said my side is right, because the bible says my side is right; then repeated words used within the quoted portion a lot to fluff it up.
Posted by hightreason 3 years ago
hightreason
both debaters did a positively terrible job.

Pro didn't even define what it was exactly that he wanted to debate until round 3!

And Con's arguments consisted of just silly things like "a man bedding a little girl ... would require a heart full of wicked imaginations" (what does that even mean?) and "It is not my duty to prove something as sickening as pedophilia to be wicked" (actually, that is exactly what you are supposed to be arguing in favor of)

Arguments to neither side.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
It could be turned into an opinion question? Or the forums? Or heck, I'd be fine with continued thoughts on the subject in this comment section.

btw, Pro; you did alright. Your main weakness was not explaining your thought process enough; which caused your argument to feel like unsupported statements, instead of true arguments.
Posted by Sweetapplejuice 3 years ago
Sweetapplejuice
I wish more people can join this debate because..

This is so a con! like so wrong. Pedophilia: An adult who is sexually attracted to children
and children are infancy and adolescence... that's just wrong!

this...has nothing to do with god but...How would YOU like it if your daughter is doing it* with an 60 year old man and she's only 12?

Seriously, if you want to say love between a 22 year old man and a 16 year old girl (or the other way around)
It's still wrong! Because he/she is only 16 still a child, it's like taking advantage of a handicapped! Someone with a mental disablity, it's not like they really know it's right or wrong.

If your someone who's 45 and your in love with an 16 year old girl. You should wait until she's 18/19 whatever is that age when your parents can kick you out of their house "legally!", cus that's when they consider you as an adult! Or whenever you can apply for a credit card and pay for it on your own!

So if you think "Love" should have no boundaries and bring up god/religious to debate on.
Then your using the wrong topic, it should be "Love has no age different" should be the topic.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
ReggiePyfromRagnarTied
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: Pro had the burden of proof. Pro didn't state his resolution until round three, and then he never significantly/detectably argued in favor of it.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
ReggiePyfromRagnarTied
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: I wouldn't have given either side anything here except for that Pro's closing argument supported Con's side.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
ReggiePyfromRagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments at best were indeed unclear, and even worse kettle logic. Con beats him with better sources, more coherent arguments, etc...
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
ReggiePyfromRagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't really put forth a clear position for CON to refute.
Vote Placed by Fictional_Truths1 3 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
ReggiePyfromRagnarTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wiped the floor with him. Better sources, more well thought arguments, all in all, an easy win.