The Instigator
kastanj
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Pedophilia is not wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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...
kastanj
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,428 times Debate No: 24655
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (10)

 

kastanj

Pro

Definition:
The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines pedophilia as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

My claim:
When not taking the effect of how our society views that sexual preference into consideration, neither the pedophile or those who share the pedophile's surroundings will be negatively affected by pedophilia itself in any other way than sexual preferences accepted by society are.

You can use whatever definition of "wrong" and "negative" you had before the debate as long as it doesn't cover a duty of not being a pedophile. Can't really have this debate before deontological ethics otherwise (which you can feel free to challenge me in).

Round 1 is for acceptance.
Round 2 is for presenting main arguments.
Round 3 is for disputing each others main arguments.
Round 4 is for conclusions and responses to round 3.
ConservativePolitico

Con

I accept.

"When not taking the effect of how our society views that sexual preference into consideration, neither the pedophile or those who share the pedophile's surroundings will be negatively affected by pedophilia itself in any other way than sexual preferences accepted by society are."

This was a little unclear but from what I understand you're trying to say is that pedophilia is not wrong outside of society thinking that it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that assumption.
Debate Round No. 1
kastanj

Pro

That's not what I was trying to say.

I was saying that outside the consequences from society thinking pedophilia is wrong, pedophilia isn't wrong. Children and pedophiles can be negatively affected by their environments from being labeled as "victims of pedophilia" or "pedophiles". Pedophilia is then wrong in the context that it makes society harm the ones involved. I'm not taking this into consideration in the debate, since I'm not willing to assume that pedophilia is wrong from he sole reason that society does think it is, and would argue that society is wrong in having that assumed negative view of pedophilia.

Main argument:

Pedophiles are probably more likely to sexually assault children than others. I would not say that makes pedophilia wrong, it's the sexual assault that's wrong. As a pedophile you can still choose not to sexually assault children just as someone who isn't a pedophile has the choice to not sexually assault anyone else.

Assuming that deceiving someone while prioritizing their own benefit before someone else's is wrong, it's probably wrong to act pedophilia out even when the prepubertal child claims to not be against it, since most of them aren't yet intelligent enough to always decide what's good and what isn't for themselves. Then they can easily become victims of that kind of deception from the pedophile. Then it's once again not the pedophilia that is wrong, it's the "deceiving someone while prioritizing their own benefit before someone else's".

My point with this is that pedophilia isn't about what pedophiles usually do or don't do. It's about having that sexual preference, and only that. Having a certain sexual orientation can lead to dramatic consequences, but the connection to the dramatic consequences aren't forced by the fact that they have that certain sexual preference.

So far I have argued why reasons I could think others have a negative view of pedophilia, isn't adequate. I still have to argue why pedophilia itself isn't wrong.

Stripping down pedophilia to the definition I provided makes it a certain sexual preference. The differences in how wrong different sexual preferences are, can't be attributed to any other than forced effects from having that sexual preference (Also assuming that the definition of "wrong" isn't influenced by deontological ethics), which I'd say it's sound to assume that there are none. I illustrated reasons for that earlier in this text.
ConservativePolitico

Con

My opponent's argument is basically this: feeling the sexual urge of a pedophile is not wrong, only the actions that come of this feeling are wrong.

However, pedophilia is wrong because it is unnatural. In human society people are ready to reproduce and have sex around the age of 18, in nature humans reach this point around 15 or 16. Your definition of a pedophile means that they are attracted to people who have not yet reached this stage of development.

immoral - not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics; lascivious [1]

Pedophilia is immoral because it goes against both the accepted behavior in both nature and society and because it is lascivious meaning it is based completely in lust and lewdness. A grown man cannot have a relationship with a child because the child has not developed enough to have a relationship. The man does not want anything emotional from the child, it's purely sexual which then fits it into the definition of immoral AKA wrong.

Also, pedophilia is a "sexual orientation" that can never be acted upon. Children are not ready for sexual actions or relations. Whenever children are subjected to sex before they're ready it damages them. Like I said before, any such relationship would have to be purely sexual which would cause damage to the subject every time.

In this way, pedophilia is wrong. There is no way to act upon it without being unacceptable in both nature and society. It is damaging to the subject of the feeling every time. How can such a feeling not be wrong when it only causes immorality and destruction?

Pedophilia - the feeling not the action - fits the definition of immoral and is therefore wrong. Nothing good or right comes from the feeling of pedophilia.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
kastanj

Pro

I see three main arguments here:

(1) It's unnatural, therefore wrong.
(2) It's not usually accepted by society, therefore immoral.
(3) It's lascivious, therefore immoral.


(1) Statements of fact describe the way that the world is, and statements of value describe the way that the world ought to be. These types of statements are fundamentally different. Argument (1) is describing a way that the world is, and draws a conclusion about how the world ought to be.
Arguments are flawed if they introduce completely new terms in their conclusions. This is an example:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a philosopher.

This argument is clearly invalid; the conclusion obviously doesn’t follow from the premises. This is because the conclusion contains the idea of being a philosopher, which isn’t contained in the premises; the premises say nothing about being a philosopher, and so can't establish a conclusion about being a philosopher.
Argument (1) is arguably flawed in exactly the same way. An argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be, introduce a new term in the conclusion in just the same way as the above example. Argument (1) is as follows:

Pedophilia is not natural.
Therefore, pedophilia is wrong.

This argument moves from a statement of fact to a value judgement. The argument’s premise simply describes the way that the world is, asserting that pedophilia isn't natural. To describe the way that the world is, though, is to say nothing of the way that it ought to be, since that would be introducing a completely new term in the conclusion. The argument’s conclusion, then, which is a value judgement, can't be supported by its premises.

What is, and what isn't natural is also arguable. The bonobo primate doesn't only have sexual contact related to reproduction. Sexual contact with other bonobos that aren't yet fertile is common. [1]

(2) Con says that pedophilia fits with the definition of immoral he provided (not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics) because pedophilia is usually deemed as wrong in our society. Con claims that something immoral is wrong, so pedophilia would be wrong if it's immoral.

Immorality by the definition Con provided is a statement of fact. It's not relevant to if something is right or wrong since it's only a description of what social establishments think is right or wrong. What the "patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principle of personal and social ethics" are, is a description of the world. It is morality in a descriptive sense, which isn't relevant to if something actually is right or wrong. [2]

Argument (2) is then another example of having a statement of fact and making a conclusion in a statement of value. It's describing a way that the world is, and draws a conclusion about how the world ought to be. In the same way explained in my response to Argument (1).

That's why it would be incorrect to draw the conclusion that pedophilia is wrong from the premise that it is immoral in this descriptive sense.

(3) Because of the character limit, I will expand my response to Argument (3) in the next round, since this may not be satisfying.

Pedophilia is a certain sexual preference, even accepted sexual preferences are strictly sexual and can therefore not be based on anything other than lust and lewdness.

Even if pedophilia would be immoral from being lascivious, accepted sexual preferences would then be as well. Argument (3) would then no longer be relevant for the resolution (see: "in any other way than sexual preferences accepted by society are" from round 1).

Thank you for this debate, looking forward to your response!

Sources:
[1] http://www2.hu-berlin.de...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
ConservativePolitico

Con

1. My opponent has completely strawmanned my argument. His philosophy analogy is nothing like the argument I put forward.

In nature children cannot have sex. People desiring to have sex with children are therefore desiring something that cannot be naturally given to them nor can they obtain it by force. Children cannot naturally desire sex before their natural time and therefore cannot reciprocate the pedophile's feelings. You oversimplified my arguments in order to try and strawman them.

While the premise is that pedophilia is merely unnatural, it goes beyond that. It requires a mind that wants to do something damaging to an innocent child. It requires a mind that desires something unnatural and unobtainable without crossing the line into the realms of abuse, molestation or even rape. Because of these things that always accompany the condition of pedophilia I must continue to argue that pedophilia is wrong.

2. Since my opponent thinks my previous definition of immoral is tied too heavily to the values of society let's take this definition in its stead.

immoral - sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous [1]

As I've stated before, the natural course of things is that sex is used for reproduction. Children cannot reproduce. Therefore, desiring sex with children is a desire that is fed only by the need for sexual pleasure which in this case, fits the bill for the definition of immoral. The word "wrong" as used in the resolution is a word associated with the terms "right and wrong" when being used for moral judgement. When something is "wrong" in this case, that means that the topic labeled as such is not moral or immoral.

Pedophilia fits this definition of immoral and is therefore wrong.

3. "even accepted sexual preferences are strictly sexual and can therefore not be based on anything other than lust and lewdness."

This is simply not true. My sexual preference is heterosexual, meaning I like women. But that doesn't just mean I want to have sex with women, it means am willing and want a romantic intimate relationship with women as well. Sexual preference goes beyond just sex. I would never have a romantic and intimate relationship with a man because I am not homosexual but this is something derived from an emotional perspective and not a sexual one.

Since children are not capable of desiring or participating in romantic and intimate relationships we have to assume again that either the pedophile merely wants to engage in sexual intercourse with the child or that they want a relationship with them, something they cannot obtain.

Again, we see the pedophile desiring something from the child that the child cannot ever produce. This want is either derived from something solely sexual or something unnatural in the mind of the pedophile.

Recap:

* Pedophilia is unnatural
* Pedophiles cannot obtain what they desire from children without damaging them or going outside of what both society and nature intends
* Sexual preferences go beyond just sex in most cases but cannot go beyond sex in the case of pedophiles
* Pedophilia meets multiple definitions of immoral and is therefore wrong

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 3
kastanj

Pro

Con continues to adhere to the idea: what is natural is relevant to what is right and wrong, without explaining why my argument against that isn't enough to dispute it. I will therefore deem what is natural and what isn't as irrelevant to what is right and wrong until the argument in (1) from round 3 is disputed. If you wonder why I didn't reply to something Con just wrote, I probably interpreted it as an argument based on that naturalistic foundation.

I will reply to his post in the same numbering used by Con.

1. Analysis of the argument:

Premise A: Pedophilia requires a mind that wants to hurt the child.

Premise B: Pedophilia requires a mind that desires something that is unobtainable without sexual abuse.

Conclusion: Pedophilia is wrong.

Premise A: I'm sure we can agree on that there are plenty of pedophiles out there, that doesn't act upon their sexual preference because they fear it would hurt the child. We could probably agree on that more pedophiles would rather act upon their sexual preference if they knew it wouldn't hurt anyone. How can you agree with this and still hold Premise A as true?

Being a pedophile means that you have a sexual preference towards children, if a pedophile also wants to hurt the child, he is not only a pedophile. One would still be considered a pedophile if you didn't want to hurt the child, so it's not relevant to pedophilia.

Premise B: I will illustrate the irrelevance of this premise to the conclusion, so even though I could argue for why Premise B isn't true, it's sufficient to show that the argument is invalid.

Imagine a man for who sex with a certain woman that doesn't want to have sex him is unattainable without sexual abuse. This man wants to have sex with her. Is his desire for sex with her wrong?

I'm sure you could imagine a scenario here where it would be wrong to you, but if you give it some though, I'm sure you can think of a scenario based on this where the desire wouldn't be wrong, even to you.

Imagine an evil game (perhaps easier to imagine if you have seen the movie "Saw") where a man and a woman gets abducted. They are put in a confined room and an evil game host explains that if the man doesn't sexually abuse the woman, he won't get any food and will starve to death. He becomes hungry. Is his desire for food wrong?


2. and 3. I will reply to these two in the same text, since both should be cleared up with the same answer.

I think we use the word "sexual preference" differently. I use it in its literal sense, a preference of sexuality, who you show your sexual interest towards.

Having more sexual interest towards a certain group (children, opposite sex, same sex) than another, gives you the sexual preference towards that certain group.

If you also want a romantic intimate relationship with that group, then you have not only a sexual preference but a romantic, or emotional preference as well towards it.

In the separation of the terms "sexual preference" and "romantic preference", you would still be heterosexual if you only had that sexual preference towards the opposite sex. Just like you would still be a pedophile if you only had a sexual preference towards children.

Separating these terms, Con is welcome to argue against (3) from round 3 again, since his arguments against it so far aren't relevant if this separation is made.

Even if you would claim that you couldn't have a romantic preference towards the opposite sex without having a sexual preference towards it, it's still true that you do have that sexual preference and pedophilia couldn't be more immoral in the sense of the newly provided definition of immoral than any other sexual preference.
ConservativePolitico

Con

1. Yes, you need a mind that wishes to hurt a child. The conscious mind can maybe refrain from acting upon the whims of the body and the subconscious mind but that doesn't change the fact that subconsciously a pedophile desires something that is harmful to children.

Something that subconsciously makes one desire an action and/or experience that will damage children goes against both society and nature where children are held in the highest regard. This lends itself to pedophilia being wrong. It goes against the natural order. It is destructive on a subconscious level.

In response to your "Premise B" the difference here is that sex with an attractive woman is not psychologically damaging to the woman. I'm not talking about sexual abuse, don't strawman me. If a pedophile has sex with a child under any circumstances the child will be damaged either physically or emotionally. It's an inevitability. However, sex with a woman will not damage the woman under most circumstances. Therein lies the difference.

2. The argument about sexual preference spiraled out of the realm of relative. The point is, if you're attracted to children it isn't right. It is a preference that is unnatural and harmful. I'm sure there are plenty of pedophiles who want to do more than just have sex with children, that doesn't make it better it actually makes it worse.

I want to keep this conclusion short so I'll wrap up.

* Pedophilia fits the definition of wrong and immoral - my opponent didn't even refute this assertion I made
* Sex with children is always damaging
* Pedophiles desire sex with children and therefore indirectly desire hurting them
* Pedophilia is lewd and immoral
* Pedophilia is wrong

I think I have made a strong case as to why pedophilia is indeed wrong.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rockyyyy 4 years ago
Rockyyyy
ANY individual that says pedophilia is not wrong,is a pedophile. Children cannot agree to any sexual advances from an ADULT... Children & Adults do not have sexual relations its sick.
Posted by ccsimms 4 years ago
ccsimms
I think that there are two different arguments here. Pro - Being a Pedophile is not wrong; Con - Pedophilia is wrong. I was originally siding with Pro because his arguments were better, but the debate is about pedophilia, not about being a pedophile, so Con wins.
Posted by kastanj 4 years ago
kastanj
I understand if you felt it was rude, but I still think it's for a good cause.
Posted by kastanj 4 years ago
kastanj
The purpose of this debate is not to have a "duel" in debating, it's about sharing arguments for and against the resolution of the debate and ideas about why conventional views may be looked upon with a critical mind and partly practice in arguing for me. That's why I PM you and others about the debate afterwards, continuing to ask questions and try to reach a point where we can agree. Trying to understand where we disagree and why. You haven't responded in a while though.

You are welcome to correct me in that previous comment if you think some part of it may give others a distorted view on the debate. I want to reach a conclusion in the question, which doesn't seem to be in your main interest.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Dude you can't clarify things in the comments post debate. That's not how it works.

Technically you can be Disqualified for trying that.
Posted by kastanj 4 years ago
kastanj
It seems like I haven't been clear enough in my arguments, to get the message out, or just wrong. I will try to make some things more clear and perhaps you will see the result of the debate in a new light. I'll try not to bring any new arguments in here.

I will show why I think Con haven't supported the claims he made sufficiently:

(1) Pedophilia fits the definition of wrong and immoral
(2) Sex with children is always damaging
(3) Pedophiles desire sex with children and therefore indirectly desire hurting them
(1) Pedophilia is lewd and immoral
(1,2,3) Pedophilia is wrong

(1) How does Con defend the position that all other seuxal preferences aren't immoral as well in that definition? I made a distinction between a sexual preference and a romantic preference, if this distincion is made, Con did not defend the argument that because of this, all other sexual preferences would be immoral as well, which is sufficient to support my claim in round 1.

(2) How is the sexual preference towards children harmful? I think we can agree on that it isn't the desire itself that is harmful, but actions. Those actions are separate from what we agreed on that pedophilia is, a certain sexual preference. Molestation and sexual abuse is harmful, but just because you are a pedophile, doesn't mean you will molest or sexually abuse someone, does it?
Posted by kastanj 4 years ago
kastanj
The mindset of a molester is different from the pedophiles. The pedophile wants sex, the molester want to force sex. So unless the pedophile is a molester as well, the pedophile doesn't want to force sex upon children, and therein lies the difference.

I also argued that any psychological damage done to the child when the child doesn't feel forced into anything, is because of how society views pedophilia and "victims of pedophilia".

Con didn't refute my arguments.

Con continued to adhere to the idea: what is natural is relevant to what is right and wrong, without explaining why my argument against that isn't enough to dispute it.

(3) Con claims that pedophilia is wrong because any way you would have sex with the child it woud be damaging. And since you desire something that is always damaging, it is wrong. (*)

In this illustration, I showed that just because you desire something that would have harmful effects acted upon, doesn't mean that that desire is wrong in itself.

I wrote: Imagine a man for who sex with a certain woman that doesn't want to have sex him is unattainable without sexual abuse. This man wants to have sex with her. Is his desire for sex with her wrong?

I also made an illustration about the desire of food, in which both cases, the desires would be wrong using Cons reasoning (*)

Con responds: the difference here is that sex with an attractive woman is not psychologically damaging to the woman. I'm not talking about sexual abuse, don't strawman me.

Con is talking about sexual abuse when it's about children, at least something that is damaging to children. Sexual abuse is an example and the illustrations are accurate and shows that the desire of something that would be harmful to act upon isn't wrong. What Con responded is therefore irrelevant to the point I was making.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
...well damn. I looked at this thinking it was one of those rediculous topics posted by noobs but this was a really good debate.
Posted by BennyW 4 years ago
BennyW
This is what I see, pro has pedophelic feelings so in order to justify them, starts this debate. This is obvious due to his vague resemblance to Einstein. All joking aside though, I could see pedophilia being a sexual orientation and the real problem is the action.
Posted by Theofractus 4 years ago
Theofractus
In my view, Pro is clearly the more precise of the contenders in his logical analysis. For that reason, I choose to comment on some points in his reasoning, which I find the most interesting.
1) First what I consider to be an inconsistency in an otherwise logically flawless argument.
In Round 2, Pro states that :
«Children and pedophiles can be negatively affected by their environments from being labeled as "victims of pedophilia" or "pedophiles". Pedophilia is then wrong in the context that it makes society harm the ones involved.»
If a pedophile doesn't act his pedophilia out in any way, there would be no children involved, so it seems that Pro here includes some actions into the concept of pedophilia itself (which is also supported by the definition given in the opening of Round 1 (…adult personality and behaviour).
Pro here also states that he won't take into consideration the fact that pedophilia makes society harm the ones involved, which further indicates that he in this paragraph includes some actions into the concept we discuss.
But later in his argument, Pro talks about pedophilia as purely a mental state, see the paragraph opening with «My point with this is…»
2) I refer to the paragraph in Round 2 beginning with «Assuming that deceiving..».
If the pedophile seriously thinks that his «relationship» with the child is beneficial also for the child, it would be false to say that he deceives the child. I'm not a historian, but as far as I know, in ancient Athens that was not an uncommon view, and I would think that also today you would find some pedophiles who honestly share that belief. While I, like most others, would argue that that view is absolutely false, it shows that the «deceive» argument isn't valid as general argument agains pedophilia.
(Continued in my other comment)
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Wnope 4 years ago
Wnope
kastanjConservativePoliticoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used fairly weak arguments against pedophilia and allowed Pro to cast the argument by separating the morality of the state of "being a pedophile" from the act of pedophilia. This can largely be blamed on Con's almost entirely intuitively based definitions of morality which were easily susceptible to the is-ought dilema and counterfactuals. Con could have won through casting morality in a utiltarian or harm-based lens and probably won. Con's insistence on brute moral assertions were fatal.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
kastanjConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought this was going to be an easy Con win but Pro was able to show that pedophilia by itself isn't "wrong" but rather acting on those impulses is wrong. Con argues that it is unnatural which is easily broken apart by Pro who shows that there is no corelation between "natural" and "wrong." While pedophilia is most certainly wrong, Pro had vastly superior arguments making this an easy Pro win.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
kastanjConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: P's arguments clearly rested on a dichotomy between the preference, derived from his definition, and nature of the act, whereas Con, unfortunately, tried to bridge the two in diluting and extending his argument to it. Moreover, in appealing to the natural power as arbiter, as well as standards of society as marks of morality, Con (on a general note) was unable to leave the two justified and failed to provide the bridge between his world fact to a subjective view (ex. unnatural to wrong), etc.
Vote Placed by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
kastanjConservativePoliticoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The Fool: it is clear that kastanj was arguing that Pedophilia was not wrong in itself, but that harming someone was wrong. I don't think Con was able to under the difference between what exactly counts the morally wronging. Cons Sex with children is always damaging Pedophiles desire sex with children and therefore indirectly desire hurting them. Was never demonstrated. with rational argument. It was assumped by popularity.
Vote Placed by 000ike 4 years ago
000ike
kastanjConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro explicitly outlined the difference with pedophilia and enactment of pedophilia, yet Con proceeded to confuse them in his Round 2 argument. Con's argument also failed under the naturalistic fallacy in which he appealed to nature as the arbiter of ethics. And this argument failed on its own terms since pedophilia is caused by nature and biology. On the basis of argumentation, Con did little to defeat Pro's case.
Vote Placed by jwesbruce 4 years ago
jwesbruce
kastanjConservativePoliticoTied
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: Okay so I told Kastanj I would give the debate another gander and be more specific. Looking at it again I see the same thing. Being a pedophile does not mean your going to abuse someone or molest them. However, I still do not see any good reason not to believe--The actions of a pedophile that make the person a pedophile, per definition, is what harms children, mentally. This is articulated in premise B by Politico, and I'm not wholly convinced by the "desire for food wrong" analysis offered.
Vote Placed by SANTORUM2012 4 years ago
SANTORUM2012
kastanjConservativePoliticoTied
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: Con succesfully rebuttaled all of pros arguments. He gave a clear definition of immoral and painted a far better picture. Although pro had some thought provoking arguments, con gets the vote.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
kastanjConservativePoliticoTied
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: Con showed although some sexual actions with minors have aspects of consent, or are fully consentual, that in the long run it is damaging to children's mental health. He also showed it was lewd, and most pedophiles want to hurt or overtake children. He also showed its unnatural. My vote is self explanatory.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
kastanjConservativePoliticoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument rested on non-value premises but claimed to reach a valuative conclusion which was correctly pointed out by Pro. Also, even if Pro was wrong that Con wasn't arguing from the naturalness or social acceptance of pedophilia, arguing from the idea that pedophilia desires something "unobtainable" or hurtful to children makes the same mistake and Con never properly responded to that point. Con should have inserted an evaluative premise into his argument to bypass this problem.
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
kastanjConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The definition given by Pro not only included sexual preference but more importantly, behavior. Con missed a great opportunity by failing to address how Pros argument dealt with that part of the definition. In the end Con relied on the concept that desire to have sex with children equates to the desire to hurt children. This simply does not follow. Pros case that a person can have the former while choosing not to act on it to avoid the latter is a valid argument not addressed. Good debate though