The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
Levi3o4
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

Using a gay activists logic, a pedophile should never be let out of prison.

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 10 votes the winner is...
Levi3o4
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,569 times Debate No: 6385
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (10)

 

sadolite

Pro

It is often said by many gay activists that being gay is not a choice and that people are born that way and cannot help but be gay. If this were true then simple logic dictates that a pedophile is also born that way and they cannot help but be a pedophile. Heterosexuals are born to be heterosexuals and can't help but be heterosexual the same with being bi-sexual. A bi-sexual clearly makes a choice as to their preference on any given day. All of the above are sexual preferences. Why is it a homosexual can not be rehabilitated but a pedophile can. There is no scientific logic here. One can only come to the logical conclusion. If a pedophile can be reformed a homosexual can be reformed. If a homosexual cannot be reformed than a pedophile cannot be reformed. If the later is true then a pedophile should never be let out of prison once they commit an act of pedophilia of any kind. I could find no studies comparing homosexually and pedophilia as it pertains to the context of this debate. But one thing would be painfully obvious. If a pedophile can be rehabilitated then a homosexual can to. One can come to another conclusion in this regard. It is politics that is separating the homosexuals from the pedophiles with regard to the rehabilitation argument. And it is done so at the expense of the children.
Levi3o4

Con

While I agree that there is merit to the idea of pedophilia being punishable by life sentences, I strongly object to my opponent's logial backing for this idea; his argument can best be summed up as, "pedophilia is similar to homosexuality. Homosexuality is not based on choice, so neither is pedophilia. If pedophilia is not based on choice, then once a criminally-inclined pedophile, always a criminally-inclined pedophile." In reality, the argument is about the possibility of "reforming" homosexuals.

I will first highlight a few sentences of my opponent's argument in particular:

"A bi-sexual clearly makes a choice as to their preference on any given day."

Actually, no, a bisexual is attracted to both in general (sometimes leaning towards one gender). It's not a choice of preference, it's an allowance of both - in other words, avoidance of the choice.

"Why is it a homosexual can not be rehabilitated but a pedophile can. There is no scientific logic here. One can only come to the logical conclusion. If a pedophile can be reformed a homosexual can be reformed. If a homosexual cannot be reformed than a pedophile cannot be reformed."

That's like saying, if an orange can be skinned without using a knife, so can an apple, and if an apple cannot be skinned with a knife, then an orange cannot. My opponent's "logical conclusion" relies on a basic similarity between pedophilia and homosexuality that is not there. They do not work on the same system, and what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other. For one thing, one is based on abuse, while the other is not. For another, one is caused more by issues while another by biological factors - though there is enough controversy about the causes of both for me to not use this argument at the moment.

"If the later is true then a pedophile should never be let out of prison once they commit an act of pedophilia of any kind."

Here's the thing: being a pedophile means being sexually attracted to children. This is a BAD THING, but it is not the same as acting on pedophilic urges. A pedophile is not a criminal nor a morally bad person unless they either abuse or attempt to abuse children - in other words, it is possible to be sexually attracted to children at the same time as not DOING anything wrong, which would certainly be part of reforming a pedophile. Therefore, sentencing pedophiles to life sentences would be something done based on the magnitude of the crime, NOT on the likelihood of another crime. The main question here is - should somebody be jailed for potential crimes they may commit? Generally speaking, that's what intensive therapy is for. Do I believe that acts of pedophilia should result in life sentences? In some cases, I definitely do. Do I believe that a non-life sentence can be justifiably extended to a life sentence as a precaution? Definitely not. There are already precautions in place for convicted pedophiles - registries, prohibitions, etc. Jail as a precaution is an unacceptable corruption of the justice system.

"It is politics that is separating the homosexuals from the pedophiles with regard to the rehabilitation argument."

No, it's science and logic. I'm going to skimp out on the science here, because any sources we throw at each-other will be immediately rejected (though if my opponent is willing to play that game, I'll certainly join in in round 2). Here's the logic, though. Homosexuality is revolves around a relationship between two consenting adults. Children are in no way involved. Nobody is harmed, unless they haven't taken precautions, but because they're consenting adults, that's their own fault. In other words, homosexuality is victimless. Pedophilia, however, is just another form of rape. That's not politics, that's thinking.

"And it is done so at the expense of the children."

The statement comes immediately following the last one I commented on ("It is politics that is separating the homosexuals from the pedophiles with regard to the rehabilitation argument") so the point is obvious - homosexuality is harming our children. Again, the reason homosexuality is different from pedophilia is because one of them doesn't involve the rape of children - or any type of rape at all, for that matter.* To say that there is no difference between them in that context is the same as saying that a child is harmed by being aware of alternate lifestyles as much as by being the victim of rape and molestation. That is extremely illogical.

It's also an elegant trap - one cannot help but agree with condemning pedophiles (unless one wants to look a pedophile supporter); to agree with life-long sentences for pedophiles is to agree with part of my opponent's argument, so, if one gets caught up in the "save our children" hype, one can easily be led to believe that to love our children is to hate homosexuals.

My opponent's argument is based two false premises: that pedophilia is a sexual orientation ("If this were true then simple logic dictates that a pedophile is also born that way and they cannot help but be a pedophile"), and that being a pedophile and committing acts of pedophilia are the same thing. The following links in my opponent's logic chain are, therefore, invalid: "Pedophilia is similar to homosexuality," and "If pedophilia is not based on choice, then once a criminally-inclined pedophile, always a criminally-inclined pedophile." Should we punish (acts of) pedophilia? Yes. But not for the reasons my opponent has presented.

*I am not saying that homosexual rape does not exist - merely that rape is connected to homosexuality in exactly the same fashion as it is to heterosexuality
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

First and foremost I want to make two things perfectly clear: I am not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, my opponent is. I am comparing the logic used by homosexual activists to try and prove that homosexuality is genetic and therefore can not be suppressed or reformed.
Second: All arguments about propensity or probability of a pediphile committing an act of pediphilia are irrelevant to this debate. I clearly stated that no action or investigation should be made "Until" and act has been committed. There is no borderline argument or anything of the sort. The pedophile was caught and convicted in a court of law. Their sexual preference has been established by their actions, although it may not be their only preference it is still worth risking prison time to them. Any pedophile who is willing to risk prison time to satisfy a sexual urge against a child clearly has a genetic disposition to do so using the same logic that gay activists use to make their case that homosexuality is genetic and can't be suppressed or reformed.

"A pedophile should never be let out of prison once they commit an act of pedophilia of any kind."

Viewing, buying, and possessing child pornography is just as bad as acting on a child. It is the buying and selling of child pornography that perpetuates further heinous acts against children. As the sellers must recruite new children to molest and violate in order to satisfy the "Borderline" pediphile. Those who think there is a difference between the buyer and seller of child pornography have their heads up their a## so to speak.

"Actually, no, a bisexual is attracted to both in general (sometimes leaning towards one gender). It's not a choice of preference, it's an allowance of both - in other words, avoidance of the choice."

If the bisexual is going to "act" they must make a choice, one or the other or both there is a choice. To "avoid" the choice is to not act. Simple logic

"That's like saying, if an orange can be skinned without using a knife, so can an apple, and if an apple cannot be skinned with a knife, then an orange cannot. My opponent's "logical conclusion" relies on a basic similarity between pedophilia and homosexuality that is not there. They do not work on the same system, and what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other. For one thing, one is based on abuse, while the other is not. For another, one is caused more by issues while another by biological factors - though there is enough controversy about the causes of both for me to not use this argument at the moment."

My opponent is comparing the "acts" Not the genetic argument, also no evidence was provided to prove that one is "biological" and one is caused by "Issues" Then states that he can't use this argument? This above paragraph is negated by his own words. When will he use it?

A repeat:

Here's the thing: being a pedophile means being sexually attracted to children. This is a BAD THING, but it is not the same as acting on pedophilic urges.

Does viewing child pornography count? They have not personally acted but have created a market for child abuse.

My opponent Quotes me:

"If the later is true then a pedophile should never be let out of prison once they commit an act of pedophilia of any kind."

Please take note that I stated that an act has to be committed first.

The rest of con's argument is based on the fact that homosexuality is genetic and can't be helped and pedophilia is just another form of rape and is controllable. No sources were given and why my opponent would assume that they would be rejected is perplexing.

Genetic argument for homosexuals:

http://queerfoundation.org...
http://www.mercurynews.com...
http://www.politics.com...

Genetic argument for pedophilia"

http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org...
http://www.onlinejournal.com...
http://www.gnxp.com...
Levi3o4

Con

First, a play-by-play response to my opponent's own response. I truncate many of his paragraphs merely to save room - my counter-arguments pertain to the full paragraphs.

"First and foremost I want to make two things perfectly clear: I am not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, my opponent is. "

I have to disagree with that - my opponent's entire argument is based on a connection between homophobia and pedophilia that would allow his logical conclusion to be valid - without that connection, his conclusion becomes a non sequiter. It might not be an overt comparison - my opponent never comes out and says, "homosexuality and pedophilia are alike," but by forging this connection, he makes the comparison nonetheless - if not a comparison, then at least a strong logical link. Also, if one takes the following quotes from round one into account, it becomes abundantly clear that the entire point of the argument is about homosexuality:
"If a pedophile can be rehabilitated then a homosexual can to."
"It is politics that is separating the homosexuals from the pedophiles with regard to the rehabilitation argument."

If you don't want to call it a comparison, go ahead and find another word. The point is still the same - establishing/reinforcing a connection through an assumed similarity.

"All arguments about propensity or probability ... be suppressed or reformed."

The argument about probability is, on the contrary, extremely relevant. I would like to bring up the link that, again, my opponent has made - the one with homosexuality. A homosexual cannot be forced to change his or her preference, but at the same time, he or she can choose not to act on this preference, while maintaining it. Doing so would be inconvenient and painful, but it is very possible - millions of homosexuals do it every day. And yes, there are borderline cases, just like in any issue. Dating a 16-year-old teenie-bopper is not in the same league as raping a 10-year-old choirboy - in fact, the first doesn't even indicate a pedophilic preference. AS for the claim that "Any pedophile who is willing to risk prison time to satisfy a sexual urge against a child clearly has a genetic disposition to do so using the same logic that gay activists use to make their case that homosexuality is genetic and can't be suppressed or reformed" - that's making another false connection - the strength of a desire at one given point in time to genetic predisposition. Any criminal is willing to risk prison time to act upon some sort of urge; it doesn't take a genetic predisposition or erotic desire to do that

"Viewing, buying, and possessing child pornography ... up their a## so to speak."

Just for the record, I count the buying and selling of pornography to be acts of pedophilia as well, actually. Speaking of buying and selling erotica - what about literature and non-photographic depictions? Those can affect a pedophile in the same way as traditional pornography without there being any actual victims. I do not in any way support the buying or selling of such items, but they do present a victimless, and therefore borderline case.

"If the bisexual is going to "act" they must make a choice, one or the other or both there is a choice. To "avoid" the choice is to not act. Simple logic"

Again, not so. They are choosing their partners, of course, but they are not choosing a preference unless they're actually thinking, "Hm, I want to get laid, do I go for the guy or the girl?" In fact, the entire "point" of bisexuality is that a bisexual doesn't have to choose based on gender (unlike the rest of us, who have obvious right and wrong choices); for them, it's a non-issue. (I'm over-simplifying a bit, because various bits of emotional factors might make the choices occur anyways; I'm merely commenting on bisexuals in the actual orientation).Syaing that bisexuals choose between preferences, between men and women, is like saying someone has to choose between preferences for blonds and brunettes because they're willing to have sex with both." Simple logic only works with simple concepts, and even then, only when they're understood.

https://www.msu.edu...

"My opponent is comparing the "acts" ... will he use it?"

Proving the connectedness (which is required for my opponent's argument to be true) between the causes and effects of either homosexuality and pedophilia, no matter which cause one is aiming at, is extremely difficult at best. The causes of pedophilia are unknown:

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

and, therefore, not really up for analysis within the scope of this argument, which is the main reason why i negated my own point in the first place.

"Does viewing child pornography count? They have not personally acted but have created a market for child abuse."

Yes, they have acted, just in a less direct way. The facilitation of a crime makes one partially responsible for it.

I'll also take an analytical look at my opponent's sources, partially because, as I have said, any web-source either of us finds can be simply countered by other sites of apparently similar trustworthiness, which makes me feel like the exercise in citation is pointless, and partially because, having inspected those of my opponent, I believe that they help my case more than they help his.

Genetic argument for homosexuals:

http://queerfoundation.org......
Conclusively claims that homosexuality has biological origins

http://www.mercurynews.com......
Bases claim of lack of choice on scientific studies

http://www.politics.com......
While I personally agree with the point of the video (that the man in said video is definitely gay), I would not call this "evidence," since it based off of opinion

Note that none of these sources mentions cures.

Genetic argument for pedophilia"

http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org......
The psychologist writing this piece says he "feels" that pedophilia has a genetic predisposition, and that it runs in families (unlike homosexuality). He also advocates treatments.

http://www.onlinejournal.com......
The article is about French President Nicolas Sarkozy Claiming his belief in the genetic cause of pedophilia. Not exactly evidence one would use in an argument.

http://www.gnxp.com......
"As hinted at in the study of meningitis and handedness, it is more likely that an infection causes the damage"
That's not genetic at all. Yes, it's still rejecting choice, but the genes have little to do with it, and that's enough of a difference.

What these articles show is that the causes of homosexuality and pedophilia, while both possibly pre-natal, are different, which puts into question the similarities in post-natal development. This, in turn, makes questionable the natures of the two abnormalities, and, therefore, any analogy between them.

To summarize, and, unfortunately, repeat - my opponent has failed, so far, to prove that the ability or inability to treat either homosexuality or pedophilia should reflect on that same ability or inability for the other. He draws the conclusion and calls it simple logic. I ask, however - how does the impossibility of "treating" homosexuality logically indicate the impossibility of treating pedophilia? What exactly is the link? Is it because they're both involuntary? So are predispositions towards athletic ability, cancer, and certain hair colors, but I doubt he would use those for comparison. If it's because they're sexual preferences, I have yet to see proof that they belong to the same types, and that the same rules apply. And here's the other problem with the argument - suppose it's impossible to cure the predisposition to pedophilia. That doesn't mean it's impossible to reform a pedophile - that just comes down to forcing him or her to exhibit self-control. It may be difficult, but it can also be done. To keep someone in prison because it is safer not to give
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

"I have to disagree with that - my opponent's entire argument is based on a connection between homophobia and pedophilia that would allow his logical conclusion to be valid -"

There is a connection to all forms of sexuality according to a gay activist, it is genetic and can't be helped or suppressed. Being heterosexual is genetic, the gay activist says being homosexual is genetic just as being heterosexual is. My opponent has played the politics-bigot card and strayed from the topic by insinuating "homophobia" just as I thought he would.
I have provided sources on both sides that imply that pedophilia and homosexuality are genetic. But they all have one thing in common on both sides, there is no conclusive evidence as yet to be certain it is genetic. Yet the gay activists fights with such fervor to convince people it is.
Heterosexuality is genetic. You can challenge that if you want, but most will agree that it is. Heterosexuality is considered normal. You can challenge me on that to if you want. But again most people will agree that it is.
According to a gay activist their orientation is normal because it is genetic. I provided sources from gay activists and other places that insinuates that it is genetic. I also provided sources that insinuate that pedophilia is genetic. My opponent says that pedophilia is not normal behavior.
The gay activists have a delima, if it is found that homosexuality, pedophilia , and any other type of sexual preference is genetic, it would make their behavior abnormal and give credence to the idea that pedophiles should be locked up for life once they act on their sexual need to molest little children. It would also cause the gay activist a lot of other problems with the gay marriage issue. This is the political aspect which I refer to. Being a pedophile can not be a genetic disorder other wise homosexuality would be a genetic disorder and both would be considered abnormal. Political correctness will keep it separate at the expense of the children. The gay activist must insist that a pedophile can be rehabilitated even if they can't and it is found to be genetic. If the gay activists were to admit in any way that pedophilia was genetic and abnormal, they to would be considered abnormal as heterosexuality is the normal way to be.

"My opponent never comes out and says, "homosexuality and pedophilia are alike,"
I affirm this statement. With that said........

http://www.stoptheaclu.com...

"They are choosing their partners, of course, but they are not choosing a preference"

This is a complete contradiction in one sentence. If one makes a choice, that means there is more than one thing to choose from. On that day a preference was made because a choice was made. It's like saying I like colors, but have no preference. You will chose one and that will be your preference that day. Bisexuals change their preference the same way. One or the other or both, if they have a choice they will choose and that will be their preference for that day.

Does viewing child pornography count?

"Yes, they have acted, just in a less direct way. The facilitation of a crime makes one partially responsible for it."

My opponent attempts to minimise it, It is just as bad as molesting children to buy, sell and poses child porn. A child must be molested in order for one to view it.

There is growing evidence that pedophilia is genetic and there is growing evidence that homosexuality is genetic. In order for me to win this debate I must prove this and I have.
Using the gay activist logic that sexuality is genetic in order to promote their cause even though there is no conclusive evidence to support it should dictate that pedophiles should be locked up once they act even though there is no conclusive evidence that it is genetic. They are both in the same boat when it comes to genetics, no conclusive evidence but studies that show probability on both fronts.
Levi3o4

Con

You know, I'd actually like to see this universal gay activist my opponent keeps referencing - he sounds like quite a character.

I would like to apologize for making my argument as long as it was - if my opponent had had enough room to quote me, then perhaps his own arguments would have been more logical. Let's take a look at a few of them:

"Heterosexuality is genetic." (in context, the implication here is, "unlike homosexuality")

I have no reason to challenge this - the hypothetical "gay activist" agrees with it whole-heartedly. But not just in the sense of "heterosexuality," - in the sense of "sexual orientation." Sexual orientation is genetic, and heterosexuality is the more prevalent of the two (or three, if one includes bisexuality) possibilities.

According to a gay activist their orientation is normal because it is genetic. I provided sources from gay activists and other places that insinuates that it is genetic. I also provided sources that insinuate that pedophilia is genetic. My opponent says that pedophilia is not normal behavior.

Again, show me this gay activist who considers himself, a part of a 5-10% minority, to be "normal." Of course homosexuality is not normal, the same way that geniuses, good coffee and triple-word scores aren't normal. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place. And neither is pedophilia. But what does that have to do with anything?

And this I must quote in its entirety, because I feel it forms the crux of the disagreement:

"The gay activists have a delima, if it is found that homosexuality, pedophilia , and any other type of sexual preference is genetic, it would make their behavior abnormal and give credence to the idea that pedophiles should be locked up for life once they act on their sexual need to molest little children. It would also cause the gay activist a lot of other problems with the gay marriage issue. This is the political aspect which I refer to. Being a pedophile can not be a genetic disorder other wise homosexuality would be a genetic disorder and both would be considered abnormal. Political correctness will keep it separate at the expense of the children. The gay activist must insist that a pedophile can be rehabilitated even if they can't and it is found to be genetic. If the gay activists were to admit in any way that pedophilia was genetic and abnormal, they to would be considered abnormal as heterosexuality is the normal way to be."

Here's the thing: homosexuality is not a crime. Pedophilic actions are. One requires rehabilitation, another does not. A homosexual and a pedophile can both be "rehabilitated" to similar degrees - forced to restrain themselves at the expense of their preferred tendencies. Neither would be turned "normal," however. The homosexual will continue to be attracted to the same sex, as the pedophile will to children, but both will show extreme self-control. This is actually what most post-"rehabilitation" homosexuals will tell you. Here's the big difference: there's no good reason to make a homosexual suffer like this, but there is a pretty good reason to make a pedophile do so.

"'My opponent never comes out and says, 'homosexuality and pedophilia are alike,'
I affirm this statement. With that said........

http://www.stoptheaclu.com...;

It's kind of difficult not to play the bigotry card when my opponent presents an article about the ACLU supporting NAMBLA on freedom of speech grounds - there's no point in doing something like that, particularly in the context of those two sentences. I cannot help but point out that that sentence is there for a very clear reason - to incite a particular reaction from his audience.

About bisexuality - this was off-topic two rounds ago, but I argued it for the sake of completeness. Let me, therefore, out this in the simplest terms possible:

You like blue shirts and red shirts. You own a bunch of them. Through process of elimination, you've narrowed your choices for what you're wearing down to two - a red flannel t-shirt and a blue sweater. You don't care about the color. You're feeling more like a sweater today, so you choose the blue shirt. But you didn't choose between blue or red - you chose between a t-shirt or a sweater, and its color was irrelevant. That's how a bisexual "choice" often works - the choice is in the person, not in the gender.

"My opponent attempts to minimise [the relative guilt involved in viewing child pornography], It is just as bad as molesting children to buy, sell and poses child porn. A child must be molested in order for one to view it."

Yes, a child has to be molested in order for the pornography to be created, and it is only created for the viewers, so of course they are guilty. But to personally molest somebody is not the same as to watch somebody else do it, if at least because viewing child pornography means that less children are involved - if a pedophile chooses to watch the pornographic material, he is making the choice not to get even MORE children involved. It's not a lot better, but for small reasons like that and others, it is a BIT better, and, therefore, not the same, not "just as bad."

And finally, my opponent has, contrarily to his own statement, proven none of what he has set out to prove. He has shown that homosexuality is PROBABLY genetic, and that pedophilia is PROBABLY genetic, but he has yet to prove why the lack absence of 100% effective treatment for pedophilia would mean that a pedophile who has acted once cannot be SUFFICIENTLY rehabilitated for him to not be permanently incarcerated. It is a known fact among gay activists that a homosexual can be sufficiently "rehabilitated" to not behave homosexually, but will still be internally homosexual, and the same goes for a pedophile, in whose case all we care about is his behavior. So, even if homosexuality and pedophilia followed the same rules (which I do not agree with, but IF), then a pedophile can still eventually be released from prison using "gay activist logic."
Debate Round No. 3
sadolite

Pro

"You know, I'd actually like to see this universal gay activist my opponent keeps referencing - he sounds like quite a character."

When I say "The gay activist" I am referring to the commonly held beliefs by the vast majority of "gay activists". I know at least 10 gay people and they are embarrassed to even be associated with the gay activist movement, as they do not represent all gay people "gay activists" represent themselves not all gay people. That is why I said "gay activist" and not just gay people in the title of the debate. It is a commonly held belief and fought for belief at all costs that homosexuality is genetic and that being gay can't be helped and there is no cure or rehabilitation for it.

My opponents statement verifies my last statement:

"I have no reason to challenge this - the hypothetical "gay activist" agrees with it wholeheartedly. But not just in the sense of "heterosexuality," - in the sense of "sexual orientation." Sexual orientation is genetic, and heterosexuality is the more prevalent of the two (or three, if one includes bisexuality) possibilities"

Why does my opponent leave out pedophilia in this statement? Preference is preference, pedophiles prefer children, homosexuals prefer the same sex and heterosexuals prefer the opposite sex and of course lets not forget the bisexual who can't make up their mind unless given only one choice at that moment in time.

"Again, show me this gay activist who considers himself, a part of a 5-10% minority, to be "normal"

http://home.messiah.edu...

The introduction to the above link:

INTRODUCTION - Society has two views of homosexuality. The traditional view holds that homosexuality is an aberration, the orientation is a disorder, and the behavior is pathological. The opposing view is that homosexuality is a normal variant in the human condition, that it is determined before birth, and homosexual behavior is natural for those so oriented. ""The gay community has been tremendously successful in gaining acceptance for the second view."" This view, however, rests on a number of questionable premises, which if false, lead us back to the traditional view. In the following article we will continue to examine the premises put forth by those accepting homosexuality as "normal".

"Here's the thing: homosexuality is not a crime. Pedophilic actions are. One requires rehabilitation, another does not. A homosexual and a pedophile can both be "rehabilitated" to similar degrees."

Again my opponent makes a direct comparison to the acts. I am comparing the logic that gay activists use to normalize their behavior. The next logical step is to never let pedophiles out of prison based on the same logic that they use. It is biological and genetic and can't be helped. Whether one is against the law or not is irrelevant to the logic argument. Very, very few people can suppress sexual gratification, they will cave sooner or later, especially a pedophile.

"It's kind of difficult not to play the bigotry card when my opponent presents an article about the ACLU supporting NAMBLA on freedom of speech grounds"

I put this link up to show that the ACLU is attempting to show it is normal to be a pedophile and that they have a right to talk about and lead pedophiles to children. It has nothing to do with bigotry it proves that the same logic is being used both by gay activists and pedophiles. Don't you just love how the ACLU protects us from the unjust suppression of pedophiles and their stalking of little children.

My opponents second attempt at saying a bisexual doesn't make a choice is just samantics samantics samantics. "Process of elimination" Make a choice will ya!!

"it is a BIT better, and, therefore, not the same, not "just as bad."

My opponent affirms my statement that he minimises child porn as not as bad as molesting children yet children must be molested to constantly fill the needs of pedophiles appetites for new filth to watch.

My opponents closing remarks are about treatment. This is not what gay activists want, they want their behavior to be considered normal. Treatment is not an option, but some how it is for pedophiles and it is done so at the expense of tens of thousands of children every year.
Levi3o4

Con

I will, as previously, address my opponent;s claims point-by-point before returning to the core argument.

"Again my opponent makes a direct comparison to the acts. I am comparing the logic that gay activists use to normalize their behavior. The next logical step is to never let pedophiles out of prison based on the same logic that they use. It is biological and genetic and can't be helped. Whether one is against the law or not is irrelevant to the logic argument. Very, very few people can suppress sexual gratification, they will cave sooner or later, especially a pedophile."

I compare the acts because the difference between them is the key to understanding the difference between what would suffice as a rehabilitation - a pedophile is rehabilitated when he is no longer dangerous, regardless of the non-removable attraction, whereas a homosexual is only "rehabilitated" once he is no longer attracted to people of the same gender. Rehabilitation that is sufficient enough to be able to allow a pedophile out of prison is the same kind of rehabilitation that stops him from being a pedophile, or that stops a homosexual from being gay.

If we take a look at my opponent's logical conclusions, there are two possible situations: both gays and pedophiles can be "rehabilitated," and therefore pedophiles don't have to stay in prison, or neither can be "rehabilitated," and a pedophile must stay in prison. To quote his own source from a few rounds back, "Web MD web site (http://www.webmd.com... ) states, 'Sadly, there is no cure for pedophilia.' This is true. There is no cure, but there is treatment." That article ( http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org... ) goes on to state, more or less, that pedophiles can be treated, or made safer without being cured. Another way of thinking about this is that they remain pedophiles, but are kept safe, through a) treatment, b) close observation while outside of prison, and c) not being let anywhere near children. In other words, they don't have to remain in prison, but are not "rehabilitated" either, which directly contradicts both of my opponent's conclusions (either one of which he has been trying to prove).

To make it a little bit clearer, at least for logic buffs - my opponent is arguing that "if a, then b and c, and if not a, then not b and not c," where a is "homosexuality can be cured," b is "pedophilia can be cured" and c is "pedophiles can be released from prison." He even tried to maintain the link by citing the difficulties people can have in always controlling their sexual urges, ignoring the fact that they can be "helped" to do so. The article takes as read the following: "b, but not c," which directly contradicts both of my opponent's attempted claims.

"I put this link up to show that the ACLU is attempting to show it is normal to be a pedophile and that they have a right to talk about and lead pedophiles to children. It has nothing to do with bigotry it proves that the same logic is being used both by gay activists and pedophiles. Don't you just love how the ACLU protects us from the unjust suppression of pedophiles and their stalking of little children."

Except that's not supported by anything except the article itself, which has a strong leaning in the same direction as that of my opponent's argument. The ACLU is not attempting to show that being a pedophile is normal - they even say as much in their statement, that they condemn acts of pedophilia. They were attempting to keeps site from being taken down unconstitutionally. This may come as a surprise, but there are very few people out there whose goal it is to corrupt our minds and those of our children.

"My opponents second attempt at saying a bisexual doesn't make a choice is just samantics samantics samantics. 'Process of elimination' Make a choice will ya!!"

First-off, there's a difference between semantic abuse and logical reasoning. Second, there is no choice in preference involved in bisexuality, simply because a bisexual feels no need to choose a preference. It's literally all the same to them - you may as well say that they prefer people.

"My opponent affirms my statement that he minimises child porn as not as bad as molesting children yet children must be molested to constantly fill the needs of pedophiles appetites for new filth to watch."

Not at all. There is a difference between minimization and measurement. One evil is clearly the lesser of the too, and there is no reason not to acknowledge that as long as we keep in mind that both are evil, and that the difference is small.

"My opponents closing remarks are about treatment. This is not what gay activists want, they want their behavior to be considered normal. Treatment is not an option, but some how it is for pedophiles and it is done so at the expense of tens of thousands of children every year."

My opponent takes one last stab at getting away without making sense. No such luck. Even if we assume that he knows what gay activists want, we must again consider that the kind of treatment that is applied to a pedophile does not stop one from being a pedophile, but does (in most cases) stop them from doing anything dangerous. Treatment is as option for pedophiles because it's meant to stop them from molesting or viewing images of children, not to change their sexuality. The only thing that a similar treatment would accomplish in a homosexual is to make them less inclined to act on their sexual orientation, without actually changing said orientation. Having a bunch of gay people walking around and being miserable isn't going to help anybody; keeping a bunch of pedophiles from doing their favorite thing, on the other hand, is a little more useful. If you want to keep your children safe, the best way to do it is to focus on the problems instead of blaming them on somebody else because of some poorly-thought-out hypothetical if-then statement.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by el3m3ntsk8s 8 years ago
el3m3ntsk8s
There is a difference between what is accepted and what is acceptable, which is the reason why pedophila is against the law and relations between two adults of the same sex is legal.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"It is a known fact among gay activists that a homosexual can be sufficiently "rehabilitated" to not behave homosexually"

"No where does he state any "rehabilitation" argument."

All in the same comment.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"If a pedophile can be rehabilitated then a homosexual can to." again taken out of context. You hear what you want to hear.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
It is a known fact among gay activists that a homosexual can be sufficiently "rehabilitated" to not behave homosexually, but will still be internally homosexual, and the same goes for a pedophile, in whose case all we care about is his behavior.

Direct quote from your opponent. No where does he state any "rehabilitation" argument, unless you mean behaviorally. So then are you saying as long as I don't have sex with men, I am not gay?

Sadolite, one day reality is gonna slap you upside the head.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
I read what you wrote - If a pedophile can be rehabilitated then a homosexual can to.

You are comparing apples to oranges. They are both FRUIT, yes. But the similarity ends there. I see the wrong in pedophilia. It is aberrant and perverse. But the main difference between me and them is the person's ability to give legal consent.
And no, we are not trying to "normalize" homosexuality. We accept that we won't be accepted by some. That's fine. But we take exception to not having the same rights and privileges you have and have always had because of who we love. Period.

You close your heart, that's fine. Just don't try and tell me what I can do with mine.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
jjmd280, Redirect your rehabilitation comments to my opponent as he is the one that is making all of the rehabilitation arguments not me.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Levi3o4, And you also prove the point that to discuss or even suggest that homosexuality is not normal makes one an automatic bigot. You should be praising me because my debate supports your claim.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
jjmd280, I never said you should have to be rehabilitated, I said that the logic being used by gay activists should be applied to pediphiles, it can't be cured and you can't be rehabilitated. You read and hear what you want to read and hear.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
garee = agree
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
No, sadolite - he dismissed it using reason and logic - which is sometimes political. Being homosexual may be a choice for some, but it wasn't for me. And unlike pedophiles, I do not force my persuasion on anyone. I garee - short of castration, there is no absolute cure for pedophilia. But saying my lifestyle needs to be rehabilitated is bigotry and ignorance. But at least you are consistent.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
sadoliteLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sgt.peppers 8 years ago
sgt.peppers
sadoliteLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
sadoliteLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
sadoliteLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sadoliteLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mrbullfrog11 8 years ago
mrbullfrog11
sadoliteLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DoubleXMinus 8 years ago
DoubleXMinus
sadoliteLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
sadoliteLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by iXetsuei 8 years ago
iXetsuei
sadoliteLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
sadoliteLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70