The Instigator
mall
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Present arguments that show what's wrong with pedophilia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,179 times Debate No: 119135
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

mall

Pro

The "pro" side means that I'll be questioning the other side's arguments. Do a search on YouTube for destiny pedophilia debate. An individual by the name of Amos Yee provides arguments in support of pedophilia. It'll be the same context in this case in terms of the definition for pedophilia. In this discussion we'll focus on the non-sexual abusive/non-molestation context. That's more on surrounding the desire than the action. Now I've heard that there are such cases where acts of pedophilia are non-harmful. Feel free to go into that context as well. Basically whether it is known or not, There are groups, Minority or not, That wish for their rights to be free to express their sexuality in pedophilia. They 'll most likely start with arguments similar to the LGBT as well as incestous individuals. So this discussions will prepare you more or less for what's coming down the pipe. So present arguments to show while pedophilia is wrong. Again, This in the context of pedophilia that's not obviously or apparently detrimental.
omar2345

Con

Scrap what I said in the comments. I'll try to provide sources if needed for my point. I haven't watched the video but I don't think I need to because generally pedophilia is a bad thing. Consent A child even if he/she gives consent. More often then not they do not know of the consequences of said action. There is evidence to suggest that the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25. The reason why I say this is because the preferential cortex would also be developed since it is part of the brain. The preferential cortex does give Impulse control, Logical thinking, Risk management and others which is in the source below. I am not saying no one below the age of 25 can do the examples above sufficiently but as the brain is developed a more informative choice can be made.

I'll start off with this and if need be expand on other areas that can help my side.


Source: At What Age Is The Brain Fully Developed? (Mental Health Daily)
Reason for doing this is that the link does not allow me to post my argument.

Hopefully we both learn something from this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
mall

Pro

Why is pedophilia generally a bad thing? According to who or what? By using the term "general", Do you realize your giving some ammunition to the pedophilia supporters? Let's say they'll give you that, Meaning typical cases are bad, But what about the outliers? They'll attempt to build off those exceptional cases. It's been argued that consent is irrelevant to knowledge. "More often" you say, Well then what's the argument for those that are the occasional cases that have the knowledge of consequences, Would those be acceptable acts of pedophilia? In regards to the development of the brain, It seems to have no effect on people that are well over 25 years of age and still make decisions to things that they were ignorant to the consequences of. So even after the expected age of having a fully developed mental faculty, Aren't we still battling the consent with knowledge issue? Since you mentioned a specific age about brain development and we're discussing consent with decision making and all that, Wouldn't this overrule the 18 years of age law for a person being legally an adult? Mind you, This is legally where people are put into a bracket of being left to their own vices if you will and no longer require parent/guardian overseer. It seems the 'fully formed brain" idea doesn't perfectly fit, Because wisdom comes with age as we get older. Our decisions tend to become better as we learn from our mistakes even well past the age of this fully formed mental capacity. What do you mean by "no one below the age of 25 can do the examples above sufficiently"? What examples?
The basic point of this debate is to be prepared for future progressive, Political and societal climates. I hope you do win the debate because that would mean we'll be ready most likely for these groups that will come forth like those on YouTube looking for special rights. So this is the trial run and I'm playing the devil's advocate so to speak.
omar2345

Con

Why is pedophilia generally a bad thing? According to who or what? By using the term "general"
General:affecting or concerning all or most people or things- This is what I meant.

Do you realize your giving some ammunition to the pedophilia supporters?
I don't think I was. If they are wrong they are wrong.

it's been argued that consent is irrelevant to knowledge.
Can I hear the argument? I don't see what I have to go with.

Well then what's the argument for those that are the occasional cases that have the knowledge of consequences, Would those be acceptable acts of pedophilia?
Even if you tell a child something is bad they still do it or they rebel. Children for the most part do not listen to reason instead go by emotions or short term happiness.

In regards to the development of the brain, It seems to have no effect on people that are well over 25 years of age and still make decisions to things that they were ignorant to the consequences of.
They have the capacity to do the right thing since they have the developed brain to do so. Adults are not ignorant to the consequences. They didn't assess the cause and effect properly. Yes you can find outliers but in law it can be filed as negligence. Meaning even though they did not know they were supposed to know. The law blames the parents of the child. The reason is the child cannot do the best with what they have. A less superior brain that requires time and the right developed to make it helpful.

So even after the expected age of having a fully developed mental faculty, Aren't we still battling the consent with knowledge issue?
With enough knowledge you can give consent. Without said knowledge you cannot give consent.

Since you mentioned a specific age about brain development and we're discussing consent with decision making and all that, Wouldn't this overrule the 18 years of age law for a person being legally an adult?
I don't why that is the case. 18 years is old enough to the law but to brain development it requires 25 years. Paedophilia is under the age of 18.

Mind you, This is legally where people are put into a bracket of being left to their own vices if you will and no longer require parent/guardian overseer.
Laws do and can change.

It seems the 'fully formed brain" idea doesn't perfectly fit, Because wisdom comes with age as we get older.
Contradicting evidence will surely be helpful in helping me see your point. At 25 the brain is fully developed. Meaning you have the necessary internal functionality to help make an informed decision. Yes generally wisdom comes with age but like you said before there are outliers and Adults can still make decisions to things that they were ignorant to the consequences of. So I do not see how you made a point here. If 75 year person can make a mistake then this is not an absolute statement. The brain fully developing at the age of 25 is not an absolute but more of an average. Difference circumstances will cause to increase the time or decrease the time.

Our decisions tend to become better as we learn from our mistakes even well past the age of this fully formed mental capacity. What do you mean by "no one below the age of 25 can do the examples above sufficiently"? What examples?
Much better statement above then wisdom comes with age as we get older. There can be a thing of bad wisdom which is not helpful and tend also makes it clear it is not an absolute statement. I'll just copy what I said before:I am not saying no one below the age of 25 can do the examples above sufficiently but as the brain is developed a more informative choice can be made

The basic point of this debate is to be prepared for future progressive, Political and societal climates.
In the future children might develop at any earlier age and can cause 16 year olds to be deemed adults or maybe it will get increased to 25 because more evidence has shown that adults are fully capable of making at that age. Who knows.

I hope you do win the debate because that would mean we'll be ready most likely for these groups that will come forth like those on YouTube looking for special rights.
I don't care about wining instead I care about learning something new. Special rights, I am using loosely, Are already a thing. Take a plane ride. Celebrities can be a nuisance all they want and the business more often then not would offer their services to them. Non-celebrities doing the same act more then often will them kicked out of the flight. Youtubers already have special rights since they are celebrities. They have the public fame, Attention and also the money to have special rights. If you mean Amos Yee stating paedophilia is not wrong should not be given special rights. To me he has made a sizable audience and it is free speech even if he states something that you oppose. If he is right he should be able to say. If he is wrong he should also be able to say it. Lets say for argument sake that we both can agree if we had a sit down with Amos Yee that paedophilia is not wrong. How would that even happen if speech that you do not like is banned?

So this is the trial run and I'm playing the devil's advocate so to speak.
Okay but you still have to make a defence for it. You didn't include one in Round 1 why not include one in Round 2?


I would like you to give counter arguments. Like paedophilia is not wrong because. I didn't see your rebuttals sufficient in proving me
wrong. The point of brain development still stands.


About Amos Yee: I think his channel was deleted for defending paedophilia. That is wrong it goes against free speech. If we silence speech then how do we have a discussion? To me if we do not discuss paedophilia it will go on in the shadows like in sex cults.
Without bringing it into the public we can as a society come to a decision with both sides and see a resolution. Maybe paedophiles are mentally ill maybe not. We cannot know if we do know speak about it and given scientists a yes to research and find out why this happens in order to find a resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
mall

Pro

So which is it? Are you referring to all cases or most? If it's just most, What's your argument for the tiny remnant? You say they're wrong. Why are they wrong? I don't have an argument for consent being irrelevant to knowledge. You see what you have to go with in everyday life. At least I would think so. We have common everyday examples like people agreeing to take recreational drugs unaware of it's consequences. People taking it upon themselves to make purchases without due diligence. Traveling to certain areas, Going to strange places unaware of the consequences from their surroundings. People make uninformed decisions and consent to gamble with their lives, With money, Etc. This is pretty known in life, Is it not? So is this every time a child is told something they rebel or do they learn to make a choice and follow a command? Well how do you explain for the least part of children listening to reason? Are you saying no adult ever anywhere on the planet is unaware of the consequences? They have the capacity to do the right thing, An adult that is, But why would an adult not do the right thing and not make the right choice? Does the adult still have some level of infantile mental faculty like a kid? Why didn't the adult assess the cause and effect properly? What's the missing link? Yes you can find outliers but in law it can be filed as negligence. Meaning even though they did not know they were supposed to know. The law blames the parents of the child. The reason is the child cannot do the best with what they have. A less superior brain that requires time and the right developed to make it helpful. " I can't fully comprehend this part. Please rephrase or summarize it more concisely. Why can't you give consent without knowledge? So no adult is ever ignorant in deciding something, Let's say for example, A business move, Investment or venture. Is that correct? "Said knowledge or knowledge", What's suppose to be the distinction? What's the discrepancy with the law then, Concerning 25 and 18 years of age? Fill in that inconsistency. Clearly the law is saying one thing about who is legally an adult. Do I have to explain what the meaning of being legally adult is or do you follow what's going on here? Yet we have this other side of the argument dealing with an age difference in regards to mature cognitive function. Laws do and can change you say. Do you care to elaborate on that a little further to make a point? My point is, What is your point about brain development? Please explain the disparity in the law concerning the age of legal adulthood. Also to add to that, Expound on the law concerning the age for alcohol consumption. "Yes generally wisdom comes with age but like you said before there are outliers and Adults can still make decisions to things that they were ignorant to the consequences of. So I do not see how you made a point here. " I don't understand what your saying there. Please rephrase that in another words. Are you saying that not all brains are fully developed at age 25? Well what are your arguments for those of exception? What age should it be for those not in the majority? What do you mean, "circumstances will cause to increase the time or decrease the time"? What is an example of "a thing of bad wisdom"? "I am not saying no one below the age of 25 can do the examples above sufficiently but as the brain is developed a more informative choice can be made". Those examples are what? It's not about not liking what someone is saying. When we're talking about speech, Remember, It starts with thought, Speech then to action. Now if we all feel so strongly against whatever it is, We have to have the words to fight it. If something is truly wrong and harmful, Would it not be sensible to build up a defense against it? We can make a practical defense at least that starts with words. These are not just idling conversations that just never go anywhere. We talk about real issues that may eventually take over a society and that is pretty much what political war is all about. No I'm not making a defense for pedophilia. If you go all the way back to my opening in round 1. My position in this was made clear. I'm questioning your arguments against pedophilia. What would be the point in that? To show how pedophilia supporters can tear down your arguments. I can be totally neutral. I CAN be, And your arguments may not be strong enough to convince or sway me from NEUTRALITY. But that's not the position either. You have to be able to provide ironclad arguments. Now if you misunderstood that, Apologies on my part. Someone's channel getting deleted from YouTube is wrong according to you. Isn't that right? YouTube is owned by an entity that's made rules and enforces it's policy. Infringing on free speech would be coming into somebody's house, Disrupting whatever they wish to say under their roof and they're using no other facilities or property of media belonging to another. Same goes for public settings as long as it's confirmed that the public setting hasn't reached any private sector or territory. If so, Some type of clearance or permission is required. Silence free speech, How do we converse? There are ways to go about it. A lot of them are done through legal actions such as in the court of law. Either way, Ill or not, Pedophiles definitely fall under the criminal category. A psych ward or prison remains to be the solution for now. Society clearly has dealt with the situation as such. This has been interesting.
omar2345

Con

To start did you have to write too much. Not once have I found a case for paedophilia. If you are not playing devil's advocate but you did say you were then you decided you are neutral after you said I hope you win. Are you actually on the Pro side and can you keep your arguments short. It looks mainly like filler. Burden of proof is on your end since you did start the debate and I did show my proof and you didn't. That is not fair because I have nothing to work with apart from the your rebuttals which are somehow a lot longer then mine. Can you get straight to the point?

So which is it? Are you referring to all cases or most? If it's just most, What's your argument for the tiny remnant? You say they're wrong. Why are they wrong? I don't have an argument for consent being irrelevant to knowledge. You see what you have to go with in everyday life. At least I would think so.
Everything should be taken as a case by case basis. Laws are in place that have already set a precedent like Paedophilia is a criminal offence. Doesn't mean there are outliers like lets say the 17 year old lied about his/her age but majority of cases would consist of the older person taking advantage of the child.

We have common everyday examples like people agreeing to take recreational drugs unaware of it's consequences.
I never said people don't make mis-informed decisions. If a person does not know what a drug does and still takes it, It is their fault. Reason is they could've found out the consequences of said drugs either asking the pharmacist or the doctor.

People taking it upon themselves to make purchases without due diligence.
Do you see the difference between paedophilia and mis-informed purchases right? One is based on a child with lack of reason and the other is a money transfer. To boil it down. I am sure we can both agree paedophilia is more of a problem then mis-informed purchases because of the severity of what is taking place.

Traveling to certain areas, Going to strange places unaware of the consequences from their surroundings.
To me this should not be a problem because if they really cared about going on holiday they would check the weather, Crime statistics and any necessary injections required if they were a responsible adult.

People make uninformed decisions and consent to gamble with their lives, With money, Etc. This is pretty known in life, Is it not?
Adults in most cases know full well why gambling is bad. The low chance of wining and the addictive nature. People do it for fun but when they realise there money has run out that is their fault. It wasn't who placed the bets on games it was the adult. If the adult was more aware of what he was doing he would've said maybe I should not gamble my last 20 since the last 5 times I did I lost.

So is this every time a child is told something they rebel or do they learn to make a choice and follow a command? Well how do you explain for the least part of children listening to reason?
In most cases they would rebel. There are outliers like children listen to reason or are afraid of their parents but that is rare. Lets go with the rare example. If he knew doing something drastic that can affect their life without having the most developed brain to do so would tell them no I should not partake in paedophilia because it might be good in the short term but in the long term he/she is mentally scared. It might even be the case that there was no short term gain and the entire experience was awful.

Are you saying no adult ever anywhere on the planet is unaware of the consequences?
I am saying adults have the capacity to make the right decision even if they don't. That is why the law punishes them a lot more then children because the capacity is not on the same level. Yes there are adults who do not use reason and do you know what happens? They make a bad mistake. Punishment is dependent what the person actually done.

They have the capacity to do the right thing, An adult that is, But why would an adult not do the right thing and not make the right choice?
At least you agree with me on the capacity part. If the an adult did the wrong thing it would be because it was a mis-informed decision. Either they did not have information on what they were doing or the information that they did have was bad information which is not helpful.

Does the adult still have some level of infantile mental faculty like a kid? Why didn't the adult assess the cause and effect properly? What's the missing link?
Mis-informed decision like I said before.

I can't fully comprehend this part. Please rephrase or summarize it more concisely. Why can't you give consent without knowledge? So no adult is ever ignorant in deciding something
I thought it was clear. Oh well. Parents have the capacity to do the right thing and the child more often then not do not have capacity to do the right thing. That should get my point across.

Let's say for example, A business move, Investment or venture. Is that correct? "Said knowledge or knowledge", What's suppose to be the distinction? What's the discrepancy with the law then, Concerning 25 and 18 years of age? Fill in that inconsistency.
I don't know what you mean. I think you misinterpreted what I said. Said knowledge and knowledge are the same thing. Said knowledge is only restricting it to what the topic is about. I don't get what you mean by the discrepancy. Do you want me to give you an argument. That is not how it works. I am Against you are Pro (Neutral/Devil's advocate or whatever you want to say later). I don't know why it is like that. Maybe it needs changing or maybe it does not. You still haven't given me anything to work with in how paedophilia is a good thing.

Clearly the law is saying one thing about who is legally an adult. Do I have to explain what the meaning of being legally adult is or do you follow what's going on here? Yet we have this other side of the argument dealing with an age difference in regards to mature cognitive function.
Are you seriously saying this is not a point? To me I simply stated the brain. Maybe there are other factors that go in the reason why an Adult is considered at the age of 18. I simply stated one factor. You still have not given me anything to go with.

Laws do and can change you say. Do you care to elaborate on that a little further to make a point?
It was just a blanket statement. I don't see why I should elaborate since you are not for paedophilia or actually are a devil's advocate.

My point is, What is your point about brain development? Please explain the disparity in the law concerning the age of legal adulthood. Also to add to that, Expound on the law concerning the age for alcohol consumption.
I don't know. Are you sure you are playing by the rules? You are supposed to be defending something not just rebut my claims. I have nothing to work with. I have already answered this above just read it instead of making a similar point like before.

I don't understand what your saying there. Please rephrase that in another words. Are you saying that not all brains are fully developed at age 25?
Where did I mention about the brain? Wisdom is knowledge. Brain can give process that knowledge. It was more of on average brains are fully developed at age 25. I did mention that in the less word heavy rebuttal above yours. Read it before you ask a question or maybe give me an argument since you have not given your burden of proof.

What age should it be for those not in the majority? What do you mean
Missed out this: "is not an absolute but more of an average" To answer you rebuttal lets say someone take brain damage. That affects brain development. Lets say someone does not sleep well. That affects brain development. Different people develop in different ways. The 25 is an average.

I don't have space to address anymore because for some reason you do not know when you have written too much.


Debate Round No. 3
mall

Pro

"To start did you have to write too much. Not once have I found a case for paedophilia. If you are not playing devil's advocate but you did say you were then you decided you are neutral after you said I hope you win. Are you actually on the Pro side and can you keep your arguments short. It looks mainly like filler. Burden of proof is on your end since you did start the debate and I did show my proof and you didn't. That is not fair because I have nothing to work with apart from the your rebuttals which are somehow a lot longer then mine. Can you get straight to the point? "

That first sentence will have to be rephrased. I'm sorry you totally misunderstood the format of this discussion. You can message me and we can go over and clear up any confusion your in. I'll attempt to answer all of your questions. You keep saying "get to the point, Get to the point". The point is what is your point? You continue to make arguments for the majority or the general but it doesn't appear you have any for the exceptional cases. So I continue to ask what about this and what about that? I'm not getting anything solid. Your position is to be able to provide ironclad arguments that are able to maintain consistency no matter the questions that are being asked. When the questions continue to repeat, Something is not being made clear. It is through your arguments that direct the questions and discussion in the way that it goes. So what is your argument for the "17 year old that lied" in participated in a pedophilia act? Is it still wrong? Is it acceptable? Wait a minute, What are misinformed decisions then? " If a person does not know what a drug does and still takes it, It is their fault. Reason is they could've found out the consequences of said drugs either asking the pharmacist or the doctor. " It's their fault, But is it still consent without knowledge? Why is the reason relevant? Was the context about reason or consent without knowledge? Is it consent without knowledge? So children are not the only ones that can consent without knowledge, Isn't so? How do you know who can find out the consequences or not? Are kids not able to find out the consequences? Isn't it one of the duties of parenthood to kids to teach them about the aftermaths of situations? Yes I see the difference between pedophilia and "mis-informed purchases". However the context is, Consent to something, CONSENT to something without KNOWLEDGE, Is that so? "One is based on a child with lack of reason and the other is a money transfer. To boil it down. I am sure we can both agree paedophilia is more of a problem then mis-informed purchases because of the severity of what is taking place. " Don't just look at the surface of the two different actions, Look at the context, Please. "To me this should not be a problem because if they really cared about going on holiday they would check the weather, Crime statistics and any necessary injections required if they were a responsible adult. ""Adults in most cases know full well why gambling is bad. The low chance of wining and the addictive nature. People do it for fun but when they realize there money has run out that is their fault. It wasn't who placed the bets on games it was the adult. If the adult was more aware of what he was doing he would've said maybe I should not gamble my last 20 since the last 5 times I did I lost. "To you, Huh? We know these are examples of decision making with poor judgment and ignorance. Did you wish to be intellectually dishonest here? Don't make excuses for individuals. This consent with knowledge thing is not a very strong argument. We've just gone over many common life issues that affect all kinds of people of different ages. Regardless of what an adult can do versus a kid still doesn't change that people can consent without knowledge. Maybe you want to throw that argument out and just use one that's exclusive to kids and excludes adults. Excluding adults that are also older than 25 years of age by the way. " There are outliers like children listen to reason or are afraid of their parents but that is rare. Lets go with the rare example. If he knew doing something drastic that can affect their life without having the most developed brain to do so would tell them no I should not partake in paedophilia because it might be good in the short term but in the long term he/she is mentally scared. It might even be the case that there was no short term gain and the entire experience was awful. " So in this case, Since the kid can factor all this out? Is it possible for the kid to rationalize a bit further and consider how they feel about participating and tread cautiously getting involved in this manner with the adult? Granted, It's been figured for the sake of context that they'll be nothing different in the pedophilia relationship than it would be in a regular affair between two adults. The benefits, Pros and cons have been factored. By this exceptional case, Would it be acceptable then? "I am saying adults have the capacity to make the right decision even if they don't. That is why the law punishes them a lot more then children because the capacity is not on the same level. Yes there are adults who do not use reason and do you know what happens? They make a bad mistake. Punishment is dependent what the person actually done. " That didn't answer the question. Yes or no, Is there no adult anywhere on the plant unaware of consequences? So kids don't have the ability to make the right decision, Is that right? You keep arguing things that are not exclusive so the question remains. I understand what the law and punishment is. We don't even need to cover that. We're dealing with the similarities and the fundamentals here. "At least you agree with me on the capacity part. If the an adult did the wrong thing it would be because it was a mis-informed decision. Either they did not have information on what they were doing or the information that they did have was bad information which is not helpful. " Oh there's tons of agreement and now we can just get understanding. Adults and kids are able to do the right thing and they can do the wrong thing by a misinformed decision or decision without knowledge, Is that right? "Does the adult still have some level of infantile mental faculty like a kid? Why didn't the adult assess the cause and effect properly? What's the missing link? " So the answer is yes and the missing link is missing information like a kid. Hey, Another agreement. "I thought it was clear. Oh well. Parents have the capacity to do the right thing and the child more often then not do not have capacity to do the right thing. That should get my point across. ": What's your evidence for a kid not being able to do the right thing? How is it that a parent can teach a kid in the way they should go? If they're incapable of doing it, What's the point in disciplining the child? The child already has to have the nature of virtue, Isn't it so? "I don't know what you mean. I think you misinterpreted what I said. Said knowledge and knowledge are the same thing. Said knowledge is only restricting it to what the topic is about. I don't get what you mean by the discrepancy. Do you want me to give you an argument. That is not how it works. I am Against you are Pro (Neutral/Devil's advocate or whatever you want to say later). I don't know why it is like that. Maybe it needs changing or maybe it does not. You still haven't given me anything to work with in how paedophilia is a good thing. " If I misinterpreted, Please reinstate what your point was so we can get understanding. No I didn't state my position is neutral. Please re-read what was stated carefully. I said I CAN be neutral. Then I said that's not the position. I clearly identified what I meant when I said " playing the devil's advocate so to speak". Please re-read the comments or go back over the opening in the beginning of the discussion. I'll put the remaining responses in the comments.
omar2345

Con

Okay I might have misinterpreted but you are not playing the devil's advocates role properly.
Devil's advocate: describes someone who, Given a certain point of view, Takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with.

You have not given me a certain point of view for it to be treated as devil's advocate. A certain point of view is not rebutting my arguments. It was making your own arguments so I have something to work with.

My point was this which should have been clear in Round 1. If you did start in Round by giving your arguments we would not have this problem. You have not shown your burden of proof as devil's advocate. Round 1 point: More often then not they do not know of the consequences of said action. Developed on with: as the brain is developed a more informative choice can be made.

The "pro" side means that I'll be questioning the other side's arguments.
This exempts you from any argument made apart from counter arguments? As Pro you are supposed to be defending paedophilia. You cannot fully do it without giving your arguments on why paedophilia is right. Without it you are simply disagreeing with my arguments and giving no new new arguments to replace mine. How is this is a debate if you are on the fence not playing devil's advocate by the definition above I gave since you have to give a point of view? Questioning my arguments is not a point of view. You are just questioning my arguments. If you clearly set out your definitions of devil's advocate then I would not have a problem but you didn't.

I am not going to do what I did in the earlier round because I do not see the point. I was not able to rebut your argument because of how much you wrote that were not straight to point and you did not give me the same courtesy I gave you of trying to rebut all my arguments.

To you, Huh? We know these are examples of decision making with poor judgment and ignorance. Did you wish to be intellectually dishonest here? Don't make excuses for individuals
I added experience as a way to relate it to reality not just in thought. Everything before that was not my opinion or maybe you want to take me out of context. Excuses? It is not an excuses if that is what actually happens. Is that really a rebuttal?

This consent with knowledge thing is not a very strong argument. We've just gone over many common life issues that affect all kinds of people of different ages.
It is the main reason why paedophilia is wrong. If that is not a very strong argument what is? You haven't gone over common life issues that have proven me wrong because you picked out outliers instead of what generally happens. What generally happens affects more people then an outlier. We don't make laws on the minority we make it for the majority. Whether it be strictly to voting change or the actual law that affects the individuals in question.

Regardless of what an adult can do versus a kid still doesn't change that people can consent without knowledge.
Didn't I answer a similar statement you made before? I'll do it again. They have the capacity to use knowledge to make an informed decision but they choose to not use their brain to find the best course of action towards whatever it maybe.

It's been figured for the sake of context that they'll be nothing different in the pedophilia relationship than it would be in a regular affair between two adults. The benefits, Pros and cons have been factored. By this exceptional case, Would it be acceptable then?
Don't know how you got this. The difference is that it is between two consenting adults. The other is with a child that does not have the capacity to choose wisely with the consent he/she has.

That didn't answer the question. Yes or no, Is there no adult anywhere on the plant unaware of consequences?
Yes but they had the capacity with knowledge they can gain to do the right thing but they didn't. You asked me a question where you and I know the answer to acting like somehow you made a point. It is not a point. It is a given if someone does not have the knowledge of the situation they cannot properly assess the best course of action.

So kids don't have the ability to make the right decision, Is that right?
Did not use ability. Used capacity. Ability and capacity are two different things. Ability is either you have it or you don't. Capacity can vary between an individual. By saying the brain on average is developed at an age of 25 would be considered full capacity for those who do have their brains fully developed at that age.

What's your evidence for a kid not being able to do the right thing?
Source I listed above explains reason is fully developed at the age of 25 on average.

I clearly identified what I meant when I said " playing the devil's advocate so to speak".
Without defining what you meant so assumed you meant by the definition but you didn't. How can you make a point of contention you haven't made a point for instead of questioning. You were neutral. If you had a position it was not clear. Even if you say you are devil's advocate no where did you give me a point for paedophilia.

I found this debate annoying. I don't see how I am meant to discuss this if Pro was not being Pro. Devil's advocate requires him to give a point of view but he didn't which also falls in line with burden of proof since he did make the claim. I gave evidence to make claim but Pro did not. I did not learn anything new apart from how not to set out my debate. Next time can you paragraph your work it is difficult to keep track of what you said when there are no spaces in between separate points.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Leaning

Don't worry about it.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Ran out of time for voting. Would have voted for Con, But was too slow/lazy in putting together a RFD.
Posted by mall 3 years ago
mall
So as far as the future goes, Some laws might be changing in regards to the age of consent laws. Unless one side, The opposing side has tenable, Convincing arguments.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
don't eat the fruit before its matured, And don't break the law. . Simple
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Grammar?

Do you even know what paragraphs are?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Define dictate. I have no authority.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"I'll say it again, I decide how I'll communicate. You don't dictate or determine that. My point to get across is not according to you. I notice a lot in this discussion quite a few things we're according to you. Using the verbiage " to me"
I am not forcing you to do otherwise. I am saying you wrote too much. You did. Provide evidence of this verbiage or I'll count it as you not knowing the words. You have no excuse since you can Google the definitions online and as far as I know my language was not difficult to understand.

"so to speak"
This is somehow a better option then defining your words? Okay.

"So you want to pay attention to how someone is using a term before running with it"
Your acting like I am using words that I do not know the meaning of. I do by the way and what was so difficult in defining. Before you use the word I need to know what you mean.

"You want to talk about fair. I'm not dictating to you, Don't do it to me. "
Dictating:state or order authoritatively.
Do you even know what dictating means? I do not have authority over you. I used my opinion and you got offended and said I was dictating you. My critique was fair you just can't take criticism.

"An enlightening exchange"
No it wasn't. You and I both know no one got their point across. I blame it on you, You blame it on me. How was this enlightening?
Posted by mall 3 years ago
mall
So as far as the future goes, Some laws might be changing in regards to the age of consent laws. Unless one side, The opposing side has tenable, Convincing arguments.
Posted by mall 3 years ago
mall
You assume I'm offended because I'm telling you it's not your business to dictate my communication. Then you insist that "you can and will". Well then, You won't be having any further discussions with me while wishing to dictate and determine. You can assume anything you will from there on. Oh and I won't even mention your grammar throughout this whole thing. Sorry for your confusion and misunderstanding of something that was lucid and straightforward.
Posted by mall 3 years ago
mall
I'll say it again, I decide how I'll communicate. You don't dictate or determine that. My point to get across is not according to you. I notice a lot in this discussion quite a few things we're according to you. Using the verbiage " to me". I'm using the devil advocate role improperly according to you. Also I stated " so to speak" so that means that it's not in it's strictest of meaning. We really have to pay attention to words and how they're used. Also definitions can be if not just are that is, Socially constructed. So you want to pay attention to how someone is using a term before running with it. That's why I asked several times, What do you mean by this or that? I wasn't going to assume what I didn't confirm to be correct. Never mind the characters allotted for text. You want to talk about fair. I'm not dictating to you, Don't do it to me. Nevertheless, An enlightening exchange.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.