In most cases, minor attracted persons shouldnt get death penalty if they had sexual relationship with a child

Most of minor attracted persons never hurt anyone. However, most of society wants to hurt minor attracted persons. In our society, minor attracted persons are hated and abused. They are often raped, beaten or killed in prisons. Minor attracted persons are presented as monsters, and people who rape, beat or kill them are presented as heroes. In such twisted society, there is very little hope for minor attracted persons to be accepted. Harm done to minor attracted persons starts from their teenage years, when they realize that they have an attraction to children. They slowly realize that they belong in a group that is most hated in our society. They realize that telling anyone about their attraction would upset people around them. They realize that people consider them monsters. When teenagers have to deal with the idea that society considers them monsters, they have to deal with pressure and pain. They know that they would never hurt a child, and they simply cannot explain it to themselves why their attraction is so hated.

This debate deals with explaining adult-child relationships, and how something that is so loving is at the same time so hated by so many.

Children will have sexual partners, irrelevant of if society dislikes that. Most of children experience sexual urges. Some children start masturbating at a very young age.

P1) If children have sexual urges, then they will seek partners.

P2) Children have sexual urges.

C) Children will seek partners.

P1) If having lots of partners is harmful, then children shouldnt have lots of partners.

P2) Having lots of partners is harmful.

C) Children shouldnt have lots of partners.

Since the topic is death penalty, it is obvious that death penalty needs to reduce number of adult-child relationships, if it is to work.

P1) If separating from first partner of a child causes the child to seek another partner, then separating from first partner of a child results in an increase in number of partners.

P2) Separating from the first partner of a child causes the child to seek another partner.

C) Separating from the first partner of a child results in an increase in the number of partners.

P1) If separating from the first partner of a child results in an increase in the number of partners, then separating from the first partner of a child is harmful for the child.

P2) Separating from the first partner of a child results in an increase in number of partners.

C) Separating the first partner of a child is harmful for the child.

On the other hand, allowing adult-child relationships has benefits which outweight the benefits of death penalty.

P1) If allowing adult-child relationships in most cases causes a child to stay with one partner for a long time, then allowing adult-child relationships lowers the chance of a child having lots of partners.

P2) Allowing adult-child relationships in most cases causes a child to stay with one partner for a long time.

C) Allowing adult-child relationships lowers the chance of a child having lots of partners.

If punishment doesnt prevent adult-child relationship, then such punishment doesnt work.

P1) If banning adult-child relationships doesnt prevent adult-child relationships, then banning adult-child relationships is pointless.

P2) Banning adult-child relationships doesnt prevent adult-child relationships.

C) Banning adult-child relationships is pointless.

Making something illegal often has downsides. For example, you cannot regulate that which is illegal.

P1) If banning adult-child relationships prevents society from regulating such relationships, then banning adult-child relationships is bad for children.

P2) Banning adult-child relationships prevents society from regulating such relationships.

C) Banning adult-child relationships is bad for children.

P1) If banning adult-child relationships means that child will be unable to get advice and knowledge about such relationships, then banning adult-child relationships will cause children to be less able to deal with such relationships.

P2) Banning adult-child relationships means that child will be unable to get advice and knowledge about such relationships.

C) Banning adult-child relationships will cause children to be less able to deal with such relationships.

P1) If banning adult-child relationships means that adults in such relationships will be less informed about how to treat a child properly, then banning adult-child relationships is harmful for children.

P2) Banning adult-child relationships means that adults in such relationships will be less informed about how to treat a child properly.

C) Banning adult-child relationships is harmful for children.

P1) If banning adult-child relationships means that society will not be able to guide adults on how to behave in such relationships, then banning adult-child relationships is bad for children.

P2) Banning adult-child relationships means that society will not be able to guide adults on how to behave in such relationships.

C) Banning adult-child relationships is bad for children.

The biggest problem with punishing adults for having relationships with children is that such relationships are usually secret and never discovered. In most cases, they are never punished because they are never reported.

P1) If most of adult-child relationships are never discovered, then most of children in such relationships will not benefit from death penalty for minor attracted people.

P2) Most of adult-child relationships are never discovered.

C) Most of children in such relationships will not benefit from death penalty for minor attracted people.

To the great surprise of many, adult-child relationships in most cases dont include violence or threats. Rather, child is in most cases willingly in a relationship with an adult. Such relationships often dont even include sex. Rather, they always stay gentle, with gentle touching and sexual activities that dont include penetration.

P1) If in most cases minor attracted people were in a consensual relationship with a child and didnt have real sex with a child and didnt cause pain to a child, then in most cases minor attracted people didnt hurt a child.

P2) In most cases minor attracted people were in a consensual relationship with a child and didnt have real sex with a child and didnt cause pain to a child.

C) In most cases minor attracted people didnt hurt a child.

P1) If minor attracted people in most cases didnt hurt a child or anyone else, then in most cases minor attracted people didnt commit violence.

P2) Minor attracted people in most cases didnt hurt a child or anyone else.

C) In most cases, minor attracted people didnt commit violence.

P1) If it is unfair to kill a person who didnt commit any violence, then in most cases it is unfair to kill minor attracted person.

P2) It is unfair to kill a person who didnt commit any violence

C) In most cases it is unfair to kill minor attracted person.

Many could say that such relationships are wrong because children cant consent. However, children can consent to happiness. Children want happiness like everyone else.

P1) If children know what happiness feels like, then they can consent to happiness.

P2) Children know what happiness feels like.

C) Children can consent to happiness.

P1) If children want to be happy, then they want to be in a relationship where they are happy.

P2) Children want to be happy.

C) Children want to be in a relationship where they are happy.

P1) If in most cases children are happy in relationships with adults, then relationships between adults and children in most cases arent bad.

P2) In most cases children are happy in relationships with adults.

C) Relationships between adults and children in most cases arent bad.

Child's partner was making child happy. Taking away child's partner destroys child's happiness and makes child confused.

P1) If children in most cases love their partner, then killing their partner would destroy their love

P2) Children in most cases love their partner.

C) Killing their partner would destroy their love.

P1) If in most cases children who are in a relationship with an adult enjoy being in such relationship, then killing that adult would in most cases destroy child's happiness.

P2) In most cases children who are in a relationship with an adult enjoy being in such relationship

C) Killing that adult would in most cases destroy child's happiness.

Could you imagine that the person you love is taken away from you, and everyone telling you that the person who made you happy was a monster? That is horrible experience, and many children had to experience their partners being taken away from them.

P1) If children would be traumatized by someone killing their loving partner, then killing their partner is harmful for children.

P2) Children would be traumatized by someone killing their loving partner.

C) Killing their partner is harmful for children.

To the great surprise of many, children who are in relationship with adults in most cases dont want anything bad to happen to that adult. They dont want for an adult to go to prison.

P1) If most of the children who are in a relationship with an adult dont want for their adult partner to be punished, then it is wrong to give their partner death penalty.

P2) Most of the children who are in a relationship with an adult dont want for their adult partner to be punished.

C) It is wrong to give their partner death penalty.

Minor attracted persons experience lots of pain in life. They are bullied, beaten, raped, insulted...

P1) If in most cases minor attracted person didnt hurt a child, then in most cases it is wrong to torture and destroy a minor attracted person.

P2) In most cases minor attracted person didnt hurt a child.

C) In most cases it is wrong to torture and destroy a minor attracted person.

Banning adult-child relationships causes an increase in the number of sexual partners child has during life. Banning adult-child relationships doesnt prevent adult-child relationships. Banning adult-child relationships makes society unable to regulate such relationships. There is no benefit in banning adult-child relationships, as most of them are never discovered anyway. Adult-child relationships in most cases dont cause harm, therefore banning them would not prevent harm in most cases. In most cases that are discovered and punished, child's happiness would be destroyed. In most cases, children are happy in a relationship with an adult, therefore in most cases such relationship isnt bad. Children want to be happy. Such relationship makes them happy. To destroy such relationship would destroy child's happiness and love. To destroy such relationship would cause trauma to the child. In most of adult-child relationships, child doesnt want for an adult to be punished. In most of adult-child relationships, adult never hurt a child. It is wrong to torture or kill a minor attracted person who never hurt a child or anyone else. Since banning adult-child relationships is bad, death penalty is bad too as death penalty means adult-child relationships would be banned.

Source: The Trauma Myth - book that talks about adult-child relationships

I am claiming that map who have sexual relationship with a child shouldnt get death penalty, because it is better if child marriages are legal as an alternative to punishment.

Child marriages are a sensitive topic for many people. However, there is a growing number of debates rising as to what is the right thing to do when one child has sex with the other child or with an adult, what is the right thing to do when child has sexual urges. In this debate, we will talk about problems that children face, and what can be done to solve them.

Sexual urges dont start at age 18. In fact, they sometimes start as young as 7 or 8.

Some children masturbate as young as 4.

In USA, 30% of children had sex before age 16. 50% of children watched porn before age 13. Children have sexual urges.

Children struggle to control their sexual urges. There is simply no way from preventing children from acting on their urges. Children need a safe outlet for their urges. Children have problems in controlling sexual urges.

Having multiple sexual partners is harmful. However, children will act on their urges. Marrying to a person and committing to that person is the best for those children who have problems with urges.

If children dont marry, then they will have more sexual partners.

If children do marry, then they will have less sexual partners.

Marriage is the best way to control urges.

Without marriage, children will still have sexual urges and will still act on them. They will do so with much more partners. They will change lots of partners and increase risk of STI and STD. Having lots of partners throughout life increases depression and suicide rates. Marriage would make it so that child has only one partner and is committed to one partner. If there is no child marriage, there is harm.

Torture is a very serious problem in prison. Prisons are, in most cases, forms of torture. Prisoners are often treated poorly, abused and violated. Decreasing prison population would improve lives. Banning child marriages increases prison population and torture in prisons.

Removing stigma would help children who are in sexual relationships. It would allow them to marry the person that makes them happy. Children in foster care would also have opportunity to marry and be saved from foster care. Allowing child marriage increases child's happiness.

In countries where child marriages are legal and where marriage is valued, there is much less STI, STD, and much less suicides.

In Afghanistan, child marriages are common. Marriage is encouraged and divorce is discouraged. Afghanistan has less suicides, less STI, and less STD than USA. Historical proof of valuing marriage and valuing child marriage working for the benefit of children tells us that child marriage isnt bad.

Woman will give birth to most children if she starts giving birth as early as possible. The longer she waits, the less children she can give birth to. Allowing child marriages increases birth rates.

I dont see a good case as to why child marriages shouldnt be allowed. I dont see a good case why map who have sexual relationship with a child should be given death penalty.

There might be needed another debate that explains child marriage as the topic.

The following:

1) Lots of instances have shown to be forced

2) Children are not ready

3) Children have safe resources if needed 

4) There are alternatives

Before I completely begin, I wanted to say all my rebuttals will and are based off round two. 

Basically, I found no need to repeat round one and two because round two summarized. 

As it states: “UNICEF is working with partners to raise communities’ awareness of the risks for girls if they are married early. Child marriage can lead to a lifetime of suffering. Girls who marry before they turn 18 are less likely to remain in school and more likely to experience domestic violence, discrimination, abuse and poor mental health. They are also more vulnerable to complications in pregnancy and childbirth."

(This will all be said in my rebuttals. I'm running out of time so this is a copy and paste.)

"Engaging in risky sexual behaviors can lead to: 

L: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/sexualbehaviors/index.htm#:~:text=Engaging%20in%20risky%20sexual%20behaviors,and%20unintended%20pregnancy%20among%20youth.

I'm focusing on the overall scope of "sexual relationship" in general. 

So, I am assuming this is frequent. A sexual relationship means active, or frequent. Being this is frequent means that the overall risk of STDS is still high. 

Children don't learn about STDS later in school (and rarely from parents) until lower secondary school and sometimes even upper secondary.

And we can already see that adults themselves don't take STDS or pregnancy seriously.

What makes you think that a child could? 

There are alternatives to acting on urges. You do not need to experience intercourse or have a sexual relationship in general. 

For example, here are some resources (I tried looking for ones specifically in US?): 

There is an extreme misconception about if children wanted the relationship or not.

Can adults take advantage of children in sexual manner? Yes.

I'm going to be using one site. 

One site that I feel just covers it almost completely when discussing about a child being taken advantage of.

I would like to use this example of how a child can be taken advantage of: 

In countries where child marriages are legal and where marriage is valued, there is much less STI, STD, and much less suicides.

In Afghanistan, child marriages are common. Marriage is encouraged and divorce is discouraged. Afghanistan has less suicides, less divorce, less STI, and less STD than USA. If arranged child marriages have all those benefits, then it logically follows that valuing marriages and child marriages is good. Of course, I argue for child marriages that are not arranged by adults only, but also where child desires to be in that marriage. Such marriages would provide even more benefits for children. Child marriage also increases care between people, as it strengthens ties between families.

Woman will give birth to most children if she starts giving birth as early as possible. The longer she waits, the less children she can give birth to. Allowing child marriages makes it possible to raise more children. Allowing child marriages lowers the cost of raising children, as children no longer have to be provided by the parents until 18.

Child marriages lower birth rates if society regulates them to lower birth rates. Society can educate children and teach them about safe sex in marriage, and about how to prevent getting pregnant. Banning child marriages increases birth rates more than allowing child marriages and regulating them to lower birth rates. When child marriages are banned, children still have sex and get pregnant more. They are not guided and regulated by society if child marriages are banned.

There is a significant amount of people who are sexually attracted to children. If society condemns child marriages, and calls those people monsters, then those people feel bad from their teenage years when they realize that they are attracted to children. Allowing child marriages would help them satisfy their urges in a way that is safer.

About 15% of minor attracted persons are children and teenagers who feel pressure because of society's judgment.

Most of adult-child relationships are never discovered. Both adults and children in such relationships have no one to guide them or to set rules of behavior. Adult has no guide on how to better treat a child. Child has no guide which could explain to a child how adult-child relationships are supposed to work. Allowing adult-child relationships changes that. Allowing adult-child relationships by allowing marriage would mean that both adult and a child would get more advice from others, and child would be better protected. It would be possible to regulate those relationships, and make them better for children and secure that children are happy in them.

This topic does not deal with abusers. Abusers should still be punished. 

However, if an adult is kind and friendly to the child and doesnt force a child to anything, and if child is happy and wants to be with that adult, judging such a relationship would be harmful for that child and for that adult.

Punishing such an adult by torturing him in prison is wrong. Prisons are always torture, as lack of desired options is always a torture.

In great majority of adult-child relationships, adult never used force or threat against a child, and never caused pain to a child. In great majority of cases, adult didnt have real sex with a child, but only did gentle sexual activities.

Relationship with an adult in most cases causes happiness to a child. If the adult was friendly and nice to the child, respected child's desires and interests, and respected child's consent and respected what child says, then he didnt force a child to anything. That is the opposite of forcing. To say otherwise would make every activity with a child forced, including school, playing, learning or reading bed time stories. Force would become an irrelevant word that can be applied to every activity. If the adult is kind and friendly to the child and doesnt force the child to anything, then the child will like that adult. Children know what happiness is.

Allowing children to marry gives them more control over their lives. If two young people have known each other since childhood and decide they want to get married before reaching adulthood, then this would give them more stability in their relationship than if they were not allowed to marry until 18. This would also lead to better financial security. Marriages provide more wealth than if person lived alone, while they cut down on expenses.

Child will have much better education if married, since then both the partner and parents can provide for the education. That is more resources than having parents alone. This especially helps single parents. Allowing child marriages also removes stigma from sexual education, allowing children to be better educated about their rights in a relationship, and about how to protect themselves from diseases. They dont learn that when child marriages are banned, and banning child marriages doesnt stop adult-child relationships.

There is a common misunderstanding that banning child marriages prevents early pregnancy. It does not.

Allowing child marriages allows society to better educate children, and lower or increase birth rates if necessary.

Without child marriages, children still get pregnant. However, it is more difficult to regulate and educate children about safe sex if child marriages are banned. It is also more difficult for pregnant teens to maintain their relationship if they are judged and not allowed to marry.

Pregnant teens often have their reputation ruined by pregnancy. Sometimes they end up as single mothers. Sometimes the father of the child leaves the pregnant teen due to society's judgment. Sometimes a teen is forced to have an abortion due to stigma, and due to the lack of marriage that is needed to have economical stability and support to raise a child. Allowing child marriages would prevent this. Being allowed to marry, and father being made responsible for his child would help pregnant teens and unborn children.

We cannot say that children arent accountable for their actions. If a child commits a crime, child goes to prison. If child behaves bad, child gets punished. In the same way child is held accountable for bad behavior, the decisions that child makes are also to be considered important. We cannot say that child is only accountable when doing something bad, but not accountable when consenting to marriage. The decision of a child to enter marriage should be respected.

If a 12 year old murders someone, she would be charged. However, she wont be charged if she has sex with another 12 year old. But if she is 18 and has sex with a 12 year old, she will be charged. Therefore, we see that person's age in one crime is much more relevant to sentencing than in the other crime. In fact, in the case of sex, it literally goes from "not a big deal" to "very horrible" just because of the age of a person doing the action, not the action itself.

By legalizing child marriage, we can preserve cultural heritages that have been passed down from generation-to-generation since ancient times.

Our ancestors married sometimes very young, at age 12 or 11. The age of consent 1000 years ago was usually 12, but it was not enforced and people married even younger.

Indigenous cultures around the world rely heavily upon early marriages between partners so that family lines remain intact. It also serves as strengthening of ties between clans through intermarriage agreements made prior birth. This becomes difficult without legal recognition. Allowing these practices legally ensures continuity within societies. It gives people freedom to express themselves culturally regardless of external pressures placed upon them by society.

If a child is treated badly by her own family, allowing child marriages would allow that child to leave family and marry for someone who will treat her better. Maybe you cant always find someone you love, but sometimes you can. That sometimes should not be prevented.

There is no doubt that there are innocent people in prison. Some people didnt commit the crime, but the witnesses lied about them and put them in prison. If someone is put in prison for having a relationship with a child, but is in fact innocent and didnt do that, he would still be beaten and abused in prison.

There are plenty of benefits of sexual activities and orgasms. The benefits include living longer, being less likely to get ill, having better mood and improved reasoning. There is no reason to believe that only adults receieve benefits from sexual activities. Children receieve same benefits. Sexual activities make children happy when they are desired by children themselves. There are plenty of examples of children engaging in sexual activities with other children. Child marriages make children happy and serve for their benefit. Banning child marriages wont make relationships with children go away. Banning child marriages will just cause more broken relationships and more sex outside of marriage. Sexual activities are safest in marriage.

Extend all contentions.

I'll be more in length next round, just currently in a time crunch.

I already countered this last round about you cannot compare suicides rate to one specific thing when suicides are for many different reasons, and I gave some more elaborate detail. No rebuttal.

--

Countered last round. No rebuttal from them.

Countered last round. No rebuttal from them.

It is not a safer way. I have already provided a safter way: masturbation. 

Already countered with my contentions on why, regardless, it shouldn't happen. No rebuttal from them.

Countered by last round about how most marriages are forced. No rebutal from them.

As for gentle sexual activities, one second you're saying you want them pregnant, the next you don't?

But either way, that cannot be proven.

I countered this last round in my contentions about "did the child really want it?", and other exterior indirect rebuttals from my contentions. No rebuttal from them.

Usually minor attracted person's are adults attracted to children, unless you want to present a different definition.

Banning child marriages does stop to a degree, but just like murdering, it doesn't stop people. Does this mean that we let people kill just because some find a way around it? No.

Also, just because you might have more funds put towards a school doesn't mean a "better education". Nor does it mean the parent is going to provide anymore since the child is married. 

It's a way of preventing, yes. It's much less likely to get pregnant if you have no relationship.

Having a marriage is no different than a dating relationship.

When I say no different, it's no different from taking care of the child.

Other circumstances, maybe. But the father doesn't automatically make him responsible; aka he can leave at any time or neglect.

But in all cases, a child isn't prepared to have a child when they are a child themselves.

They aren't even responsible from themselves yet, that's why children usually move out at around 18 because they aren't ready for even themselves yet.

I disagree but agree.

The action and age are very important.

Let's start with age: 

You don't see much people get upset about adult to adult sex. It's because its something both adults should have learned about, know how to take care of themselves, hopefully do it safely, etc..

Children are not like that. And in fact the opposite. Children have learned almost nothing about sex, how to fully take care of themselves, or how to do it safely.

It's not just the age included, it's both. It's the action that was inflicted onto to a child.

(We) care about what that action does to someone of a young age.

Not only, but you would see we send the adult to prison, not the child, because we know the adult knows (way) more better than that. Because they are grown, and typically understand things on a deeper level that children. It's just the development shown in science.

And why do you think we changed it?

Just like some places changed laws about murdering (yes, I will continue bringing up murder), why do you think we did?

To protect people. Not to just bring it back and harm people, especially children.

If a child is being treated badly, that bad, it is a crime and they will go to jail for child abuse and get new parents.

Otherwise, it's discipline.

That works with any crime, but when the evidence is against them, they are put into prison.

They can try and bail themselves, however, that works like all crimes and most of the time we dont know 100%. We cannot just not put people in jail.

Amazing you said this, because you're supporting my contentions to a degree.

Sexual activities can be done by yourself for a safe way of absolutely no way of pregnancy or (heavy) temptation.

It is wrong to say: "Children shouldnt be vaccinated. Children cannot fully understand vaccinations. Children should not be born. Children cannot fully understand life.".

If children dont fully understand child marriages, that does not mean that child marriages are wrong. Children can desire to be married. Children have partial understanding of child marriages. Partial understanding is enough to have a desire. Most adults dont have complete understanding of each other, as they cant read each others thoughts. Allowing child marriages is beneficial for children. Child marriages make children happy and provide health benefits.

Society's judgment harms children who are in relationship with adults, teenagers or other children. They would not be able to figure out why society hates their relationship. This would make them feel shame, and be uncomfortable to even mention their relationship due to fear of upsetting others. The judgment would make them feel like they are approving of something bad and participating in something bad. The judgment would make them blame themselves. It would make them more scared, confused, depressed and suicidal. That blame comes once they grow up and learn that society strongly judges such relationships. Its the society that puts pressure on those children and makes them think that what they agreed to was horrible. Also, they hear rape stories on media, and believe that they are bad for approving that which society condemns.

People often justify their evil actions by saying that they are still better than others. For example, a person might justify polluting the environment by thinking that it is not bad because he is still better than map which he judges. Judgment causes harm by harming children who are futute scientists. It harms innovation.

Banning child marriages wont make violence go away. Banning child marriages will make violence harder to detect. Allowing child marriages makes the relationship known. If the relationship is known, it is easier to regulate it and prevent violence.Violence and dropping out of school is common in poor communities, just as child marriages are common in poor communities.

Banning child marriage will not make violence go away, as violent people dont stop being violent if they are not married to a person they commit violence against. Child marriages make the relationship known and easier to regulate, making it easier to prevent violence. In USA, there is plenty of violence over children, plenty of depression, plenty of suicides. Child marriages are banned in USA.

Child's body belongs to the child. It does not belong to anyone else. Therefore, only child can make decisions regarding own body. Child marriages allow a child to make a choice, and make it so that the child is better informed. Child marriages allow a child to marry for who child wants, who child likes, who is kind to child and who makes child happy, and who doesnt force a child. Children are not a property, and banning children from marrying who they want would decrease child's autonomy. Banning children from making important decisions decreases their knowledge about important things, and harms them once they are adults. Child marriage teaches a child to be more responsible by educating a child and giving child more knowledge in decision-making. Even if child makes mistakes, child learns from them, as opposed to not making a mistake and not learning.

We see that it is not possible to prevent children from knowing about sex, with all the movies containing sex, and with child's curiosity to discover themselves, and with regular community talk which informs children, and with people who seek to inform children to build a relationship with them. You cant teach children not to have an urge. Entire history shows that controlling sexual urges is impossible to implement. It is also harmful and causes mental pain and discomfort, along with losing health benefits of sex, along with those who cant control their urges be judged by everyone and therefore, harmed. No country was able to stop children from acting on their urges, or adults from being with children.

Preventing children from learning would be bad for them. Banning child marriages prevents children from learning. They will be less informed if they are not allowed to be in relationships. It was shown that child marriage benefits children by reducing depression and suicides, by reducing sex outside of marriage, by making children happier and healthier, by protecting children in relationships, by removing stigma which hurts children. It also helps better guide adults on how to treat children, as opposed to increasing prison population and torture. It was also pointed out that most relationships are never discovered and great majority of children dont want for their partner to go to prison. They keep same opinion even when they grow up. Their opinion should be respected.

Children do not need to fully understand child marriages. Society can understand child marriages, and decide that children should be allowed to marry because of the benefits it gives. Children in child marriages are not on their own, as society and parents are there to advise them and protect them if something goes wrong in marriage.

Banning child marriages leaves children on their own, as there is no one to guide them as the relationships are secret when child marriages are banned.

Child marriage is a child's choice. When child grows into adult, she doesnt want for her partner to go to prison. Since adults are well informed, it follows that child marriage is well informed decision of a person who approves of her child marriage after becoming adult.

This is what is known as "future consent". When child grows up, she agrees that her marriage as a child wasnt a bad thing.

Most of child abuse is caused by children. A 14 year old can easily abuse a 10 year old if in relationship with her. A 14 year old can easily abuse another 14 year old if he is much stronger than her. Even among adults, man can easily abuse a woman due to being stronger.

Children are more likely to get abused by other children than by adults. Adults have more control over their actions. They can be better educated by society. They also have more moral maturity.

In every relationship, one person is more "powerful". In parenting, parents are more powerful than children. However, in loving and consensual relationships, power doesnt matter as there is no force at play. Adult and child have attachment to each other. They love each other and make each other happy. They do that which both have the desire for. Child marriage helps create stronger attachment and increases happiness.

Most of the children who enter into bad company do so because they dont have guidance and because they desire sex.

Child marriage satisfies child's sexual urges and gives guidance to children.

Children have the right to love and to form relationships. It would be cruel to deny children of that until adulthood, as certain percentage of children never reach adulthood. Child marriages are in child's interest. Future consent demonstrates that. Child desires love and creates attachments. To destroy child's love and child's attachment would be very cruel and inhumane, and would reduce children to mere property without a voice.

You cannot reduce sex with children by criminalizing it. The victims, as explained before, dont want to speak out. They like the adult and dont want him harmed.

The number of abuse cases keeps growing. Map always assume they wont be caught. Due to lack of marriage and lack of legality, some map resort to having sexual activities with lots of children. There were even cases of one map being with  over 100 children. Without the ability to marry and without legal protection, map person has less reasons to stay with just one child. There is no education to guide map in behavior. There is no legal law that he must follow. The longer map stays with one child, the more likely map is to get caught. Due to having to hide the relationship, map is more likely to end a relationship and seek other children when map suspects that the current relationship will be discovered if he continues. When child marriages are banned, map would impose himself more on a child, due to no education and no legal guide for behavior. Map is also more likely to use threats against a child, in an attempt to hide the relationship. Map is also more likely to hurt a child when child marriages are banned. This is due to less reasons to treat child well. If he is nice, he might go to prison. If he is not nice, he might go to prison. No matter what he does, he might go to prison. If child marriages were legal and regulated, map would be able to satisfy his urges legally and at the same time follow the rules not to hurt a child. He would be punished if he hurts a child, but tolerated if he doesnt. This gives him a reason not to hurt a child, as he would be much safer and in much better position if he doesnt. Most map are kind non-violent people. However, there are those who are violent. Banning child marriages makes them much more violent and harder to control.

The proof for child marriages reducing sexual abuse is Afghanistan and USA. In USA, 30% of children have sex before age 16. In Afghanistan, only 4% of children are married before age 15. In USA, child marriages are banned and condemned. In Afghanistan, they are seen as normal. We see that allowing child marriages does not harm children, not in terms of scale and not in terms of abuse, as Afghanistan has less suicides, less divorce and less STD than USA. STD is confirmed even by random testing, and all sources agree that STD is lower in Afghanistan. Let us be reminded that Afghanistan is a poor country, and that USA is among world's most developed nations. The fact that Afghanistan has child marriages and outmatches US proves that there is value in child marriage.

If child is in a relationship with an adult, and if child gets pregnant and relationship is discovered, child will be convinced to have an abortion. Even if child doesnt want to abort, the pressure of adults will break her. The decision to have an abortion will be, by all standards, an adult's decision imposed on a child.

When the police gets involved, child is scared and confused. The police will persuade a child that what happened to her was wrong. Parents will continue the persuasion. Child will even visit psychologists who will add to persuasion. In short, entire society will try to convince her that the adult who was so kind to her was in fact a monster. This confuses the child who cannot find a reasonable explanation for adult's reaction, and is forced to accept adult's explanation that was imposed on her so many times. She simply isnt allowed to disagree, or she will be faced with more convincing, more emotional attacks and more visits to psychologists. Adults, who are in greater number and better at reasoning than she is, will simply outmatch her. That is the true power imbalance.

Plenty of people spank children, even tho it was proven that spanking harms children. Plenty of people give children junk food, knowing it is bad for child's health, teeth and brain, and that it causes obesity. Plenty of people lie to children and therefore, teach children to use lies. Plenty of people break the speed limit, knowing that it increases the chances of children being hurt and dying in traffic. They dont care. Plenty of people support circumcision, knowing that it harms children. Plenty of people dont bother to try to fix foster care system, knowing that plenty of child abuse happens in foster care. Children abuse children there. Plenty of people smoke, knowing it increases the chances of birth defects and makes children more likely to smoke. People upload porn to internet making it easily available, knowing that children might see it. Its not the map who needs to change. This society is wrong about child marriages. This society is blind. Its this corrupt society which harms children while claiming that map harm children. These are double standards that society should abandon. You cannot judge others for that which you yourself do.

Child being married to adult will learn a lot from that adult, much more than she would have learned from having other child as partner. Adults are much more morally advanced than children and have greater knowledge. Child cannot teach a child as much as adult can teach a child. Adult is also more likely to behave well and maintain a stable marriage, where relationships between child and child are much more likely to break.

Adult child relationships are the crime in which crime is only a crime due to age of an adult. For example, two 12 year olds being in sexual relationship is condemned, but not a crime. But a sexual relationship between 12 year old and 18 year old is a crime. Therefore, person is assumed to have caused harm only because of his age, not because of the activity he does.

Our society condemns children for having sex with other children and for masturbating. Parents still condemn if their 9 year old had sex with a 12 year old. Parents still shame 4 year olds if they catch them masturbate. This causes children to feel shame and guilt, which increases depression. If child marriages were allowed, relationships between child and child would also be better tolerated and children would be less depressed and less shamed for having sexual activities or masturbating. This would help them grow into free persons without judgment or fear.

Trans children are being judged by our society, simply because our society believes that children shouldnt have a choice. The idea of individual's autonomy would be supported by legalization of child marriages. Child marriages support the idea of giving child a choice, which supports trans rights as trans children would be given a choice to make decisions about their bodies. Many people want to tell trans children that they are not trans, that boys cant dress as girls and much more. The idea that child shouldnt have a choice is a cruel idea, since some children never become adults. To deny them of choice during childhood means to deny them of choice for their entire life.

People who end up in prison stop being productive. Doctors who end up in prison are no longer able to provide medical services. Inventors who end up in prison will no longer invent. This makes everything more expensive, increasing poverty among adults and children. Children harmed by society's stigma will be less productive.

Child marriage helped societies to survive. Societies before ours lived in a very difficult conditions. They needed to be at their best in order to survive. Those societies valued marriage and child marriage, and practiced it. If child marriage was bad for society, then societies who didnt practice it would be dominant. The opposite happened. Societies that practiced child marriage were dominant. Child marriage improved their birth rates, their economy and their ability to defend themselves. There were plenty of happy child marriages at that time. No one complained. Child marriage in ancient times saved children from being orphans. It took care of orphans. At that time, there was no foster care and no one wanted to take care of orphans except map. Without map, ancient orphans would all be reduced to begging in the street. People ignore all the benefits child marriages provided throughout history. Even Romeo and Juliet is based on child marriage that wasnt allowed to happen. Juliet was 14.

If map are allowed to have one partner, they can satisfy urges legally in a way that doesnt harm them. If they are not allowed any partner, they cannot satisfy urges legally at all. And urges would still be there. Having urges that are unfullfilled is an equivalent of pain, since sexual urges are very strong and people are ready to risk their life and freedom to satisfy them.

If a person who is not drunk has sex with a drunk person, that person goes to prison for rape.

If two drunk people have sex, no one will go to prison despite that drunk people cant consent.

Adult can get drunk and have sex with a child, and then no one would get charged for rape because adult wouldnt have power to consent to sex.

We see that standards are inconsistent.

Life is not fair towards map. Many map were abused as children. They suffered a lot. To say that they should suffer more is a great injustice.

Map didnt choose to be map. It was never their choice. Yet they suffer because of it. They are in pain. They feel guilty. Life dealt them bad cards.

We have proof of stigma causing harm. We have proof of judgment causing harm. We have proof of broken attachment causing harm. We have proof of broken relationships causing harm. We have proof of multiple sexual partners causing harm. We have proof of non-valuing marriage causing harm. Do we have any proof of consensual sexual relationships in marriage that is valued causing harm? No. We only have proof of it benefiting the child.

In cases where children have sexual urges and act on their sexual urges, child marriages should be allowed. My case stands on strong ground, supported by lots of strong reasons. The harm of banning child marriage greatly outweights any benefits it might have.

Sources for information used in this debate:

"The Trauma Myth" - scientific book about adult-child relationships