Instigator / Pro
0
1250
rating
393
debates
39.57%
won
Topic
#4781
Here's how it would be possible to eliminate the taboo of pedophilia or stigma of all adult and child sexual relationships
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1389
rating
408
debates
44.24%
won
Description
Definitions
Taboo - Something that is strongly discouraged to associate with
Stigma - Something condemned to associate with
Pedophilia - Sexual activities between an adult and a child, or a sexual attraction towards children
Sexual relationships - Sexual activities between two persons
Child - Person under age 15
Round 1
Pro
#1
Topic
Here's how it would be possible to eliminate the taboo of pedophilia or stigma of all adult and child sexual relationships
Introduction
This debate will mainly deal with taboo or stigma, and why they are unjustified, and how they will be removed. I will go through reasons why we are better without taboo or stigma, and why society will abandon them once awareness is raised. My opponent will argue for his position and will try to justify taboo and stigma that this topic deals with, or he will simply argue why stigma and taboo cannot be removed.
Definitions
Taboo - Something that is strongly discouraged to associate with
Stigma - Something condemned to associate with
Pedophilia - Sexual activities between an adult and a child, or a sexual attraction towards children
Sexual relationships - Sexual activities between two persons
Child - Person under age 15
Arguments
1. Stigma or taboo causes harm to children
Children who are in adult-child relationships would be harmed by society's judgment. 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 makes them more depressed, scared, confused and suicidal.
2. Stigma or taboo causes harm to teenagers
About 10% to 15% of minor attracted persons are teenagers. They are affected by stigma or taboo very negatively. They cant understand why society treats them like monsters, when they are not. This greatly harms their mental health, making them suicidal.
3. Stigma or taboo causes harm to adults
Adults are also affected. It is not easy to live in a world that wants you dead. It is horrible.
4. Stigma or taboo causes violence
There is no doubt about this. Minor attracted persons are often victims of violence.
5. Stigma or taboo harms innocents
People who are wrongly labeled as map often end up being victims of violence, despite that they are innocent of being map.
6. Stigma or taboo harms pregnant teens
Pregnant teens face many difficulties, because society judges them and they often end up as single mothers or with unstable relationship that breaks in the end.
7. Topic deals with sexual attraction
In the part of the topic regarding sexual attraction, it would be much better for the society if map were encouraged to come forward and admit their sexual attraction, rather than being stigmatized and forced to keep it hidden. I believe the part of the topic about sexual attraction is clearly easily defended, although not in itself enough to win the debate.
8. Society will remove stigma if awareness is raised about sexual attraction towards children and about adult-child sexual relationships
If society understands over time that this stigma and taboo cause more harm than good, it will be easy for society to abandon it. Society learns over time, and understands better.
9. Topic deals with all relationships
The topic is what it is, it deals with all relationships, consensual and non-consensual. This makes it harder for me to defend, but I will try.
Lets start with consensual relationships and child marriages. Society will remove stigma from child marriages over time. Society will accept child marriages over time. Society will over time learn many arguments in favor of child marriages. Lets explore the topic of child marriages and why child marriages should be allowed.
Arguments for child marriages
1. Children have sexual urges
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.
2. Children have problems in controlling sexual urges
Children struggle to control their sexual urges. There is simply no way from preventing children from acting on their urges. Children have urges. Children need a safe outlet for their urges. Children have problems in controlling sexual urges.
3. Marriage is the best way to control 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. They will bond with one partner.
Marriage will allow them to have stable relationship before they reach adulthood.
It will help them avoid making risky choices later on in life due to loneliness or restlessness.
In marriage, they would have sex with just one person, which is the safest type of sex.
Marriage is the best way to control urges.
4. If there is no child marriage, there is harm
Legalization would help protect children from exploitation by ensuring they have legal protection under the law, and that relationships are regulated by the law. 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, and not separated from the partner by others. Stigma causes harm to children. If there is stigma, stigma causes harm to everyone in adult-child relationships. If child marriages are banned, then there is stigma on adult-child relationships. Legalizing child marriage would help to reduce the number of people who resort to sex work in order to earn money. People who resort to sex work are often those with failed relationships early in life. Child marriage helps protect relationships. If there is no child marriage, there is harm.
5. Banning child marriages increases prison population and torture in prisons
Torture is a very serious problem in prison. Prisons are, in most cases, forms of torture. Prisoners are often treated poorly, abused and violated.
Not arresting adult who has sex with a child means that adult will have sex with a child and adult wont be tortured in prison.
Arresting adult who has sex with a child means that adult will have sex with a child and adult will be tortured in prison.
Having sex with child and being tortured is more harmful than having sex with a child and not being tortured.
Arresting adult who has sex with a child is more harmful than not arresting an adult who has sex with a child.
Decreasing prison population would improve lives. It would also improve economy, with less people in prison there is more available workforce for buisnesses. Banning child marriages increases prison population and torture in prisons.
6. Allowing child marriage increases child's happiness
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. Child marriages save children from poverty. They make it possible for children from poor families to marry and live in a wealthier, better family. This helps those children, as well as their families who no longer have to provide for the child by themselves. Allowing child marriage increases child's happiness.
7. Society should listen to child's voice
Most of children who are in relationship with an adult dont want for that adult to go to prison. Sending that adult to prison would destroy child's happiness. It is better to let them marry. Society cannot decide what child does with own body. Child's body belongs to the child, not to society. Children have autonomy. By law of autonomy, you cannot use someone else's body without consent. Allowing young people to make decisions about own bodies without fear of judgement creates safe environment. In such environment, everyone feels that their decisions are respected no matter what kind of a relationship they are involved in. This promotes overall sense of autonomy among all population. Giving children ability to choose allows them to decide about their relationship which they are involved in, as opposed to adults making those decisions instead of them. Society should listen to child's voice.
8. Banning child marriages causes trauma for the child
If child has a parter, if child is in love with that partner and if that partner makes child happy, to separate them would cause trauma for the child. They should be allowed to love each other and give each other happiness. Banning child marriages causes trauma for the child.
9. Historical proof of valuing marriage and valuing child marriage working for the benefit of children tells us that child marriage isnt bad
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. Child marriage also increases care between people, as it strengthens ties between families. Historical proof of valuing marriage and valuing child marriage working for the benefit of children tells us that child marriage isnt bad.
10. Allowing child marriages controls birth rates much better
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. Allowing child marriages controls birth rates much better.
11. Allowing child marriages helps adults, teenagers and children who are attracted to children
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. Allowing child marriages helps adults, teenagers and children who are attracted to children.
12. Allowing child marriages allows society to better regulate adult-child relationships
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. Allowing child marriages allows society to better regulate adult-child relationships.
13. Great majority of adult-child relationships are not violent
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. Great majority of adult-child relationships are not violent.
14. Children can consent to be happy
Relationship with an adult in most cases causes happiness to a child. Children know what happiness is. Children can consent to be happy.
15. Child marriage increases relationship stability
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 marriage increases relationship stability.
16. Child marriage improves education for children
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. Child marriage improves education for children.
17. Child marriage protects pregnant teens and unborn children
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. Child marriage protects pregnant teens and unborn children.
18. Children are held accountable for their actions
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. Children are held accountable for their actions.
19. Child marriages are the tradition of our ancestors
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.
20. Allowing child marriage gives child a choice
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. Allowing child marriage gives child a choice.
21. Banning child marriages harms innocent people who are in prison
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. Banning child marriages harms innocent people who are in prison.
22. Sexual activities in marriage are healthy for children
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 are safest in marriage. Sexual activities in marriage are healthy for children.
23. It is wrong to say that if children dont fully understand something, it should not be done
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. It is wrong to say that if children dont fully understand something, it should not be done.
24. Judgment harms children
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. Judgment harms children.
25. Judgment causes general harm
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. Judgment causes general harm.
Conclusion
From these 25 arguments, we see that child marriages should be allowed. Removing stigma from adult-child relationships would make it possible for child marriages to be allowed. Stigma will be removed from child marriages over time. People will over time understand that child marriages should be allowed.
About non-consensual adult and child relationships
Removing stigma and taboo from all adult child relationships would encourage people to talk about it openly and associate with it. This would make it possible to convince those who argue for non-consensual relationships to change their minds, where the lack of such open conversations would make that impossible.
So yes, stigma and taboo should be removed from all adult and child relationships. Society will sooner or later realize this, as society learns constantly. Thats how it is possible.
I will cut my argument short here. I dont want to use all characters, so that I could give my opponent enough characters to respond to my arguments. Plus, 20000 characters is enough.
Con
#2
"1. Stigma or taboo causes harm to children
Children who are in adult-child relationships would be harmed by society's judgment. 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 makes them more depressed, scared, confused and suicidal."
Being that this is the case of judgement, the child doesn't know any better understandably so, isn't the adult pedophile responsible for knowing about this judgement and thus would avoid such an affair?
Not to mention begging the question of child consent. Being that the topic covers under 15 years of age, society will raise a question on verification of consent from a toddler, baby and infant.
"2. Stigma or taboo causes harm to teenagers
About 10% to 15% of minor attracted persons are teenagers. They are affected by stigma or taboo very negatively. They cant understand why society treats them like monsters, when they are not. This greatly harms their mental health, making them suicidal."
We can just echo some of my last response. The adult pedophile is to know better concerning the taboos. That's why the taboos have to be removed first. You're argument starting point is in the wrong place.
"3. Stigma or taboo causes harm to adults
Adults are also affected. It is not easy to live in a world that wants you dead. It is horrible."
Which adults, the adult pedophiles?
"4. Stigma or taboo causes violence
There is no doubt about this. Minor attracted persons are often victims of violence."
The adult pedophile (minor attracted person) can do what's in their best interest and remove the taboo first. This means not allowing themselves to engage in an act to bring about the ramifications. Actions and consequences. The consequences aren't wrong. It's the actions that bring them about. So instead of trying to purge the consequences without getting rid of the taboo, get rid of the taboo.
It's like you get burned playing with matches. Due to getting burnt and hurt, here's how we can make it safe still playing with matches. No the taboo or stigma is that you can't avoid ever of not getting hurt .
"5. Stigma or taboo harms innocents
People who are wrongly labeled as map often end up being victims of violence, despite that they are innocent of being map."
What people? What is map? Is it molester assaulting predators/pedophiles?
"6. Stigma or taboo harms pregnant teens
Pregnant teens face many difficulties, because society judges them and they often end up as single mothers or with unstable relationship that breaks in the end."
This is coming off as irrelevant. Much of your points are getting too broad. That's why I've been asking "what people"? "Which adults"?
When you say "pregnant teens", are you referring to every single one at large or specific group out of all of them?
"7. Topic deals with sexual attraction
In the part of the topic regarding sexual attraction, it would be much better for the society if map were encouraged to come forward and admit their sexual attraction, rather than being stigmatized and forced to keep it hidden. I believe the part of the topic about sexual attraction is clearly easily defended, although not in itself enough to win the debate"
I think we can agree that pedophiles are to be encouraged to come forward so they can be dealt with. I don't believe of any law in society that forces them to hide anything. When you're trying to hide something, particularly because it is illegal, that's the criminal that is to be held accountable for that , not society.
"8. Society will remove stigma if awareness is raised about sexual attraction towards children and about adult-child sexual relationships
If society understands over time that this stigma and taboo cause more harm than good, it will be easy for society to abandon it. Society learns over time, and understands better."
This is incorrect. The issue or the elephant in the room is you have to demonstrate that child/baby/infant and adult sexual relationships are equivalent to adult to adult ones. Apparently it is not so the stigma is there. This point you just made is saying the stigma is harmful because it is a stigma, get rid of it. The stigma is not the problem. The stigma is the symptom of the matter so get to the root cause of the stigma. This is what you've yet to deal with and demonstrate. It's the unparalleled conditions or " power dynamic" issue that is there between the two categories, one involving a pedophile and the other not.
"9. Topic deals with all relationships
The topic is what it is, it deals with all relationships, consensual and non-consensual. This makes it harder for me to defend, but I will try."
All relationships with a pedophile I suppose what is meant. Not all as in all relationships. Another factor in sexual matters yet to be demonstrated is legal child consent hence the socially reacted stigmatization. Then demonstrate a toddler, infant and younger can consent legally .
"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."
If this is indeed true , can you prove a 7 or 8 year old is sexually attracted to an adult?
Also they have a sexual urge to do what?
In regards to the child masturbation, does the child even understand what and why they're doing it? If they're doing a thing which is really called exploring themselves , accidentally falling into a bodily function, do you think a society that accepts that a child as young as 4 that barely if it all knows anything about human anatomy, the ramifications thereof will approve of a child escalating that to a situation of possible ramifications far greater that would have to be understood but too far beyond their understanding to engage in?
If you couldn't follow all of that I'll put it this way. Adults understand and know what and why they're getting into based on their attractions. They understand they're sexual attractions, why they have them, why they're driven by them and the actions committed based on them. It's a false equivalency to put this side by side with a child.
I'll give this analogy. A child may be able to do one aspect of a job like an adult. The child may say they can perform like the adult and follow the example of one. Maybe moving boxes or bags, whatever.
Child says yes I want this job like the adult says I want this job and will do the job.
The child doesn't really know what this means . This is why their consent is faulty. This is why the child will do the job for 2 minutes and gets bored. The child wants to play, the child has a short attention span and gets distracted. The child doesn't stay on the job. See what the adult knows and what the child doesn't is that in order to get paid for the job, you have to stay in the job for 8 hours, not 2 minutes. You can try to even explain the concept to the child. They see you doing something, they feel like they can do it and have a pseudo desire for it.
The desire isn't equivalent because the adult's desire is based on the reality of an understanding, experience and outcome that wanting to do this job to get paid, the adult knows they have to have patience, committed strong work ethic, attentiveness to the job, resilience and dedication to putting the time in.
In the child's mind, they don't know nothing about that. They may have a desire because of what they see or thought could be fun or make a game out of while the adult has a different scope, different basis of desire.
It's not parallel. This is why we can't look at a child expecting them to take responsibility of a job nor handling themselves properly if you say they're consenting to a sexual affair.
This is why it proves impossible to demolish the taboo due to this imbalance.
"2. Children have problems in controlling sexual urges
Children struggle to control their sexual urges. There is simply no way from preventing children from acting on their urges. Children have urges. Children need a safe outlet for their urges. Children have problems in controlling sexual urges."
First off , has it been proven that these are sexual urges versus bodily exploration?
Being that a child is not matured in their physical bodies to accommodate reproduction with a reproductive system , why would a child have sexual urges?
We can understand an adult or young adult. Their bodies, the female that is , they have developed to the point to bear what they are sexually attracted to do.
"3. Marriage is the best way to control 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."
There are a number of things you have to prove first and you're adding on marriage like it's a given that a child can be accountable to committing to a marriage and understanding that they're so called sexual urge has anything to do with it like an adult.
The child which is a person under 15 which would be any age under 15 would understand monogamy and an exclusive sexual relationship.
No way. Just like another topic with you, it appears in your worldview a child and adult are equivalent. A child, a toddler, baby, an infant doesn't matter. From your side presented, a true equivalency.
This response applies to all your points. I may have to at some point start curtailing them so I have enough character space.
"4. If there is no child marriage, there is harm
Legalization would help protect children from exploitation by ensuring they have legal protection under the law, and that relationships are regulated by the law. 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"
What is protecting them is keeping them from pedophiles the molesters. Now a child let's say 5 years old can barely pronounce all the medical terms and sexually transmitted diseases, let alone understand the ramifications to make a knowledgeable decision.
An imbalance my friend, an imbalance.
"5. Banning child marriages increases prison population and torture in prisons"
"6. Allowing child marriage increases child's happiness"
This topic is not about marriages so I won't be able to entertain this point.
"7. Society should listen to child's voice"
They do listen. This is why when the child says "I'm hungry", the adult provides them with food. Now I never heard a child say I want to sleep with Mr. So and So , Ms. So and so. Infants can't even talk.
"8. Banning child marriages causes trauma for the child"
This topic is not about marriages so I won't be able to entertain this point. I gave my initial response but there's no relevancy to continue into it.
"9. Historical proof of valuing marriage and valuing child marriage working for the benefit of children tells us that child marriage isnt bad"
When you say "child " here , perhaps you can specify the age . Based on the definition, it definitely wouldn't make sense in particular cases.
"10. Allowing child marriages controls birth rates much better"
I don't understand the point you tried to make with this. There are already ways birth rates are controlled. Trying to throw this issue in there is far reaching.
"Allowing child marriages helps adults, teenagers and children who are attracted to children"
"12. Allowing child marriages allows society to better regulate adult-child relationships"
This topic is not about marriages so I won't be able to entertain these points.
"13. Great majority of adult-child relationships are not violent"
*****Proofread ****
Are they not violent because the child is being groomed, coaxed and indirectly manipulated into doing what the predator wishes?
" Children can consent to be happy"
Do you know why there are consent laws , why a child can't legally consent in these sexual matters and what makes statutory rape?
"15. Child marriage increases relationship stability"
"16. Child marriage improves education for children"
"17. Child marriage protects pregnant teens and unborn children "
This topic is not about marriages so I won't be able to entertain these points.
"Children are held accountable for their actions"
Depends on the law and the age of the child. The parent or legal guardian primarily takes responsibility for anything the child does in their care. The parent will be charged of child neglect.
This is why regardless of what the child says, automatically the pedophile that has done the illegal act as well as the statutory rapist is charged.
"Child marriages are the tradition of our ancestors"
This topic is not about marriages so I won't be able to entertain this point.
"20. Allowing child marriage gives child a choice"
"21. Banning child marriages harms innocent people who are in prison
"22. Sexual activities in marriage are healthy for children"
You got to remove this taboo then in another debate we can talk on child marriages specifying the age.
" It is wrong to say that if children dont fully understand something, it should not be done"
What SHOULD and what SHOULD not be done to, for a child is under the authority of an adult. The taboo has not been removed for any law abiding parent to allow a pedophile to pursue their child.
"24. Judgment harms children
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. Judgment harms children."
This is mainly conjecture , assertions and claims. Remove the taboo, then all that other stuff is non existent. You can't remove anything else, judgement, criticism, impact of stigmatization etc., without removing the taboo first. That's got to be dealt with first.
"25. Judgment causes general harm"
Taboo has got to be dealt with first.
"From these 25 arguments"
Out of all these points , there has been no establishment of eliminating the taboo on adult and child sexual conduct. You can make 2,000 arguments. It is impossible to eliminate the taboo because the equivalency in this case is impossible.
"So yes, stigma and taboo should be removed from all adult and child relationships. Society will sooner or later realize this, as society learns constantly. Thats how it is possible."
Once again the topic is not what should be but how.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Here's how it would be possible to eliminate the taboo of pedophilia or stigma of all adult and child sexual relationships
Arguments
26. Child marriages help prevent violence over children
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. In USA, there is plenty of violence over children, plenty of depression, plenty of suicides. Child marriages are banned in USA. Child marriages help prevent violence over children.
27. Child marriages give the child more autonomy
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 marriages give the child more autonomy.
28. It is not possible to prevent children from having sex
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.
29. Future consent exists
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.
Rebuttals
Being that this is the case of judgement, the child doesn't know any better understandably so, isn't the adult pedophile responsible for knowing about this judgement and thus would avoid such an affair?
Its very hard for map, because they have urges and feel love. Yes, the responsibility of a map is to not cause harm. It is also the responsibility of a society to not cause harm. Society plays crucial role in creating judgment.
Not to mention begging the question of child consent. Being that the topic covers under 15 years of age, society will raise a question on verification of consent from a toddler, baby and infant.
Future consent solves that. Also, babies too can feel love and attachment.
The adult pedophile (minor attracted person) can do what's in their best interest and remove the taboo first. This means not allowing themselves to engage in an act to bring about the ramifications. Actions and consequences. The consequences aren't wrong. It's the actions that bring them about. So instead of trying to purge the consequences without getting rid of the taboo, get rid of the taboo.
As I said, its hard for map. However, what this society does is wrong, as it causes more harm.
It's like you get burned playing with matches. Due to getting burnt and hurt, here's how we can make it safe still playing with matches. No the taboo or stigma is that you can't avoid ever of not getting hurt
Actually, many studies confirmed that stigma causes harm. For example, LGBT suffers a lot of harm due to stigma.
What people? What is map? Is it molester assaulting predators/pedophiles?
Map stands for minor attracted person.
When you say "pregnant teens", are you referring to every single one at large or specific group out of all of them?
Almost every pregnant teen is harmed by judgment from society.
I think we can agree that pedophiles are to be encouraged to come forward so they can be dealt with. I don't believe of any law in society that forces them to hide anything. When you're trying to hide something, particularly because it is illegal, that's the criminal that is to be held accountable for that , not society.
Actually, society's judgment prevents people from publicly coming out as map.
This is incorrect. The issue or the elephant in the room is you have to demonstrate that child/baby/infant and adult sexual relationships are equivalent to adult to adult ones. Apparently it is not so the stigma is there. This point you just made is saying the stigma is harmful because it is a stigma, get rid of it. The stigma is not the problem. The stigma is the symptom of the matter so get to the root cause of the stigma. This is what you've yet to deal with and demonstrate. It's the unparalleled conditions or " power dynamic" issue that is there between the two categories, one involving a pedophile and the other not.
Well, in every relationship, one person is more "powerful". However, in loving and consensual relationships, power doesnt matter as there is no force at play.
I already explained why stigma causes harm.
All relationships with a pedophile I suppose what is meant. Not all as in all relationships. Another factor in sexual matters yet to be demonstrated is legal child consent hence the socially reacted stigmatization. Then demonstrate a toddler, infant and younger can consent legally.
We are not talking about current laws, but future ones.
Infant can feel happiness and grow attachment. Plus, there is future consent, where when person grows up, finds it to be okay what she experienced as a child.
If this is indeed true , can you prove a 7 or 8 year old is sexually attracted to an adult?Also they have a sexual urge to do what?
The urge to do that which gives sexual pleasure. 7 year old doesnt have to be sexually attracted to the adult. There is also an emotional attraction. If an adult is kind and friendly to the child and doesnt force the child to anything, child will like that adult.
In regards to the child masturbation, does the child even understand what and why they're doing it? If they're doing a thing which is really called exploring themselves , accidentally falling into a bodily function, do you think a society that accepts that a child as young as 4 that barely if it all knows anything about human anatomy, the ramifications thereof will approve of a child escalating that to a situation of possible ramifications far greater that would have to be understood but too far beyond their understanding to engage in?
Child doesnt need to fully understand. Partial understanding is enough. No one else has authority to decide instead of the child, as child's body belongs to no one else but the child.
Besides, sexual activities carry health benefits.
If you couldn't follow all of that I'll put it this way. Adults understand and know what and why they're getting into based on their attractions. They understand they're sexual attractions, why they have them, why they're driven by them and the actions committed based on them. It's a false equivalency to put this side by side with a child.I'll give this analogy. A child may be able to do one aspect of a job like an adult. The child may say they can perform like the adult and follow the example of one. Maybe moving boxes or bags, whatever.Child says yes I want this job like the adult says I want this job and will do the job.The child doesn't really know what this means . This is why their consent is faulty. This is why the child will do the job for 2 minutes and gets bored. The child wants to play, the child has a short attention span and gets distracted. The child doesn't stay on the job. See what the adult knows and what the child doesn't is that in order to get paid for the job, you have to stay in the job for 8 hours, not 2 minutes. You can try to even explain the concept to the child. They see you doing something, they feel like they can do it and have a pseudo desire for it.The desire isn't equivalent because the adult's desire is based on the reality of an understanding, experience and outcome that wanting to do this job to get paid, the adult knows they have to have patience, committed strong work ethic, attentiveness to the job, resilience and dedication to putting the time in.In the child's mind, they don't know nothing about that. They may have a desire because of what they see or thought could be fun or make a game out of while the adult has a different scope, different basis of desire.It's not parallel. This is why we can't look at a child expecting them to take responsibility of a job nor handling themselves properly if you say they're consenting to a sexual affair.This is why it proves impossible to demolish the taboo due to this imbalance.
Adult knows more than a child, true. However, it is the child's interest which dictates what should happen to child's body. If child has interest in sexual activities, others have no right to prevent the child. Child consents as future adult, hence future consent.
First off , has it been proven that these are sexual urges versus bodily exploration?Being that a child is not matured in their physical bodies to accommodate reproduction with a reproductive system , why would a child have sexual urges?We can understand an adult or young adult. Their bodies, the female that is , they have developed to the point to bear what they are sexually attracted to do.
Children can have sexual urges. Children can feel sexual pleasure.
There are a number of things you have to prove first and you're adding on marriage like it's a given that a child can be accountable to committing to a marriage and understanding that they're so called sexual urge has anything to do with it like an adult.The child which is a person under 15 which would be any age under 15 would understand monogamy and an exclusive sexual relationship.No way. Just like another topic with you, it appears in your worldview a child and adult are equivalent. A child, a toddler, baby, an infant doesn't matter. From your side presented, a true equivalency.
Child and adult have equal rights not to have their interests violated.
This response applies to all your points. I may have to at some point start curtailing them so I have enough character space
I do wish this site allowed more character space. Currently, max is 30000.
What is protecting them is keeping them from pedophiles the molesters. Now a child let's say 5 years old can barely pronounce all the medical terms and sexually transmitted diseases, let alone understand the ramifications to make a knowledgeable decision.An imbalance my friend, an imbalance.
Actually, child marriages protect children from STD. STD are mainly caused by having multiple sexual partners, which is what happens when child marriages arent respected.
This topic is not about marriages so I won't be able to entertain this point
It is. When society understands that child marriages are beneficial, it will help remove stigma.
They do listen. This is why when the child says "I'm hungry", the adult provides them with food. Now I never heard a child say I want to sleep with Mr. So and So , Ms. So and so. Infants can't even talk
When a child says that she is happy with an adult, do you listen?
Are they not violent because the child is being groomed, coaxed and indirectly manipulated into doing what the predator wishes?
If a child is happy, if an adult is kind and friendly to her, if he doesnt force her to anything, where is violence there?
Depends on the law and the age of the child. The parent or legal guardian primarily takes responsibility for anything the child does in their care. The parent will be charged of child neglect.
Unless the law changes to respect child's wishes.
This is why regardless of what the child says, automatically the pedophile that has done the illegal act as well as the statutory rapist is charged.
You said before "we listen to what child says". And now you say "regardless of what the child says". So you dont listen to the child.
What SHOULD and what SHOULD not be done to, for a child is under the authority of an adult. The taboo has not been removed for any law abiding parent to allow a pedophile to pursue their child
Taboo will be removed once society understands.
Con
#4
"Yes, the responsibility of a map is to not cause harm. It is also the responsibility of a society to not cause harm."
Thanks for agreeing. The taboo stands to keep society on guard to deter harm.
"Future consent solves that. Also, babies too can feel love and attachment."
Still the question of being able to verify consent from a baby, newborn , an autistic child.
"As I said, its hard for map. However, what this society does is wrong, as it causes more harm."
If it's that hard, society can institute therapy to pull back pedophilia behavior. The taboo will not allow them to let the pedophile engage, no. We're going to pull your head back in the train to keep from being decapitated. Not trying to reinforce your head or make adjustments to the side of a tunnel.
"Actually, many studies confirmed that stigma causes harm. For example, LGBT suffers a lot of harm due to stigma."
False equivalency. You might even be confusing stigmatization with stereotyping like what is done with certain minorities.
"Almost every pregnant teen is harmed by judgment from society."
Well we're only debating the ones that are involved with adults which the adult predators are responsible for the judgment.
"Actually, society's judgment prevents people from publicly coming out as map."
Good , this is a sign of what is wrong with the pedophile. That is, get help. Society won't endorse the behavior but can support getting help.
"Well, in every relationship, one person is more "powerful". However, in loving and consensual relationships, power doesnt matter as there is no force at play."
Then the problem comes into play is it really consent or is the child being coerced by power over their vulnerability that appears to be consent? This gets questionable and pretty much to the point where it's untestable . This is why the taboo exists . You get a way to measure falsification, you might have a start at diminishing the taboo. The taboo is not the cancer, it's the symptom so to speak. Get rid of the cancer.
"We are not talking about current laws, but future ones."
Well the taboo exists currently so not a good start to not have a resolution with the current state legislation.
"Infant can feel happiness and grow attachment."
Insubstantial . I refer you back to my illustration about the child wanting to move boxes or bags.
" there is future consent, where when person grows up, finds it to be okay what she experienced as a child."
Then she can say as adult she wasn't approving of it and didn't know better. This is the big part of the problem of what keeps the taboo alive. You can't verify this as a child because an adult grows up, mindset changes, matures, realizes no this shouldn't of happened. Realized they were groomed, didn't know what was fully going on and totally against pedophilia.
"The urge to do that which gives sexual pleasure. "
Why would a child have this? We know why an adult would. How is this consistent for a child?
"7 year old doesnt have to be sexually attracted to the adult. "
Then there wouldn't be a sexual urge.
"There is also an emotional attraction. "
Like between parents and their children. But sexuality has nothing to do with.
"If an adult is kind and friendly to the child and doesnt force the child to anything, child will like that adult."
Nothing to do with sexuality. So all these points are insubstantial.
"Child doesnt need to fully understand. Partial understanding is enough. No one else has authority to decide instead of the child, as child's body belongs to no one else but the child.
Besides, sexual activities carry health benefits."
This is crazy silly. This is why you can't eliminate the taboo. This isn't acceptable for a protective parent. Partial understanding is enough for what? For who?
For the parents? They're over the children. What gives you the authority to say what's enough?
You just stated no one else has authority to decide instead of the child. So many issues and contradictions with what you just said. Do you think a child would agree to something if they had known the repercussions that were bound to happen in a given situation like an S.T.D.?
Parents can accept their adult children deciding for themselves because they know better. This is not a good start for trying to get rid of a taboo.
"Adult knows more than a child, true. However, it is the child's interest which dictates what should happen to child's body. If child has interest in sexual activities, others have no right to prevent the child. Child consents as future adult, hence future consent. "
Just completely false. Which is why the taboo exists.
"Children can have sexual urges. Children can feel sexual pleasure."
Yet to be proven.
"Child and adult have equal rights not to have their interests violated."
Totally false. Adult is not equal to a child.
"I do wish this site allowed more character space. Currently, max is 30000."
Maybe you want to cut back on the amount of arguments. 30 and 50 arguments, you can break those up over segmented debate sessions.
"Actually, child marriages protect children from STD. STD are mainly caused by having multiple sexual partners, which is what happens when child marriages arent respected."
You can get a S.T.D. married or not, so forget that.
"It is. When society understands that child marriages are beneficial, it will help remove stigma."
No where in the topic did you mention marriage, nor does pedophilia necessitate marriage to make pedophilia what it is. It is hereby thrown out.
"When a child says that she is happy with an adult, do you listen?"
I can't answer that . I've never heard a child make that statement. Do you mean hypothetically?
"If a child is happy, if an adult is kind and friendly to her, if he doesnt force her to anything, where is violence there?"
You're responding to a question with a question trying to twist it . Answer my question please.
"Unless the law changes to respect child's wishes."
Something that just doesn't register with you is that the child doesn't know better. The law has to consider what's best for the child which most likely has not been even considered by the child. That's the problem with just settling with the child's desires. Their own desires can harm them if they're not guarded by an adult who knows better, who's been there with experience.
"You said before "we listen to what child says". And now you say "regardless of what the child says". So you dont listen to the child."
Maybe there's confusion on the word "listen". When I use the term, I mean being able to hear physically. Basically it. You may mean "allow" I guess.
"Taboo will be removed once society understands."
You have failed in that department. Prove that an adult and child are completely equal particularly in making decisions and judgment calls.
I believe you're arguing as if the child has their own authority like an adult, rights all the same like an adult .
The problem is , it has been proven to society or from the beginning that if we fell for the brainwashed illusion that a parent is more like a friend to their child, the child would suffer neglect and abuse from a lack of proper guidance that is strongly needed.
Round 3
Pro
#5
30. Power doesnt matter in a loving relationship
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.
31. Child marriages prevent children from being in bad company
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.
32. Child marriages ensure that children have same rights as adults
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.
33. Banning child marriages increases the number of child sexual abuse
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.
34. Banning child marriages increases the number of forced abortions
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.
35. If child marriages are banned, child is treated differently
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.
36. This society doesnt care about child's well being
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.
37. Being married to adult carries benefits for the child
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.
38. Banning child marriages leads to age discrimination
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.
39. Banning child marriages harms child-child sexual relationships
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.
40. Child marriages support LGBT rights
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.
41. Banning child marriages harms economy and society
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.
42. Survival of the fittest proves the power of child marriages and the value it has for society
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.
43. Having unsatisfied sexual urges is like feeling pain
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.
44. Comparison of child to a drunk person doesnt work
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.
45. Attacking map means attacking victims of abuse
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.
46. Map are not at fault for being map
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.
Conclusion
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.
Rebuttals
Thanks for agreeing. The taboo stands to keep society on guard to deter harm
Does it deter harm? Taboo only causes more harm to everyone.
Still the question of being able to verify consent from a baby, newborn , an autistic child.
Babies cant feel love?
If it's that hard, society can institute therapy to pull back pedophilia behavior. The taboo will not allow them to let the pedophile engage, no. We're going to pull your head back in the train to keep from being decapitated. Not trying to reinforce your head or make adjustments to the side of a tunnel
I dont think thats a fair comparison. This debate is about taboo. Taboo harms every person. It rarely stops map from offending, as pain of non-offending tends to combine with and reinforce the idea that person wont get caught. So you are not really pulling back the head to prevent harm.
False equivalency. You might even be confusing stigmatization with stereotyping like what is done with certain minorities
It is not false equivalency. You cannot seriously claim that judgment harms LGBT but doesnt harm map or children. If stereotypes harm, stigma harms more as stigma often includes stereotypes.
Well we're only debating the ones that are involved with adults which the adult predators are responsible for the judgment
One leads to other, really.
Good , this is a sign of what is wrong with the pedophile. That is, get help. Society won't endorse the behavior but can support getting help
I dont think its good that you dont know who map is.
Then the problem comes into play is it really consent or is the child being coerced by power over their vulnerability that appears to be consent? This gets questionable and pretty much to the point where it's untestable . This is why the taboo exists . You get a way to measure falsification, you might have a start at diminishing the taboo. The taboo is not the cancer, it's the symptom so to speak. Get rid of the cancer.
It is testable. If child wants for adult to go to prison, he should go to prison. Simple.
Insubstantial . I refer you back to my illustration about the child wanting to move boxes or bags
Infants can feel love. You can deny it. It wont change anything. This adds that they can consent. Plus, they have future consent.
Then she can say as adult she wasn't approving of it and didn't know better. This is the big part of the problem of what keeps the taboo alive. You can't verify this as a child because an adult grows up, mindset changes, matures, realizes no this shouldn't of happened. Realized they were groomed, didn't know what was fully going on and totally against pedophilia
If child grows up and says that adult who did it to her should go to prison, then indeed adult should go to prison.
Why would a child have this? We know why an adult would. How is this consistent for a child?
You can check any research. No research says that children cant feel sexual pleasure.
Like between parents and their children. But sexuality has nothing to do with.
So you dont deny that emotional attachment exists between map and child.
Nothing to do with sexuality. So all these points are insubstantial.
As explained, these points help justify adult-child relationships.
This is crazy silly. This is why you can't eliminate the taboo. This isn't acceptable for a protective parent. Partial understanding is enough for what? For who?For the parents? They're over the children. What gives you the authority to say what's enough?You just stated no one else has authority to decide instead of the child. So many issues and contradictions with what you just said. Do you think a child would agree to something if they had known the repercussions that were bound to happen in a given situation like an S.T.D.?Parents can accept their adult children deciding for themselves because they know better. This is not a good start for trying to get rid of a taboo.
Every decision needs to be in child's interest, future and present interest. There is no denying that arresting map is not in child's interest.
You can get a S.T.D. married or not, so forget that.
Countries that value marriage and child marriage have less STD. Countries like USA have a lot, despite banning adult-child relationships.
No where in the topic did you mention marriage, nor does pedophilia necessitate marriage to make pedophilia what it is. It is hereby thrown out.
It was clearly explained that marriage is the best path. You cannot throw out best in a debate about best.
Something that just doesn't register with you is that the child doesn't know better. The law has to consider what's best for the child which most likely has not been even considered by the child. That's the problem with just settling with the child's desires. Their own desires can harm them if they're not guarded by an adult who knows better, who's been there with experience
Future consent helps with settling those issues. Or simply: the interest of future adult.
You have failed in that department. Prove that an adult and child are completely equal particularly in making decisions and judgment calls
Why do you give child food? It is in the child's interest.
Same way, you shouldnt arrest an adult for being in a relationship with a child, when its not in the interest of that child, when its not that child's desire.
The problem is , it has been proven to society or from the beginning that if we fell for the brainwashed illusion that a parent is more like a friend to their child, the child would suffer neglect and abuse from a lack of proper guidance that is strongly needed
I thought the entire human history was war and violence. So obviously, time to change ways from the start itself.
Con
#6
We have a fiery audience.
Just shows how massive the taboo is and you haven't said anything to make a dent. You want society to accept pedophilia first, then drop the taboo as the taboo alone is just harmful for the sake of just being a taboo. An up hill battle for you. Except this hill is on mount. Everest.
"Does it deter harm? Taboo only causes more harm to everyone."
Not all harm unfortunately. Pedophiles still prey and molest children so because of that, the taboo can't even be removed. Taboos do not cause harm.
Let's get a refresher on what taboos are. Taboos are a reflection of the harm known to be inflicted. Taboos are the symptoms, the signs of something devastating like a cancer eating away causing damaging harm.
"Babies cant feel love?"
Sure babies feel love of a mother. Love from a mother doesn't mean sexual molestation from the mother. Let us not conflate predation with love.
So bottom line the verification of consent to something sexual is in question which you haven't demonstrated for a newborn, a baby , an autistic child.
Just concede you haven't thought that far to come up with a way to demonstrate.
"I dont think thats a fair comparison."
It's a GREAT comparison. Why? Here's what you're up against. It's me and the society that have witnessed as it's been established that pedophilia is harmful period. No exceptions. Your position is the opposite way so you're trying to promote safety regulations and point to the basis of harm as just being the taboo itself. The taboo is the resistance to something isn't?
So just eliminate the resistance against not pulling your head back into the train because we can promote it as a safe thing to do and we can make adjustments everywhere else. You have to realize that society at large including many people in prisons frown on, do not accept pedophilia. No more than they not accepting traveling on trains with any bodily members protruding outside the car.
"This debate is about taboo. Taboo harms every person."
Taboo does nothing physically to anybody. It's just a negative viewpoint. It's the pedophile that physically harms so therefore there is a negative look. Just like there's a negative perception to drinking and driving. It's not the perception, it's the act that'll actually kill you.
I guess when you support something, you the Pro side deflect from it making something else falsely as the peril.
"It rarely stops map from offending, as pain of non-offending tends to combine with and reinforce the idea that person wont get caught. So you are not really pulling back the head to prevent harm."
This is why we encourage our children to tell the parents what's going on so that the authorities can intervene to prevent the acts of the pedophiles.
"It is not false equivalency. You cannot seriously claim that judgment harms LGBT but doesnt harm map or children. If stereotypes harm, stigma harms more as stigma often includes stereotypes."
Harms how?
"I dont think its good that you dont know who map is."
Well changing up the language probably doesn't help trying to mitigate what a pedophile is. Society at large uses the term pedophile. So if they don't use the mitigated language you're using, naturally and most likely I won't be familiar with it.
Not good for your side that you had no rebuttal to my point on a good sign of what is wrong with the pedophile.
Hey, we can help them, not hurt them. They don't have to be roughed up in prison.
"It is testable. If child wants for adult to go to prison, he should go to prison. Simple."
That's supposed to be your test . Simple and dumb pretty much. Children don't sentence anyone to prison. They have prosecutors along with judges for that. That's how that works. The basis has nothing to do with the wants of children or anything at all with that.
We disapprove and disallow sexual relations between child and adult regardless of what the child "thinks they want". A person is not sent to jail or prison based on the same. The reasons are related. A child's judgment is insufficient and still developing. This judgement is left to the adults. A child can want me to go to prison because I didn't say something right or didn't separate their peas from their mashed potatoes. No... society doesn't go by that. That's not the way the judicial system works in such a simplistic non intricate way.
So this is left to the adults. The children are subject to the adults. I don't know if this registered with you from the other debate. Although, this can be a double edged sword because the children are and have to be subject, it brings in the power dynamic in which I think you may be oblivious to. The child can just be going along for the sake of the culture or rule of complying with adults or authority over them.
This is why this sexual thing with children and adults is taboo and the way to verify true consent versus what appears to be consent but actually coaxed coered manipulated exploitative compliant behavior is a big part to creating that taboo.
"Infants can feel love. You can deny it. It wont change anything. This adds that they can consent. Plus, they have future consent."
For the record you gave no rebuttal to my illustration on children taking a job like an adult.
Two, you're conflating love and consent. The two are separate subjects. This is what you do. In order to make pedophilia acceptable like homosexuality, just call it love, love, love,love. But society will not be oblivious to the reality of the false equivalency being made between the two.
There's no such thing as future consent. This is a made up fabricated concept by you as well as love indicating consent. I've already address this "future consent" irrationality. For the love and consent point. Just because a sister loves her brother, that is not consent for said brother to have sex with his sister. Two separate subjects.
"If child grows up and says that adult who did it to her should go to prison, then indeed adult should go to prison."
But as a child it appeared as they consented. Let's say you go by whatever it is that you go by that would convey to you the child consented. Does the pedophile go to jail over a consensual act?
The law doesn't penalize for that. See you walked right into this rebuttal by basically saying the grown individual says what they say to have the perpetrator brought up on charges .
That's why this child consent thing is flawed. If child consent was valid , it wouldn't matter what they say as an adult, they consented at the time being a child.
"You can check any research. No research says that children cant feel sexual pleasure."
If you don't know why just say so. You're arguing this, it stands to reason for you to be able to explain.
We can understand why an adult would have sexual urges. I don't think you have a problem trying to draw equivalency between adults and children anywhere else. Why would a child have sexual urges?
"So you dont deny that emotional attachment exists between map and child."
No I never denied a pedophile emotional over a child. It's the sexual aspect that's the issue.
"As explained, these points help justify adult-child relationships. "
My friend what's going to justify them is drawing the equivalency between adult to adult and adult to children sexual affairs. I know you're trying but this is what you got to do. You have to establish a child's judgment of sexual matters can be equivalent to an adult's flat out. I've demonstrated this several times in several points for instance of no equivocation of a child's mindset and the mindset of a grown individual of that same child.
I think we can just let this topic go. It's done.
"Every decision needs to be in child's interest, future and present interest. There is no denying that arresting map is not in child's interest."
For the record again. No rebuttal to the following points I made :
- Partial understanding is enough for what? For who?For the parents? They're over the children.
-What gives you the authority to say what's enough?
You just stated no one else has authority to decide instead of the child.
-Do you think a child would agree to something if they had known the repercussions that were bound to happen in a given situation like an S.T.D.?
You basic response was every decision needs to be in the child's best interest. Every decision made by WHO?
If a pedophile is molesting a child, you better believe damn well it's in the child's best interest to apprehend the predator.
"Countries that value marriage and child marriage have less STD. Countries like USA have a lot, despite banning adult-child relationships."
You can still get an S.T.D.
I don't know what you don't understand about that.
By you saying "less STD", you're indirectly admitting you can still get it. So concede this one as well and drop it.
"It was clearly explained that marriage is the best path. You cannot throw out best in a debate about best."
You keep going backwards. You got to get rid of the taboo first. Pedophile relationships are not accepted so marriages will not be.
"Future consent helps with settling those issues. Or simply: the interest of future adult."
Alright this is debunked. Moving on.
"Why do you give child food? It is in the child's interest.
Same way, you shouldnt arrest an adult for being in a relationship with a child, when its not in the interest of that child, when its not that child's desire."
I don't know the point you're trying to make here but in the most important point you can demonstrate today for all of us, prove that an adult and child are completely equal particularly in making decisions and judgment calls. If you can't do that , you'd have to forfeit.
"I thought the entire human history was war and violence. So obviously, time to change ways from the start itself."
We have a history of children being protected by their parents. I don't know what these other things have to do with anything but a red herring. The average parent or the parents at large of society intend to protect their children from pedophiles.
That is unless that taboo is gone. I'm telling you , if you could show a child and adult sexual relationship can equivocate to an adult to adult one, parents won't have to reign protection like they don't over their adult children's relationships as their is no taboo for adult to adult affairs.
Round 4
Pro
#7
47. There is no proof that consensual sexual relationship with a child causes any harm
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.
Rebuttals
We have a fiery audience.Just shows how massive the taboo is and you haven't said anything to make a dent. You want society to accept pedophilia first, then drop the taboo as the taboo alone is just harmful for the sake of just being a taboo. An up hill battle for you. Except this hill is on mount. Everest."Does it deter harm? Taboo only causes more harm to everyone."Not all harm unfortunately. Pedophiles still prey and molest children so because of that, the taboo can't even be removed. Taboos do not cause harm.Let's get a refresher on what taboos are. Taboos are a reflection of the harm known to be inflicted. Taboos are the symptoms, the signs of something devastating like a cancer eating away causing damaging harm.
It was already pointed out that taboo causes harm, studies proved. Judgment causes harm as people generally are hurt when being judged. Add to that death threats, prison threat, mistrust, rejection, different treatment... there is not much you can go pretending these arent harmful.
"Babies cant feel love?"Sure babies feel love of a mother. Love from a mother doesn't mean sexual molestation from the mother. Let us not conflate predation with love.So bottom line the verification of consent to something sexual is in question which you haven't demonstrated for a newborn, a baby , an autistic child.
If babies can feel love, they can consent to that love.
It's a GREAT comparison. Why? Here's what you're up against. It's me and the society that have witnessed as it's been established that pedophilia is harmful period. No exceptions. Your position is the opposite way so you're trying to promote safety regulations and point to the basis of harm as just being the taboo itself. The taboo is the resistance to something isn't?So just eliminate the resistance against not pulling your head back into the train because we can promote it as a safe thing to do and we can make adjustments everywhere else. You have to realize that society at large including many people in prisons frown on, do not accept pedophilia. No more than they not accepting traveling on trains with any bodily members protruding outside the car.
Saying that something is harmful doesnt make it harmful at all.
Taboo does nothing physically to anybody. It's just a negative viewpoint. It's the pedophile that physically harms so therefore there is a negative look. Just like there's a negative perception to drinking and driving. It's not the perception, it's the act that'll actually kill you.I guess when you support something, you the Pro side deflect from it making something else falsely as the peril
Actually, taboo can cause depression, make person suicidal, less able individual. Teenagers are not built like tanks resistant to judgment of society. Plenty of suicides happened due to society's judgment of some individual.
This is why we encourage our children to tell the parents what's going on so that the authorities can intervene to prevent the acts of the pedophiles.
That is why that fails in 90% of cases, protecting nobody. Better way to protect would be to regulate these sensitive relationships.
Hey, we can help them, not hurt them. They don't have to be roughed up in prison.
When person talks about what can happen, it usually wont happen. What you are talking about doesnt happen as much as should.
That's supposed to be your test . Simple and dumb pretty much. Children don't sentence anyone to prison. They have prosecutors along with judges for that. That's how that works. The basis has nothing to do with the wants of children or anything at all with that.We disapprove and disallow sexual relations between child and adult regardless of what the child "thinks they want". A person is not sent to jail or prison based on the same. The reasons are related. A child's judgment is insufficient and still developing. This judgement is left to the adults. A child can want me to go to prison because I didn't say something right or didn't separate their peas from their mashed potatoes. No... society doesn't go by that. That's not the way the judicial system works in such a simplistic non intricate way.So this is left to the adults. The children are subject to the adults. I don't know if this registered with you from the other debate. Although, this can be a double edged sword because the children are and have to be subject, it brings in the power dynamic in which I think you may be oblivious to. The child can just be going along for the sake of the culture or rule of complying with adults or authority over them.This is why this sexual thing with children and adults is taboo and the way to verify true consent versus what appears to be consent but actually coaxed coered manipulated exploitative compliant behavior is a big part to creating that taboo.
I dont see any counter arguments in this entire text above. My test is simple and really solves the issue of this. if child at any moment wants for map to be imprisoned, he then should be imprisoned for what he did to child. This test has nothing to do with the examples you mentioned. They are not even similar situations to begin with at all.
For the record you gave no rebuttal to my illustration on children taking a job like an adult.Two, you're conflating love and consent. The two are separate subjects. This is what you do. In order to make pedophilia acceptable like homosexuality, just call it love, love, love,love. But society will not be oblivious to the reality of the false equivalency being made between the two.There's no such thing as future consent. This is a made up fabricated concept by you as well as love indicating consent. I've already address this "future consent" irrationality. For the love and consent point. Just because a sister loves her brother, that is not consent for said brother to have sex with his sister. Two separate subjects.
I dont need to refute whataboutism, it has no same reasons. Different situations are treated differently by any logical individual on Earth.
Sexual attraction may not always mean love, but it usually does. Encouraging love obviously discourages violence and supports individual to do good.
But as a child it appeared as they consented. Let's say you go by whatever it is that you go by that would convey to you the child consented. Does the pedophile go to jail over a consensual act?The law doesn't penalize for that. See you walked right into this rebuttal by basically saying the grown individual says what they say to have the perpetrator brought up on charges .That's why this child consent thing is flawed. If child consent was valid , it wouldn't matter what they say as an adult, they consented at the time being a child
Yes, the map goes to prison if child wants him to. It is better than sending map to prison in all cases. 90% of children never wish for adult to go to prison. This has nothing to do with current consent laws in place.
Conclusion
This will be my actual last round for this debate now, as I tend to skip last rounds often, habbit of mine. I think my case greatly outweights my opponents case in general.
Con
#8
"There is no proof that consensual sexual relationship with a child causes any harm
We have proof of stigma causing harm. We have proof of judgment causing harm. "
This is just taking the accountability off of pedophile predators. I could ask where and what it is the proof but you're just shifting the accountability.
"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. "
If we ever have these as topics, you can try to present evidence for each then at that time.
"Do we have any proof of consensual sexual relationships in marriage that is valued causing harm?"
Yes we do. Two married people can be always consenting to sex while other habits towards each other can be harmful, abusive, wreckless, toxic, financially crippling either towards themselves or others caused by the married folks themselves.
"No. We only have proof of it benefiting the child."
Topic is not on child marriage.
"It was already pointed out that taboo causes harm, studies proved. Judgment causes harm as people generally are hurt when being judged. Add to that death threats, prison threat, mistrust, rejection, different treatment... there is not much you can go pretending these arent harmful."
The pedophiles are the harmful predators. If you want to keep saying the taboo itself is the issue and not the predators FROM WHERE THE TABOO COMES FROM, it's a non sequitur. Having your head out of a moving vehicle such as a train reaps the harm, not the caveat or chastising judgment of it like a taboo from where it comes.
If you don't do such a thing, you wouldn't have the caveat or taboo. That's how you eliminate the taboo. You can't have the possibility of pedophilia at all. That is the valid order of things in which you don't get a non sequitur.
"If babies can feel love, they can consent to that love."
Maybe I've stated this already, but let us not conflate love and sex or sexual activity. Like again, the love of a mother doesn't necessitate a mother molesting or engaging in sexual matters with a child or their child.
I notice you still have not presented a verification of sexual consent from a newborn whom barely knows anything.
Concede that you don't have a method of verification.
"Saying that something is harmful doesnt make it harmful at all."
Remember this every time you say taboo is harmful. All you've been doing is saying that.
"Actually, taboo can cause depression, make person suicidal, less able individual. Teenagers are not built like tanks resistant to judgment of society. Plenty of suicides happened due to society's judgment of some individual."
You're starting to generalize here. Make sure we're sticking with the taboo of pedophilia. So pedophiles are the cause and at fault.
"That is why that fails in 90% of cases, protecting nobody. Better way to protect would be to regulate these sensitive relationships."
Your response to my statement of children telling their parents about abuse and pedophiles is that it fails to protect the children so the alternative is to just endorse the pedophile abuse. This is a horrible approach to eliminate the taboo. You got a longgggggg road ahead of you because you are already going down the wrong way.
"My test is simple and really solves the issue of this. if child at any moment wants for map to be imprisoned, he then should be imprisoned for what he did to child. This test has nothing to do with the examples you mentioned. They are not even similar situations to begin with at all."
Uh it's left to the adults who decides goes or gets sentenced to prison. Now if you disagree with that, show me a child judge, prosecutor, lawyer, public council, district attorney. A child can want this and that all day. At the end of that day, it is left to the adult. Just like it's left up to the adult pedophile to say "No I can't engage in sexual matters with a child".
"Sexual attraction may not always mean love, but it usually does. "
Sexual attraction and love are two different subjects. So they never but ever mean the same thing. Maybe to you. But be careful to explain to others that they mean the same to you so we can go without confusion in all of our communications with one another.
"Yes, the map goes to prison if child wants him to. "
This is completely false. If a pedophile is brought up on charges found guilty and convicted in a court of law that person goes to prison. Your reasoning is too shallow. Just like with the topic of child transitioning. I digress, no need to get further into that.
"It is better than sending map to prison in all cases. 90% of children never wish for adult to go to prison. This has nothing to do with current consent laws in place."
Duhh, my point exactly. This is pretty much why someone going to prison is not assessed by what a child wants but the judgment of the law in which a child makes no legal judgment.
Adult and child sexual relationships are illegal because of consent laws. It's because of them. So what are you talking about " This has nothing to do with current consent laws "?
It's like you're out of touch with reality for real. I mean endorsing pedophilia in general isn't the reality we're in so you pretty much are out of touch with the majority.
You endorse pedophilia but would like to eliminate the taboo. You can't have danger without its caveat .
"This will be my actual last round for this debate now, as I tend to skip last rounds often, habbit of mine. I think my case greatly outweights my opponents case in general."
You have an obstinate case. You're not refuting my counter points. You're going in circles just reiterating what was stated the round previous.
The problem is your position endorses pedophilia and you can't even see children as unequal so therefore you look at this as adult to adult sexual relationships equivalent to adult and child.
You didn't even have a rebuttal to my point on yours about "future consent" and the flaw there . You respond with "This has nothing to do with current consent laws ". If there were no consent laws regarding this matter, nobody would be going to jail over it.
This is why pedophilia is dangerous to try and cut corners and make adjustments as you're arguing.
Just dismissing and regurgitating keeping you in the invincible ignorance fallacy.
You have one more chance to prove adult to adult sexual relationships are equal to adult to child sexual relationships. If you don't take it, you concede .
Round 5
Pro
#9
As I said, I will be skipping the last round.
Thank you for the debate. If you have anything else to add, feel free to.
wtf is wrong with you go get therapy
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!!
Best.Korea simply will NOT let the topic of pedophilia go...and now he is actively debating FOR IT!!!
Talk about F.U.B.A.R.!!!
Please do make the debate then. I will gladly show you how wrong you are.
I have no idea what you are even trying to say. If you want to debate, I will make the debate. If not, I have no interest in watching your emotional outbursts listening to how offended you are because someone has a belief that you dislike and because someone is map.
I didnt even read your arguments that you posted here. I dont even know why you bothered writing them.
I'm not trying to debate with you. You are so obviously in the wrong. In my eyes, and maybe I am wrong, you actually believe this and are trying to justify your own beliefs. That is why I am giving my opinion. Not to try and debate, but to show you that this belief if sick. If you are just doing this for the sake of debate and practicing debate and don't actually believe this, than I apologize for coming on so harshly. Even if that is the case, you should still look at what I wrote because it shows some flaws in your arguement.
Okay, what part of "I dont feel like debating in the comments" made you think "this person feels like debating in the comments"? 😀
I have no debate with you. Maybe this topic upsets you, but it was never directed at you.
Theoretically, there could be a situation where everything was okay and the child didn't have regrets and neither did the adult. But this is unlikely as pedophilia is often a result of mental illness, making it more likely the "MAP" causes harm. And by legalizing it, we as a society are inviting this harm. Furthermore, a child may believe they are happy in a relationship, but don't have experience to understand if they are being treated right. They may realize as they get older that they were being mistreated and manipulated.
I also want to point out a contradiction in your arguement.
"Actually, child marriages protect children from STD. STD are mainly caused by having multiple sexual partners, which is what happens when child marriages arent respected."
"Besides, sexual activities carry health benefits."
Your arguement is filled with fallacies and illogical and unempirical claims. Your view is disgusting and I hope you genuinely read through my arguments and realize what is wrong with what you are saying.
Okay 1. those two people CAN get married they just need adult consent. 2. Getting married doesn't solve any financial problems. It matters for taxes, but guess what, they are children so they don't pay taxes in the first place. They can still share a house together without being married. It is VERY common for people to move in together before they are married.
"Great majority of adult-child relationships are not violent"
I couldn't find a source anywhere that confirmed this. It seems you just made it up. If you are considering all types or relationships, like friends, coworkers, child-parent, I am sure it is true. But violence and abuse is very common is adult-child romantic relationships.
" Allowing child marriages helps adults, teenagers and children who are attracted to children"
The way to help these people, is to get them to a therapist. Pedophilia is often a result of mental illnesses, that are sometimes treatable through medical help.
" It is not possible to prevent children from having sex"
This is why it isn't enforced often when it is two minors, as no one is really a victim. Minors can and do have sex, but it should be with someone on the same level of maturity of them to prevent abuse and them being taken advantage of.
"If child has a parter, if child is in love with that partner and if that partner makes child happy, to separate them would cause trauma for the child. They should be allowed to love each other and give each other happiness. Banning child marriages causes trauma for the child."
This is rarely the case, and typically minors in this sort of situation lose that love when they mature and gain a better understanding of the situation. If you are the adult in this situation, you should keep your distance until the child is older and make rational decisions. Keep in mind keeping distance means more than just not engaging in sexual relations as if the adult did everything but that and then had sex as soon as they turned 18, it would be a case of grooming.
"Stigma or taboo causes violence"
I explained this is my first comment, but decriminalizing it only causes more harm. If a "MAP" doesn't act on it and instead goes to therapy and tries to improve, they will most likely not be targeted by violence.
" Child marriages help prevent violence over children"
Another stupid arguement. Being married doesn't "make the relationship more known". If there is abuse in a relationship it will occur whether or not the child is married. Again marriage is just a legal title.
"Child marriages give the child more autonomy"
Children CAN make these types of decisions. Often though they need parental consent, again this is because children have worse-decision making. A child doesn't have the right to make all these decisions because they can't consent to them on their own.
"Children are held accountable for their actions"
Minors are held significantly less accountable for their actions. If a child commits the same crime as an adult, they will be sentenced EXTREMELY lighter. And the crimes will be hidden once they turn 18.
"Future consent exists"
Children don't need to be groomed to learn about relationships. In fact adult-child relationships teaches minors a dangerous precedent about power levels in a relationship. We can verbally educate kids, and they can learn on their own with people of their same maturity level as people have done for centuries.
"Child doesn't need to fully understand. Partial understanding is enough. No one else has authority to decide instead of the child, as child's body belongs to no one else but the child."
The problem here is that partial understanding isn't enough. When you have an adult who has a complete understanding of the situation, and a child who has little understanding, the adult is in a position of power, where they can easily choose to manipulate and abuse the child.
"If a child is happy, if an adult is kind and friendly to her, if he doesnt force her to anything, where is violence there?"
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. Child marriage protects pregnant teens and unborn children."
Legalizing child marriages doesn't do anything. The father can leave anyway and that still happens often even in people over 18. Marriage doesn't provide "economical stability". Adding a legal title wouldn't effect the support the child would get. If the parents choose to stay together and raise the child it doesn't really matter if they are "married" or not. That title only has legal implications. The father is still financially responsible for the child regardless of if he leaves or not also.
"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. Allowing child marriage gives child a choice."
Or they could reach out to child protective services? This doesn't give the child any new choices, if they are in a bad family, they can call CPS.
"Banning child marriages harms innocent people who are in prison"
You don't fault the crime, you fault the judicial system. If someone is falsely imprisoned for murder, you don't say the solution is to legalize murder, the solution is to better regulate our judicial system.
"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. Judgment causes general harm."
This arguement is utterly meaningless. There will always be worse evils that people can compare themselves to, legalizing them doesn't solve anything.
"If children dont fully understand child marriages, that does not mean that child marriages are wrong."
This can be true. Which is why marriage can be permitted under the age of 18 with legal consent from a parent. But the point is, certain decisions a child shouldn't be making as they don't have the maturity to make a mature and well-thought out decision. If something effects a child for the rest of their life, like being married, they shouldn't be able to freely make those decisions all over the place. Same reason why a child shouldn't be able to buy a gun. If a parent cosigns some of these decisions, it makes it less likely for the child to end up in a situation they regret.
"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."
Our ancestors also enslaved people and did many other awful things. Child marriage is not an crux for any culture, and it is stupid to continue it just because people in the past did.
"Allowing child marriages controls birth rates much better"
We are already dealing with the issue of overpopulation. In China, they put limits on how many kids people can have. This is not a pro in any way.
"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. "
You didn't refute anything I said you spewed nonsense. And I find it important to clarify how wrong you are because your views are gross.
Like come on "Banning child marriages increases prison population".
Yea and banning murder increases prison population. That isn't a reason to legalize murder. " Stigma or taboo causes harm". Now the one thing I can agree with is that if you have these urges you should seek medical help, the same way you should if you have urges to hurt people or do other harmful things. We shouldn't just let everyone go out and act impulsively with no repercussions.
"Children have problems in controlling sexual urges".
This is true, that is why people masturbate, or if there are minors who choose to do so they can engage in sexual relationships with people of the same maturity level. As I stated before, a minor can't give the same level of consent as an adult so it is irresponsible for an adult to engage in a relationship with a minor.
"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..."
This arguement is utterly ridiculous. College students engage in more casual sexual relationships than anyone, and they are allowed to be married legally. Children do have the maturity to make decisions like getting married, hence why it is illegal.
"In Afghanistan, child marriages are common." Another stupid arguement. In Afghanistan, women are extremely oppressed, which is why 80% of suicides there are by women. Not to mention the population there isn't as informed and might not get tested when they show symptoms. Furthermore, a better solution to STDs is safer sex using things like condoms. Child marriage is problematic as I stated before because they can't consent to that life altering decision.
"Child marriage improves education for children" this is just ridiculous. Why would the child have to marry someone for educational help. There are tutors, online help, help from teachers, etc.. Another stupid stupid arguement.
" Allowing child marriages allows society to better regulate adult-child relationships"
They should be regulated by criminalizing them. The adult is in a position of power and it creates a dangerous relationship that most of the time leads to abuse. The relationships are most of the time never discovered because the children are often manipulated and threatened into not telling people.
"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
Ok, but why?
I dont feel like debating in the comments right now. All those arguments were refuted in the debate itself. If you have the interest, follow the debate.
The reason why a child can't consent to sexual relationships is because they don't have the brain development or life experience to commit to many life-altering decisions. This is the same reason why minors are treated differently when they commit crimes. "removing the stigma" around people attracted to minors is a ridiculous notion. Sexual and emotional (like marriage as you suggested) relationships can have serious effects on one's mental and physical health. When two minors engage in a sexual or emotional relationship, it can be technically illegal, but it is ethically okay because neither of them is being taken advantage of. When someone older is with someone younger it can create ethical problems. For example, power dynamics, if someone is much older it can place them in a role of power in a relationship, whether physically or emotionally, which can lead to abuse. Secondly, an older person has the maturity to understand the possible outcomes of engaging in a relationship so they can make more reasonable decisions, but someone younger won't have the same maturity and won't be able to make decisions as decisively, which can result in unhealthy and unwanted relationships. Sure "MAP"s who act on it can be ostracized, but that is because they are causing harm. As I have established a child can't consent, and non consensual sexual relationships is obviously a horrible idea. Your arguement is the same as saying rape should be allowed because some people are rapists. It is illogical and disgraceful, please strongly reflect on your beliefs.
See if this works for you. Let me know if anything needs to be changed.