Milo Yiannopoulos is not an advocate of pedophilia

So my opponent didn't even address the video that I had posted and then states that my statement, "Here is a video of Milo supporting pedophilia," as my only proof. This is a failed tactic in trying to divert the audience's attention away from living proof of Milo defending and advocating pedophilia. Point 1 2:55-3:04 Joe:Do people know who he is? Milo:I don't think so. Joe:What's his name? Milo:Well I'm not saying anything. Joe:Well how old were you at the time? Milo:Well I just" Joe:You were a little kid and he was like what? Milo:Stop it. Joe:Was he in his twenties or thirties? Milo:You're just trying-You're trying-You're trying" Milo:Yet another-yet another feminist strategy you have adopted That is the first scene where Milo defends the names of pedophiles. Notice that Milo passes off identifying the pedophiles name three times. The very last time he passes it off as a, "feminist strategy" as if that has anything to do with wanting to identify a pedophile. As you can see, Milo is clearly dodging the question of who the pedophile is and in fact go so far as to claim that Josh is attacking him with "feminist strategies" to avoid answering. 5:04-5:31 Milo:I went to other people whom I won't name, of a similar stature in hollywood. I went to their boat parties and to their house parties and things, and some of the things I have seen, beggar to believe. Joe:Yeah, can you give us like uh" Milo:Well just" I don't want to be indiscreet about specific people" Joe:Right you don't have to do that, just dance around the facts Milo:Yeah, dangerous but I can tell you the truth without dropping anyone in it. Some of the boys there were very young. Very young. Again Milo defends pedophiles when talking about parties in hollywood. That is the proof of Milo supporting pedophilia which my opponent so conveniently neglected to even talk about or defend. Point 2 ",maybe the priest isn't practicing anymore, making it impossible to find him." Modern technology has cleared that issue up quite nicely. I'd like to direct my audience to the fact that Milo's parents could quite easily track down this school/church that Milo went to. This is highly unlikely speculation and I highly doubt Milo has forgotten it all. Speculations prove nothing. Point 3 My opponent keeps saying that Milo would have been sued for defamation if he had reported these pedophiles. Here is the definition for defamation, "the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel." [3] Slander, "the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." [4] So basically my opponent has just claimed that Milo is in fact a liar who was not a victim of sexual abuse. This is true slander of the highest insult to any victim of sexual abuse. Milo is a victim of sexual abuse, therefore giving the name of his sexual abuser would not be defamation because that person didn't have a good reputation to begin with. Milo's testimony is evidence that he could use to bring the pedophile to justice. Just like his testimony to witnessing the hollywood party is evidence to putting pedophiles in jail. Many sexual assault cases don't have witnesses but that does not make their testimony useless. By law they are committed to speak only the truth in court. By now you realize that the pedophiles would actually lose the case because they are breaking the law by lying about defamation and denying that they are pedophiles. My opponents misconception that a witness's testimony is no evidence in a court is truly messed up. By law, Milo was obligated to report the pedophiles. Under section 4.2 Remote Health Atlas Sexual Abuse Under 18 it says, all territorians must report any harm or exploitation in anyone under 18 years (not just sexual). [2] In the other report, it says the same thing under the Frequently Asked Questions subtitle, if the victim is under the age of 18 the abuse must be reported. [1] Also below that question and answer it states, The child abuse reporting law mandates a report to be made when there is a reasonable suspicion or knowledge that children may be at risk. Therefore, childhood abuse of adults should be reported if there is a reasonable suspicion that there may be another potential child victim. Father Michael was a teacher who obviously had access to children through his career. Milo identified him as, "Quite young, quite hot." (0:40) which goes to show that he was obviously at the start of his teaching career which means he'd have years and years of access to other students. By not reporting Father Michael, not only has he defended him but allowed him to continue to attack other children. Point 4 Then my opponent goes into a bunch of straw mans about other people knowing in depth and seeing the hollywood pedophilia and not doing anything about it. This does not prove anything other than the fact that Milo supporters are willing to pull everyone else under the bus because they're desperate to protect and defend Milo. Here's my response to this, what do they teach kids in school about bullying? They teach that standing by and watching the victim get bullied is actually supporting the bully. Do you disagree? No? Well then that makes virtue signaling others pretty void and petty. Point 5 0:32 Joe:Did he make you suck his d*** for real? Milo:Didn't make me, I was quite enthusiastic about it. 3:07-3:24 Milo:I told you, it wasn't pedophilia. Joe:How old were you? Milo:I was in my teens, in my teens. Joe:Fourteen. Milo:Teens Joe:You said you were fourteen. Milo:Something like that. I was in my teens. Joe:That's pedophilia buddy. There you have it, Milo denying it was pedophilia. Watch the video before claiming I'm publicly slandering, I could sue you for defamation and win the suit because you would be lying. Now do you see the difference between real defamation and false defamation? Milo and I wouldn't be lying. Point 6 Then my opponent goes on to say that I'm actually not arguing over pedophilia and it's actually named under a different thing. Here is the definition of pedophilia, "sexual feelings directed toward children." [5] There goes your last desperate attempt at an argument. Wrap Up Milo had every chance to put those pedophiles in jail. They wouldn't have had even a decent chance at winning a defamation lawsuit because Milo would not be lying. So the question is, why would Milo withhold such information when he easily could have put a stop to these pedophiles? Like I said before, a bystander who has seen the event personally and refused to step forth to the police to act as a witness against the criminal is actually supporting the criminal. Milo is supporting pedophilia by withholding this information and allowing these child predators to continue. Since my opponent has not refuted the fact that Milo withheld this information, he has failed to refute why Milo is a supporter of pedophilia. [1] http://mandatedreporterca.com... [2] http://remotehealthatlas.nt.gov.au... [3] https://www.google.ca... [4] https://www.google.ca... [5] https://www.google.ca...