Present arguments that show what's wrong with pedophilia

Okay I might have misinterpreted but you are not playing the devil's advocates role properly. Devil's advocate: describes someone who, Given a certain point of view, Takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with. You have not given me a certain point of view for it to be treated as devil's advocate. A certain point of view is not rebutting my arguments. It was making your own arguments so I have something to work with. My point was this which should have been clear in Round 1. If you did start in Round by giving your arguments we would not have this problem. You have not shown your burden of proof as devil's advocate. Round 1 point: More often then not they do not know of the consequences of said action. Developed on with: as the brain is developed a more informative choice can be made. The "pro" side means that I'll be questioning the other side's arguments. This exempts you from any argument made apart from counter arguments? As Pro you are supposed to be defending paedophilia. You cannot fully do it without giving your arguments on why paedophilia is right. Without it you are simply disagreeing with my arguments and giving no new new arguments to replace mine. How is this is a debate if you are on the fence not playing devil's advocate by the definition above I gave since you have to give a point of view? Questioning my arguments is not a point of view. You are just questioning my arguments. If you clearly set out your definitions of devil's advocate then I would not have a problem but you didn't. I am not going to do what I did in the earlier round because I do not see the point. I was not able to rebut your argument because of how much you wrote that were not straight to point and you did not give me the same courtesy I gave you of trying to rebut all my arguments. To you, Huh? We know these are examples of decision making with poor judgment and ignorance. Did you wish to be intellectually dishonest here? Don't make excuses for individualsI added experience as a way to relate it to reality not just in thought. Everything before that was not my opinion or maybe you want to take me out of context. Excuses? It is not an excuses if that is what actually happens. Is that really a rebuttal? This consent with knowledge thing is not a very strong argument. We've just gone over many common life issues that affect all kinds of people of different ages. It is the main reason why paedophilia is wrong. If that is not a very strong argument what is? You haven't gone over common life issues that have proven me wrong because you picked out outliers instead of what generally happens. What generally happens affects more people then an outlier. We don't make laws on the minority we make it for the majority. Whether it be strictly to voting change or the actual law that affects the individuals in question. Regardless of what an adult can do versus a kid still doesn't change that people can consent without knowledge. Didn't I answer a similar statement you made before? I'll do it again. They have the capacity to use knowledge to make an informed decision but they choose to not use their brain to find the best course of action towards whatever it maybe. It's been figured for the sake of context that they'll be nothing different in the pedophilia relationship than it would be in a regular affair between two adults. The benefits, Pros and cons have been factored. By this exceptional case, Would it be acceptable then? Don't know how you got this. The difference is that it is between two consenting adults. The other is with a child that does not have the capacity to choose wisely with the consent he/she has. That didn't answer the question. Yes or no, Is there no adult anywhere on the plant unaware of consequences? Yes but they had the capacity with knowledge they can gain to do the right thing but they didn't. You asked me a question where you and I know the answer to acting like somehow you made a point. It is not a point. It is a given if someone does not have the knowledge of the situation they cannot properly assess the best course of action. So kids don't have the ability to make the right decision, Is that right? Did not use ability. Used capacity. Ability and capacity are two different things. Ability is either you have it or you don't. Capacity can vary between an individual. By saying the brain on average is developed at an age of 25 would be considered full capacity for those who do have their brains fully developed at that age. What's your evidence for a kid not being able to do the right thing? Source I listed above explains reason is fully developed at the age of 25 on average. I clearly identified what I meant when I said " playing the devil's advocate so to speak". Without defining what you meant so assumed you meant by the definition but you didn't. How can you make a point of contention you haven't made a point for instead of questioning. You were neutral. If you had a position it was not clear. Even if you say you are devil's advocate no where did you give me a point for paedophilia. I found this debate annoying. I don't see how I am meant to discuss this if Pro was not being Pro. Devil's advocate requires him to give a point of view but he didn't which also falls in line with burden of proof since he did make the claim. I gave evidence to make claim but Pro did not. I did not learn anything new apart from how not to set out my debate. Next time can you paragraph your work it is difficult to keep track of what you said when there are no spaces in between separate points.