Pedophiles should not be stigmatized as they are today.

It seems my opponent may actually be agreeing with me now. If you take a look at these quotes from the last round by them, you can see this is the case:In the last paragraph, the last sentence, they stated, We are improving though and eradicating the problems at the source, which in time should lead to no more stigmatization of pedophilia as hopefully it[stigmatization] will no longer exist.(emphasis added as well as what is in between brackets) Then there is this When these arguments are seen focused just on the attraction toward children and not the act, they can seem overly unfair, and while again I sympathize with wrongly accused people of any crime, the attraction toward children should be seen just as bad and with closer examination of the causes I hope to explain why.Which also seems to be sympathizing with the idea that stigmatization of pedophiles is unfair, and seems to coincide with what I am arguing for. Since this debate is specifically about pedophiles themselves, and pedophilia deals with the attraction to children, their points about child pornography and child molestation don't apply in this debate. Now, they did bring up an interesting point about child pornography, which is that, if not for its existence, there would be fewer people who discover they are attracted to children. However, my question is this: did the child pornography come about due to the demand for it and people were already attracted to children, or did the child pornography cause people to determine they are attracted to children? I think it's a little bit of both. There were already pedophiles who probably discovered they were attracted to children before viewing child pornography. I can think of several times where they could discover this: if they have a sibling that is significantly younger than them. It's often inevitable, no matter how disgusting we think it is, that someone will end up seeing their siblings naked, or at least partially naked. That seems to just happen whenever you live with someone. If someone who is 7-10 years older than their siblings, they will discover in their late teens that they may be attracted to the body of their younger sibling. A second case where this could happen would be while babysitting. Perhaps the child they are babysitting takes off their clothes or something and they find themselves unable to look away. I also don't think someone needs to be naked to discover you're sexually attracted to them. These discoveries could simply happen by being around children. Now, let's look at porn in general(I don't mean literally). Porn viewing in general has been found to have positive correlation with how sexually active a person is, but findings suggest that it's not the porn viewing that is causing the sexual activity, but the other way around: the fact the person is more sexually active means they are more likely to watch porn[10] Therefore, I don't think the child porn is actually increasing the liklihood that the pedophile will act out on their attraction, rather, pedophiles who are already acting out on it, or are already planning to, are the ones more likely to look at child porn. So, I don't believe child porn is having much impact on whether a pedophile will act out on their attraction: they were already planning on it or have done it before viewing child pornography. Therefore, since there seems to be causation, where the desire for sexual activity leads to an increase in child porn viewings, I contend that majority of pedophiles do not look at child porn since majority do not molest children, as established previously. So, here is where I would agree with my opponent:Child molesters should receive stigmaChild porn viewers should receive stigma.Here's where I disagree with them(or so I thought until they seemed to agree with me as I pointed out) Pedophiles should not receive the stigma. Pedophiles are not the same as child molesters or child porn viewers. Some pedophiles do both, but not all. Why should the innovent pedophiles be punished(stigmatized) for what a minority of them do?I would also like to point out that (likely) child porn viewers are not only pedophiles. There are many minors nation wide who swap nude pictures that would be classified as child porn, for example. These minors would not be considered pedophiles, by the definition I offered, because only older teenagers and adults can be pedophiles. Children cannot be pedophiles. Oh, and speaking of that nude picture swapping, that is ANOTHER way through which someone could discover later in teenage years or adult years that they are attracted to children: if, as a pre-teen, they swapped nudes with someone, and kept those nudes into their adulthood and found that as an adult, they were still attracted to that nude body of that child. So, there are many other ways through which a pedophile could discover they are attracted to children. Now, I'm not going to offer any sources on pre-teens who swap nude pictures. I think that should be something we all know about by now, especially if we are young adults, and know that other peers swapped pictures themselves. You may have also heard stories where a minor swapped nude pictures and got caught and in trouble with the law for it. I think I don't need to offer sources on this. It should be common knoweldge I think. Now, I would like to point out that my opponent used pedophilia incorrectly here: I would have to say then, to prevent more people from being convicted of pedophilia and suffering the negative stigmatization they receive would require preventing and educating people on the act of viewing pornography, the trauma of the victims and the negative aspects of society that exist that allow children to be exploited in the first place.Look at the part I bolded. No one gets convicted for having an attraction to children. They get convicted for molesting children, collecting child pornography, or distributing child pornography. I want people to stop associating these actions with pedophiles, because not only pedophiles engage in these activities, as I've pointed out. Current victims, while trying my best not to sound cold, need to accept they committed a crime and seek out help from the places that do exist for them to get help.Yes, the perpetrators of child molestation or child porn do. I agree with this. Just don't impose this idea on all pedophiles though because majority of them do nothing wrong, which has been my entire point this debate. As for the history paragraph, the reason was to show that as a society our education and views changed so did our practices, and while early marriages does not account for the molestation of boys which has been a recurring theme in relation to the church (resulting in another unfair stigmatization towards priests),So you believe that there is unfair stigmatization towards priests, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I am confident that you also believe it is unfair to associate all priests with the few who molest children, correct? If that's the case, then why not apply the same logic to pedophiles? Is it not unfair to associate all pedophiles with the few who molest children? Is it not unfair to stigmatize them for what the minority of pedophiles do?Over all, I believe we need to help pedophiles, not stigmtize them. Help them come to terms with their attraction, and then find ways to allocate energy to other things and deflect the attractions they get towards children through cognitive behavioral therapy. Or, maybe even Specific serotonin reuptake inhibitors can help. According to this article, they can help in sexual disorders[11]. A third option is chemical castration if all else fails. I would use this as a last resort, especially if the person has attractions to other people besides children. Sources:[10] http://www.smh.com.au... [11] https://pro.psychcentral.com...