Dr. John Money should have been arrested for crimes against David and Brian Reimer.

Pro alleges a misinterpretation. This is incorrect. I have taken everything as stated by Pro, thus meaning that if 'misinterpretation' has taken place this was done by Pro themselves. Rebuttals and Final Statement:Pro alleges that "and seeing as how both Brian and his mother both had no recorded issues" in context to Schizophrenia. Several mistakes are to be pointed out. First of all, Brian was the one of the two boys who had Schizophrenia. 'It was the start of mental disturbance that would develop into schizophrenia', (http://www.bbc.co.uk...)This clearly indicates that, 'recorded', Brian had Schizophrenia. His mother had similar issues, as pointed out before but blatantly ignored by Pro. 'His mother has been a clinical depressive all her life', as stated in the previous round. I will dismiss the doctor who performed the 'circumcision', as this is quite unrelated to the current debate. "Brian killed himself after a battle with depression brought on (at least partially) by Dr. Money.". Where is the proof for this? It is not even proven that Brian even committed suicide! It may have been an accidental overdose, this is not known. A court of Law would not have speculated on a probability like this. This does not even add up for an arrest. Nor for any charge. So Brian is out of the picture.What about David? According to Pro "David killed himself due to similar circumstances". Once again, there is no proof Brian committed suicide. Also as for reasons of David's suicide, I provided money, marriage, death of a loved one, a bad childhood. Lets add loneliness, fear of separation, unemployment (though money was not an issue for David, having a job was something he did desire). That's 7 reasons vs one John Money reason. 7 vs 1. And that one reason was over 20 years prior. This just does not add up. It is correct that many children keep quiet about what allegedly happened, however these children are not under psychiatric supervision. David made a grand step in his teens challenging as what he was brought up and resuming living as a boy, such an individual would have had no issue, at least in my opinion, to report something like this. "I have found some evidence as to the abuse". What abuse? This is the first time I have heard of any abuse. Also none of my sources mention any 'abuse'. So seemingly this was simply pulled out of thin air by Pro. "it is reasonable to conclude that, at least on the molestation charge, Dr. Money should have been arrested". Once again, an arrest does neither imply guilt nor a conviction. Also, I do not even know where Pro has this alleged molestation from. Neither any of Pros, nor any of my sources state any molestation. Also, molestation being defined as 'to make indecent sexual advances to' (http://dictionary.reference.com...), which is something Money did not, to anyone's knowledge, do. As for the 'annual visits', once again, all this was alleged many years after it apparently happened and there is neither proof nor evidence for any of this. As for my apparent 'refutation', cited here as 'another', first of all, there were no 'other' refutations, nor was this one. I stated that 'David was the victim of a financial fraud shortly before his suicide of 65.000$'. I agree with the source that this is 'absurdly reductive', however, I stated this together with many other possible reasons. The author of the source, John Colapinto, the man who wrote the book about David, with David, by a man who knew David quite well, states that this caused him despair and was not the only possible reason for his suicide. This does not 'refute' my position at all. "Con's own sources contradict his points.". No they don't. Where is Pros evidence as to this or where does Pro even suggest this in a non fallacious way?Once again, all of Pros theses, statements and claims were all proven to be fallacies and incorrect. Pre seems to just want to persecute an individual on no basis. Conclusion:With this conclusion I would like to question this whole debate. What is Pro actually trying to achieve? Once again, the title, as well as what Pro wants makes no sense. An arrest does neither imply guilt nor conviction, and John Money would not have been convicted on anything related to this case. Furthermore, Pro seemed to be very misinformed and basically made up statements, without checking if they were sound, as well as Pro not having any evidence connected to anything regarding John Money. Pros statements about 'abuse' and 'molestation' are ridicule, as neither Pros, nor Cons sources show any indication, nor even use any of those words, and as such are simply made up by Pro, seemingly to hype up their case. Pros conduct, in regards to neither challenging nor even mentioning Cons suggestions as to many more likely reasons for suicide than John Money, 22/24 years prior, are simply disregarded or stated as being 'contradicted', while no actual proof for this is presented. Pro seems to deny the grand probability that these 'suicides' (one not even being known if it was a suicide) have no relation to John Money, but were committed by very distressed and mentally ill individuals for a grand number of reasons. There is no proof nor even any evidence as to these two individuals allegations against John Money, but Pro blatantly ignores this fact.In conclusion I would like to state that I am still of the opinion that John Money should not have been arrested for crimes against David and Brian Reimer. The main reason for this is that there is no proof nor evidence for any connection between the suicide(s) of these individuals and John Money, nor is there any proof nor evidence, nor even suggestion towards Pros 'abuse' or 'molestation'. This is not how the justice system works, and I am glad that it doesn't. Con has provided 7 reasons for suicide that were all issues for David Reimer, and even when being fair on Pro, Con provided 4 in the previous round, of which Pro tried to refute one but was not able to do so. That is still 4 vs 1. If you see so many contributors, one reason becomes quite small. How about we charge the conman who committed the fraud on him for his suicide? Or his wife, because she left him, he was feeling inadequate to her? Or his parents for a bad childhood? Or his brother for contributing to his despair? Or the slaughter house in which he was working, because they closed down and he lost his job? These are all reasons very similar to what Pro suggested about Money, however, note, that these are not allegations, as there is evidence for every single one of these. Do we 'arrest' these people? No, because it is ridiculous. John Money was a well respected Psychologist and was and still is praised about his work. He wanted to help David Reimer, but was lied to by his parents. Lets put a face to this debate. The face of David Reimer. A troubled individual who committed suicide out of despair. Out of many reasons. And not just simply because of one single man, who Pro wants to push all the blame on. This is why John Money should not have been 'arrested'. Nor anyone else. Kind Regards to Pro for this Debate, Kind Regards to all Readers and VotersHave a nice day!