Present arguments that show what's wrong with pedophilia

To start did you have to write too much. Not once have I found a case for paedophilia. If you are not playing devil's advocate but you did say you were then you decided you are neutral after you said I hope you win. Are you actually on the Pro side and can you keep your arguments short. It looks mainly like filler. Burden of proof is on your end since you did start the debate and I did show my proof and you didn't. That is not fair because I have nothing to work with apart from the your rebuttals which are somehow a lot longer then mine. Can you get straight to the point? So which is it? Are you referring to all cases or most? If it's just most, What's your argument for the tiny remnant? You say they're wrong. Why are they wrong? I don't have an argument for consent being irrelevant to knowledge. You see what you have to go with in everyday life. At least I would think so. Everything should be taken as a case by case basis. Laws are in place that have already set a precedent like Paedophilia is a criminal offence. Doesn't mean there are outliers like lets say the 17 year old lied about his/her age but majority of cases would consist of the older person taking advantage of the child. We have common everyday examples like people agreeing to take recreational drugs unaware of it's consequences. I never said people don't make mis-informed decisions. If a person does not know what a drug does and still takes it, It is their fault. Reason is they could've found out the consequences of said drugs either asking the pharmacist or the doctor. People taking it upon themselves to make purchases without due diligence. Do you see the difference between paedophilia and mis-informed purchases right? One is based on a child with lack of reason and the other is a money transfer. To boil it down. I am sure we can both agree paedophilia is more of a problem then mis-informed purchases because of the severity of what is taking place. Traveling to certain areas, Going to strange places unaware of the consequences from their surroundings. To me this should not be a problem because if they really cared about going on holiday they would check the weather, Crime statistics and any necessary injections required if they were a responsible adult. People make uninformed decisions and consent to gamble with their lives, With money, Etc. This is pretty known in life, Is it not? Adults in most cases know full well why gambling is bad. The low chance of wining and the addictive nature. People do it for fun but when they realise there money has run out that is their fault. It wasn't who placed the bets on games it was the adult. If the adult was more aware of what he was doing he would've said maybe I should not gamble my last 20 since the last 5 times I did I lost. So is this every time a child is told something they rebel or do they learn to make a choice and follow a command? Well how do you explain for the least part of children listening to reason? In most cases they would rebel. There are outliers like children listen to reason or are afraid of their parents but that is rare. Lets go with the rare example. If he knew doing something drastic that can affect their life without having the most developed brain to do so would tell them no I should not partake in paedophilia because it might be good in the short term but in the long term he/she is mentally scared. It might even be the case that there was no short term gain and the entire experience was awful. Are you saying no adult ever anywhere on the planet is unaware of the consequences? I am saying adults have the capacity to make the right decision even if they don't. That is why the law punishes them a lot more then children because the capacity is not on the same level. Yes there are adults who do not use reason and do you know what happens? They make a bad mistake. Punishment is dependent what the person actually done. They have the capacity to do the right thing, An adult that is, But why would an adult not do the right thing and not make the right choice? At least you agree with me on the capacity part. If the an adult did the wrong thing it would be because it was a mis-informed decision. Either they did not have information on what they were doing or the information that they did have was bad information which is not helpful. Does the adult still have some level of infantile mental faculty like a kid? Why didn't the adult assess the cause and effect properly? What's the missing link? Mis-informed decision like I said before. I can't fully comprehend this part. Please rephrase or summarize it more concisely. Why can't you give consent without knowledge? So no adult is ever ignorant in deciding somethingI thought it was clear. Oh well. Parents have the capacity to do the right thing and the child more often then not do not have capacity to do the right thing. That should get my point across. Let's say for example, A business move, Investment or venture. Is that correct? "Said knowledge or knowledge", What's suppose to be the distinction? What's the discrepancy with the law then, Concerning 25 and 18 years of age? Fill in that inconsistency. I don't know what you mean. I think you misinterpreted what I said. Said knowledge and knowledge are the same thing. Said knowledge is only restricting it to what the topic is about. I don't get what you mean by the discrepancy. Do you want me to give you an argument. That is not how it works. I am Against you are Pro (Neutral/Devil's advocate or whatever you want to say later). I don't know why it is like that. Maybe it needs changing or maybe it does not. You still haven't given me anything to work with in how paedophilia is a good thing. Clearly the law is saying one thing about who is legally an adult. Do I have to explain what the meaning of being legally adult is or do you follow what's going on here? Yet we have this other side of the argument dealing with an age difference in regards to mature cognitive function. Are you seriously saying this is not a point? To me I simply stated the brain. Maybe there are other factors that go in the reason why an Adult is considered at the age of 18. I simply stated one factor. You still have not given me anything to go with. Laws do and can change you say. Do you care to elaborate on that a little further to make a point? It was just a blanket statement. I don't see why I should elaborate since you are not for paedophilia or actually are a devil's advocate. My point is, What is your point about brain development? Please explain the disparity in the law concerning the age of legal adulthood. Also to add to that, Expound on the law concerning the age for alcohol consumption. I don't know. Are you sure you are playing by the rules? You are supposed to be defending something not just rebut my claims. I have nothing to work with. I have already answered this above just read it instead of making a similar point like before. I don't understand what your saying there. Please rephrase that in another words. Are you saying that not all brains are fully developed at age 25? Where did I mention about the brain? Wisdom is knowledge. Brain can give process that knowledge. It was more of on average brains are fully developed at age 25. I did mention that in the less word heavy rebuttal above yours. Read it before you ask a question or maybe give me an argument since you have not given your burden of proof. What age should it be for those not in the majority? What do you meanMissed out this: "is not an absolute but more of an average" To answer you rebuttal lets say someone take brain damage. That affects brain development. Lets say someone does not sleep well. That affects brain development. Different people develop in different ways. The 25 is an average. I don't have space to address anymore because for some reason you do not know when you have written too much.