Being a pedophile is morally wrong

We do not agree on the issue of whether or not simply being a pedophile is morally wrong. We disagree entirely on this point. This is not an issue of semantics, this is a matter of the utmost moral importance. My opponent suggests that immorality requires a human responsibility, and that natural occurrences cannot be judged morally. My opponent suggests that when a person commits a damaging act, that if they did not do so with intention, the act is not immoral. I understand Pro agrees that acts do not need to have immoral intent, but still a conscious cause. The distinction Pro tries to draw between a bad thing and an immoral thing is minor. Bridging that gap between concepts, however, has very important implications for all of normative ethics. If we focus immorality on guilt and blame, there is very little chance that we will understand what it means to act morally. In being depressed, the victim has acted immorally. There was no intent or choice in being depressed, and the depression was indeed an act of nature. My opponent's position is that therefore being depressed is not immoral. This reasoning is plainly nonsensical. What is not, in one sense or another, an act of nature? When a tsunami hits, that is an act of nature. When viruses infect a population, that is an act of nature. When a pig kills a toddler, is that an act of nature? I would certainly say so myself, there is no reason to assume otherwise. What about a toddler killing a toddler? Is that an act of nature? What is the difference in cognitive abilities between a toddler and a pig? What about a murder committed while under the influence of drugs? What intentions and cognitive abilities are necessary for an action to be considered immoral? None, is the answer. There is absolutely no distinction one could make between any of the above acts and an immoral one that wouldn't be arbitrary. When a sociopath commits a murder, that is an act of nature. The sociopath is not aware enough of the murder they are to commit in order for the murder to be anything else. When we go deeper into this, and talk about indoctrination, and cognitive distortions, we can see that fault is not a trait that can be applied to anything other than nature. In truth, Pro's idea of an "amoral" act applies to every act, as they are all caused by "amoral" forces. When a person is inflicted with pedophilia, they are just as much to blame as a sociopath is for a murder. An important aspect of Pro's argument is that pedophilia is not a behavior, and thusly cannot be considered immoral. While I agree that only actions can be immoral, being a pedophile is indeed a behavior. Take Pro's example of hurricanes; you'll notice that a hurricane is not immoral, but everything a hurricane does can be considered morally, because it is all an aspect of behavior. This is clear with a virus, a living organism that can cause many deaths, but consider how life is unimportant to the idea of behavior. Behavior can be defined as "the process of doing something" [1]. If a hurricane does exist, and it does posses the qualities of a hurricane, then would that not be considered doing? I assume that my opponent would agree, especially since they have titled the resolution "It is not immoral to be a pedophile". The only way to understand that statement is "It is not immoral to perform the act of being a pedophile". My opponent makes the distinction between being and doing in an entirely semantic and inconsequential fashion. It is immoral to be a murderer, yes? It is immoral to be a person who just abused a child, right? The answer to both of these is a clear yes. Morality is indeed here to guide action, but not ours necessarily. Our action is only emphasized because it is all we can control. Morality is here to show people better from worse, and it is simply fact that good is where our acts should lead. Morality is the study of right and wrong. If we see pedophilia as wrong (as we both do), then our actions will function accordingly. My opponent assumed that by "being pedophilic" I meant "acting in a pedophilic manner". While I just explained why the two statements are the same, a simple way of putting what I meant would be "being a pedophile". When a person is a pedophile, there is more pedophilia. That is an obvious conclusion that I suspect I don't have to go further in. So to clarify: P1:Pedophilia is negative. P2: Being a pedophile is an act that produces pedophilia. P3: All acts that create negativity are immoral. C1: Therefore, pedophilia is immoral. Thank you for this great debate. [1]https://www.google.ca...