Pedophilia is not wrong

I see three main arguments here: (1) It's unnatural, therefore wrong. (2) It's not usually accepted by society, therefore immoral. (3) It's lascivious, therefore immoral.(1) Statements of fact describe the way that the world is, and statements of value describe the way that the world ought to be. These types of statements are fundamentally different. Argument (1) is describing a way that the world is, and draws a conclusion about how the world ought to be.Arguments are flawed if they introduce completely new terms in their conclusions. This is an example:All men are mortal.Socrates is a man.Therefore, Socrates is a philosopher.This argument is clearly invalid; the conclusion obviously doesn’t follow from the premises. This is because the conclusion contains the idea of being a philosopher, which isn’t contained in the premises; the premises say nothing about being a philosopher, and so can't establish a conclusion about being a philosopher.Argument (1) is arguably flawed in exactly the same way. An argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be, introduce a new term in the conclusion in just the same way as the above example. Argument (1) is as follows:Pedophilia is not natural.Therefore, pedophilia is wrong.This argument moves from a statement of fact to a value judgement. The argument’s premise simply describes the way that the world is, asserting that pedophilia isn't natural. To describe the way that the world is, though, is to say nothing of the way that it ought to be, since that would be introducing a completely new term in the conclusion. The argument’s conclusion, then, which is a value judgement, can't be supported by its premises.What is, and what isn't natural is also arguable. The bonobo primate doesn't only have sexual contact related to reproduction. Sexual contact with other bonobos that aren't yet fertile is common. [1](2) Con says that pedophilia fits with the definition of immoral he provided (not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics) because pedophilia is usually deemed as wrong in our society. Con claims that something immoral is wrong, so pedophilia would be wrong if it's immoral.Immorality by the definition Con provided is a statement of fact. It's not relevant to if something is right or wrong since it's only a description of what social establishments think is right or wrong. What the "patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principle of personal and social ethics" are, is a description of the world. It is morality in a descriptive sense, which isn't relevant to if something actually is right or wrong. [2]Argument (2) is then another example of having a statement of fact and making a conclusion in a statement of value. It's describing a way that the world is, and draws a conclusion about how the world ought to be. In the same way explained in my response to Argument (1).That's why it would be incorrect to draw the conclusion that pedophilia is wrong from the premise that it is immoral in this descriptive sense.(3) Because of the character limit, I will expand my response to Argument (3) in the next round, since this may not be satisfying.Pedophilia is a certain sexual preference, even accepted sexual preferences are strictly sexual and can therefore not be based on anything other than lust and lewdness.Even if pedophilia would be immoral from being lascivious, accepted sexual preferences would then be as well. Argument (3) would then no longer be relevant for the resolution (see: "in any other way than sexual preferences accepted by society are" from round 1).Thank you for this debate, looking forward to your response!Sources:[1] http://www2.hu-berlin.de...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...