azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Depends. My argument is that you can have, say, a 38 year old man having sex with a 28 year old woman and even then it's considered normal. Now you take a 25 year old and he has sex with a 15 year old and all of a sudden he is a pedophile. Both parties are exactly 10 years of age apart.Are rapists bad? Yes. Are child molesters bad? Yes. Are pedophiles bad? I don't think so. "Pedophiles" simply find young/adolescent girls attractive and sexually stimulating. It is the act of raping/molesting said girls that are bad hence rapists and molesters. As for the the whole arugment that underage girls can't consent. For ages 10 and below sure I agree, but I knew what the hell I was doing and what was going on when I was 12, let alone these 14, 15, and 16 year olds. You ain't gettin' me in a windowless van with all the candy in the world. LOL.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

A many in number are victims to syndromes and disorders and are unaware of it. Pedophiles on the other hand can be held responsible for their acts as they are well aware of the acts and their repercussions. Meanwhile what must be blamed is society at large. On a scale (that is worth disputing) society and a human brain are both multi dimensional. While some issues overlap and some do not. Like a man's sexual desire and a woman's fashion desire for clothes that reveal. A man's natural instinct is to be able to cause reproduction. A man cannot help it.Now in such cases a man of weak will chooses elements around him to satisfy himself. ]This is just of the many ways a man can help himself. Most basic- Masturbation,Different methods include paid sex, forced sex, rapes.And the easiest are kids who do not fully understand advances or can be manipulated.But, it is also true that sexual instincts for Pedos develop highly in childhood and retain until grown. It is not unnatural to them to imagine a sexual foreplay with a child. Because it is the child like features that turns them on.It is unnatural to us but natural and fair to them. Like gays. Some succeed in leaving those instincts behind through self therapy as those instincts aren't very strong. While some who try to suppress them, end up in frustration and in desperation involve themselves in acts of shame.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

I am partially inclined to agree with your sentiments, yet find enough of what you said objectionable to make reply. Firstly, I note that you initially observe the importance of society but that you later seem to omit this factor when you observe the failure of the individual who yields to pedophilic fantasy. While there is certainly responsibility vested in the individual for bringing their fantasies under control, it must also I think be acknowledged that the social stigma surrounding mental illness generally and pedophilia in particular makes getting the necessary help immensely difficult.Secondly, I must strongly object to your comparing pedophilia to homosexuality. The two are not remotely comparable, and your juxtaposition of the two together was not only unnecessary but also ignorant and offensive.Finally, I would like to elaborate on the first point you made that many live with various syndromes and mental illnesses who may be unaware of it. It is estimated that in the U.S. one in four adults is diagnosable for a mental disorder each year, and that one half of all adults will experience mental illness in their lifetimes. I think these statistics are important to bear in mind in any discussion about mental health or illness. I do not share them as an argument so much as an elaboration.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

I believe that people don't like pedophiles because they fear that they may become a child molester. But it is only that potential of change that people hate. I think that pedophiles have a bad name and being one is merely a fetish like anything else. Some pedos may find an 18 year old that looks like a 14 year old attractive just because of her features. I know that some may turn into child molesters but for the ones who don't I feel bad for because it is just a sexual fetish that cannot be helped because it is just what they find attractive. When people argue, "Are you kidding?" And say it's just gross, I feel like they don't give much information on why it is. I personally think chicks eating poop as a sexual fetish is nasty as hell. But if they are just normal people than who cares.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Pedo is considered a mental disorder, hepo (attraction to teens) isn't considered a disorder (yes, you read that right, it is not classified as a mental disorder). Why, because that would mean a vast majority of males would be classified as having a disorder (so, being attracted to teens is in fact normal). Taking this into consideration, now you know, many people wrongfully catergorize someone attracted to teens as a pedo.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

There seems to be a lot of very smart and very stupid answers on both sides of this debate, but I've noticed a good majority of the false-sided arguments are completely misunderstanding what the true-sided arguments are saying. I don't think it's AS BAD to look at child porn as it is to rape an adult. I think those who argued with that looked over the "as bad" because that seems pretty obvious to me. I also think history's involvement in pedophilia makes a very valid point, as 3,000 years from now, people will be talking about how in the 2000s people thought it was all right to do whatever it is they will think is wrong that we do today. My question for everyone who voted false is, what is wrong with pedophile if they aren't raping children, aren't producing child porn, aren't watching child porn, and are complying with modern moral standards? And beyond that, even if they are doing all of those things, who are you to rule it moral or not? All of the arguments referring to history's use of pedophilia were trying to make a point: morals change, and rather rapidly at that. Also, I don't think it's offensive to compare gays or bisexuals to pedophiles in these contexts. Their point when making the comparison was that sexual attraction (hetero, homo, whatever) can't usually be changed, and the same can be said for pedophiles. If you would understand, you would know that you should be supporting that statement if anything.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Fuck you. It is wrong to compare gays and bisexuals to pedophiles.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

I have two points of contention:1. Your argument amounts to moral relativism. As an amoral ethicist I am inclined to agree to some extent, yet I think your analysis to be somewhat flawed. Simply because morality fluctuates does not mean a question of morality cannot be answered contemporaneously. Further, I think it improbable that morality would revert to endorse sex between adults and children. Finally, I think one may consider the question as a matter of functional ethics whereby the relative "badness" (or rather, its non-preferability) of an action is determined based upon its known consequences. Within this context, child molestation or rape could be considered "bad" insofar as it is demonstrably linked to psychological damage that endures into adulthood.2. The comparison between pedophilia and homosexuality/bisexuality is actually not only offensive but inaccurate, and for a number of reasons. If the point in comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is that sexual attraction cannot be changed, then why are heterosexuals then not included in the comparison? The specification of non-heterosexual orientations in a discussion of human sexuality is unnecessary, and is furthermore a direct consequence of erroneous associations between homosexuality and pedophilia; the history and origins of the comparison make it innately offensive. Additionally, pedophilia is a recognized mental disorder whereas homosexuality/bisexuality is not.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

In no way did I say that homosexuals or bisexuals are as bad as pedophiles. My point is that homosexuals shouldn't be judged as morally wrong for being attracted by members of their own sex, as pedophiles shouldn't be judged for being attracted to children. A homosexual should be judged if he rapes someone, but not as a homosexual, obviously, but as a rapist. The same should go for pedophiles.You can be a pedophile and you aren't doing anything wrong unless you molest children. Those pedophiles who have touched children make all pedophiles look dangerous. I'm not going to pretend that I know the statistics, but I do have some friends with pedophilic fantasies, and none of them have ever touched a child. I believe the majority of pedophiles haven't ever touched a child in their life. The only reason homosexuals were brought into the debate was to show other groups of people who can't control their attractions. That is true, is it not? That homosexuals aren't necessarily capable of changing? If it is, then my comparison was perfectly accurate. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with any sexual preference. I am a bisexual and I am not a pedophile. What you have done is read my post, picked out a few controversial words, and began writing an argument to it. I admit I have no idea what your first paragraph said because, as a 17 year old, my vocabulary is a little limited.I think pedophiles are harshly judged, and I can see the world begin accepting pedophiles in the same way that the world began accepting homosexuals (oh no another comparison!). If you disagree, please reread to make sure you aren't misunderstanding me.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

I'm against child molestation. I'm against production of child porn. I'm against the blind hatred for people who have strange fetishes and mental disorders. We all agree that pedophiles can't necessarily just change their mind about being a pedophile, correct? So think about that pedophile who lived his entire life never falling into any immoral urges, and maybe even felt ashamed his whole life for something he's tried his best to fix. He's bad? You were so quick to defend homosexuals, but why does this cross your line? What makes it different? Also a reminder to everyone: not all pedophiles like little girls, not all pedophiles are men, and many pedophiles are attracted to fully grown adults of their age as well and aren't limited solely to pedophilia to "get off."
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

As I think my post below implies, I agree completely with what you say here. It was just some smaller aspects with which I disagreed. I would like to say I appreciate your reminder at the end of this post; it is something often overlooked.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Sorry for using complicated words when plain language would have done just as well. I fear it confused what I was trying to say, so I will try to re-explain more clearly what I meant.It was never my intent to pick out controversial words and harp on them. To the contrary, I mostly agree with you. I too think that there is nothing bad or wrong about someone having pedophilic fantasies. It hurts no one and is usually not willfully chosen. What I was trying to do was to identify a couple of points in your argument that I thought were not as strong or well-developed.For example, my first point was in response to the argument I thought you were making about being unable to call pedophilia bad because morality changes over time. My point was that while morals change we can still call something “bad” (i.e. not preferable) based on its consequences which should remain consistent. I think now though that what you may have meant was that our moral views on pedophilia as a society are and will continue to evolve. In which case, I agree with you.Regarding the comparison of pedophilia to homosexuality or bisexuality: I realize it was not your intention to say that homosexuality or bisexuality are bad. My point was that even without meaning to do so, you were building on the pre-existing history of that comparison which is entirely based on the view that homosexuality is wrong. It is a common tactic of those opposed to homosexuality and bisexuality to compare them to things such as pedophilia because doing so transfers the stigma of pedophilia to homosexuals. Historically, homosexuals have been so closely compared to pedophiles as to imply that they are pedophiles. Thus, when anyone makes the comparison it strengthens that connection whether they meant for it to do so or not. This is damaging to progress and it is the history of the association that makes the comparison offensive. Does that make more sense?Furthermore, comparing homosexuality and pedophilia simply is not accurate. As I already said, homosexuality is not listed as a mental disorder while pedophilia is. One might argue that pedophilia should not be classified as a disorder, however I think that pedophilia is distinct in that the desire to act upon the fantasy does and should cause distress whereas homosexuality or bisexuality should not (although it may due to social stigma). I think they are very different experiences, and so the comparison is not accurate.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Alright, that makes much more sense to me. Sorry if I seemed hostile earlier. I agree with everything you just said for the most part. I agree that the urge to act on pedophilia should cause distress, but would you agree that a pedophile could have no urge to act on it, and be completely satisfied with fantasy? I know it sounds like I'm narrowing it down an awful lot, but I think it's important that the pedophiles who are able to tune out any possible urges should be respected at least as well as any non-pedophile, seeing as they had no choice in the matter. Also, do you know if convicted child molesters are able to plead insanity?
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Not at all, I was largely at fault for not speaking more clearly. I can well understand where you were coming from.Regarding whether or not a pedophile could have no urge to act upon their desire, I think that that could very well be the case. However, I think the thoughts alone even absent an urge could be distressing. Further, if we are defining pedophilia according to the DSMIV-TR then the fantasy itself absent the urge must either have been acted upon or cause distress or cause interpersonal difficulty (which I would consider another form of distress) in order to be diagnosable. In which case, the element of distress would still be present or the action would be taken; in either case the pedophilia would not be comparable to either homosexuality or bisexuality in my opinion. I do agree in full though that those pedophiles who either have no urge or resist whatever urges they may have should be respected equally to non-pedophiles (if not more highly respected for having resisted an urge which they did not choose to experience in the first place and which non-pedophiles do not have to fight).While a child molester may plead insanity it is highly unlikely that they would have any success, and I am not aware of any such plea ever having been successful. The legal standard for insanity is much narrower than the medical standards for mental illness, and usually requires that the person in question either [A] did not to know the nature and quality of the act they were doing, or if they did know it, that they did not know what they were doing was wrong; or [B] if they lack substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of law as a consequence of mental illness. They would be more likely to have success in seeking a sentence of Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) which could cause them to serve part or all of their sentence in a mental health facility; if they are considered stable or recovered they serve the remainder of their sentence in prison rather than being released as with an insanity verdict. You may find the following link interesting: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/crime/trial/faqs.html
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

If attraction and not the act makes one a pedophile than your description (not title) is true.One can't help attraction it's been well established I think.However, it is certainly not the same as an attraction which does no harm to others; ie being gay or other diversions that don't negatively effect another human or ones which can be mutually agreed upon.There's no situation whereby a pedo could ever carry out their desire and not cause harm, so certainly more dangerous at least in potential than other sorts of attractions.It is "bad" though because even if not carried out, it is harmful to the individual with the affliction--not being able to ever satisfy the basic human need for sex. At least for satisfying sex. Not that there is anything one can do about it, but bad none the less.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

I think there is an important distinction to be, though, between a morally judgemental "bad" and an unfortunate and personally distressing "bad". Those who are pedophiles under the DSM do not necessarily act to harm others, and do not choose to experience the desires which they have; for those pedophiles who abstain it is illogical to categorically group them with those who do not and to judge them harshly for actions they have not committed.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

I made it clear the "bad" in those cases refers to the unfortunate state, and not their morality.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Hm, yes, I do see the nuance in your argument now and my apologies for having missed it before. That said though, I still think your post is on the wrong side because the debate question frames the true vs. false stances as the moral flip-sides of one coin by virtue of the language it uses. By saying "pedophile's aren't/are bad" you are judging the person with pedophilia and not the condition itself, and there is an accompanying moral judgement inherent in the way the question is phrased. In other words, saying "false" is making a moral judgement but saying "true" does not preclude saying pedophilia (rather than the pedophile) is an unfortunately bad thing. At any rate, I think we are more or less agreeing and that I got caught up in some confusion regarding your statement and the semantics of the question.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Anybody can rape a child. I believe anybody can be a threat to a child because they having working arms and legs and other working body parts that can take part in raping a child. Now the true definition of Pedophilie varies. Google and Merriam Webster states that it is just the sexual perversion of children. To be more specific, it is ONLY prepubescent children. Not children who are 14, 15, 16, and 17. Although the age actually depends on the start of puberty.  It is actually ok to be ATTRACTED to teenagers because teenagers develop features that attract the opposite sex. However, The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary states that pedophilia is the ACT or fantasy of an adult engaing in sex with a child. (source: wikipedia). In this case, then pedophiles ARE BAD. I believe that pedophila is just a perversion and NOT the act. Im not going to research how many websites or book source states that it is just a fantasy. Im assuming that "fantasy" and not "act" is part of the true definition. How can perversion harm anybody? Perversion can escalate into action. I had watched porn as young child and my perversion progressively got worse (higher). If i had to watch porn FIRST to do anything else, then that is a problem. And it is. I had watched "To Catch A Predator" and you can see how perversion can escalate into action by the NUMBER OF PEOPLE who end up on the show. It didn't intially occured to me but I believe it is easier to act on children than adults because children are easy to manipulate. I believe pedophile's think this because the number of people on the show is huge. Another evidence that proves my belief is that there has been a couple of recurring victims. I think once or twice. The title of this debate is....Pedophiles aren't bad. They CAN be bad if they act on their perversion. Like anybody....anybody CAN be bad. So that is why im choosing the side that states "False." Saying that pedophiles aren't bad is saying that they can never be bad. That is not true. They can be bad.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

I do not think that affirming this debate says that no pedophile is bad, but rather that pedophiles are not categorically wrong. As far as your definition of pedophilia, however, I agree and would like to direct you to the DSM for the clinical definition: http://behavenet.com/pedophilia
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

The argument that because they are born with an attraction to children they are not bad is silly logic. There are people born psychopaths, so does that mean that when they kill it's not really bad? Nonsense! Anyone that sees children as attractive are sick, and if they act on their impulses they should be put down, just as you would put a dangerous dog down.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True to an extent

Anyone that sees children as attractive are sick, and if they act on their impulses they should be put downWhy? Because they have a different sexual preference than you? Does that mean we should kill all the homosexuals because a lot of people view them as sick?I'm not pro-pedo in any way whatsoever, I think pedophilia is one of the many unfortunate curses (if you want to put it like that) placed on some human's lives. They can't help it, how is it their fault? Would you call me sick and have me put down because I lost my virginity when I was 14 to another 14 year old? Would you have me put down because I did something considered 'sick and twisted' by a fair amount of the adult population (at the time anyway, now that I'm 19 I don't think they'd care)? Do you see where your argument is flawed? Saying they are sick and should be killed is absurd. As I stated prior, I hate the fact that some humans have a sexual attraction to children, but that one factor does not overcome all the good in a person and turn them into some kind of sick, twisted freak.Also, 'acting on their impulses' may not be as bad as you make it out to be. For all you know they could have sex with a consenting 17, soon to be 18, year old. It would be consensual, and I don't think that 17 year old waiting a few more months 'till they are 18 is gonna make a whole lot of difference.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Before reading, I disagree with the part in which pedophiles should be executed. They should be arrested if they have sex with children, but not executed. Also, paedophilia is defined as sexual attraction towards children. This is upheld by the description of the debate. Pedophiles probably don't consciously chose to be attracted to children. It doesn't seem like that choice would be logically beneficial towards them in anyway. However, the difference between them and homosexuals is that no immorality results from homosexuality. There is nothing immoral about consensual sex between two adults of any sexual preference, but there is a great deal of immorality in the act of sex with a young child. Young children do not possess the mental capacity or neurological development to realize what they want and what is good for them. Any sexual relations they may have, seemingly consensual or not, would merely be a mask of underlying sexual exploitation. By any reasonable ethical theory, the act of having sex with a young child is immoral-- be it deontology, virtue, consequentialist, etc. Even if the pedophile is not engaging in sex, his desire to commit immoral acts diminishes his standing as an ethical person.