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

Well, as I've shown, while the law may say that children can not consent, that doesn't make this true, exactly.That is misconstruing definitions. While the dictionary defines consent as, in summary, "agreement", the law specifically states that minors have no ability or right to give legal consent. It doesn't matter how well informed they are or how intelligent they are, they have no legal right to agree to anything.The law says a lot of things, not good for moral arguments.You're misconstruing my arguments again. If you have read my initial argument based on Kantian ethics, I have not brought in the legal perspective at all. You were the one who brought in the legal perspective. I in fact agree with what you have said. However, if children cannot legally consent to having sex, any sexual activity with minor is wrong in the eyes of the law.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

I was asking if you believe it to be sexual exploitation or immoral or "bad" if the child consented. You brought up the legality, not me.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Looks like you have difficulty understanding what I have said. But never mind. Yes, I believe it to be, at least, considered sexual exploitation if the child consented. What does "exploitation" mean? Well, according to the OED, it refers to "The action of turning to account for selfish purposes, using for one's own profit." So if a child is used in a sexual way, to achieve sexual pleasure without regard for the child, regardless of whether or not he/she consents, that is sexual exploitation.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Then what has differentiated a consenting child from a consenting adult for it to be exploitation?Don't say the law again.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Then what has differentiated a consenting child from a consenting adult for it to be exploitation?I'm sorry but you continue to use legal terms but reject any reference to the law. That sounds a lot like special pleading to me. If you're that ignorant. I don't have to honour you with a reply. But I will for your sake. A child has no right to consent. So "a consenting child" would make as much sense as a "married bachelor". Next, a consenting adult is not exploited because he/she gave his/her consent.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

If you're going to focus on insults, I see no reason to continue debating with you.I've shown you how it's NOT a legal term... but you ignore that and then insult me.So once again, seeing that consent is NOT a legal term, what differentiates a consenting child from a consenting adult? Do you believe that the law is the only thing?
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

If I have offended you in any way, then I respectfully apologise to you. That was not in any way my intention.But coming to the issue of consent, it is very much a legal term. I have cross-referenced five of the online legal dictionaries and this definition crops up in most of them. "Consent" is defined as "1) n. a voluntary agreement to another's proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations." Thus, since a child is not above the legal age of consent, he/she has no right, in the eyes of the law, to give consent at all.what differentiates a consenting child from a consenting adult? Do you believe that the law is the only thing?Of course not. I would be silly to suggest that. If you're looking for a witty reply, obviously a child and an adult are anatomically different and I don't need to go into details here. But to be serious, a child might not be fully aware of the ramifications of their actions. They also would be less aware (juxtaposed to an adult) of the possible ulterior motives of the person who wants to have sexual relations with him/her. In essence, a child is less mature and less likely to be discerning and/or sceptical of advances made by adults, particularly with respect to issues concerning sexuality.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Well, now that you've offered something besides the law, I would like to know how exactly you came to that conclusion.Clearly children may not be as smart or understanding as adults are, but how do we determine if it's enough for sexual advances of an adult?As well, would sexual advances from another child of the same age be more acceptable? And in acceptable in what way: To punish the advancing child or to merely try and prevent the act?
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Clearly children may not be as smart or understanding as adults are, but how do we determine if it's enough for sexual advances of an adult?But this would then be begging the question won't it? You have not provided any point of reference as to what "adult intellect" is even supposed to mean. I merely said that, in essence, children might be less well informed. However, to avoid a legal discussion here would be illusory. If we accept that children are at least probably less informed than adults, then we should be allowed a certain leeway to generalise that children would not know as much as most adults on issues of sexuality. After all, such knowledge is taught by an adult to a child isn't it?As well, would sexual advances from another child of the same age be more acceptable?No, it wouldn't. I'm not even sure if there would be such sexual advances in the first place. However, let's assume that there are, hypothetically speaking of course. I would then have to probe further to ask what do you mean by "more acceptable"? From what perspective are you talking about? Or am I allowed to go at this question from a multitude of perspective (not excluding the legal viewpoint)?I await your reply before I respond to your follow-up question.By the way, if I have offended you in any way, I assure you that it was not my intention to do so.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

So really, you're not even too sure how less informed children are on sex or if they're not even "ready" for sex in a mental way... now you're trying to, somehow, have me defend the anti-pedophilia sentiments?I'm skeptical of the looking down on pedophiles, and while you have some points, you're not really doing a good job at telling me that I'm wrong to question your morality. If anything, you're making me even MORE skeptical of those who see pedophiles as "bad", because it seems that no one can provide much reasoning for their distrust...
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

So really, you're not even too sure how less informed children are on sex or if they're not even "ready" for sex in a mental way... now you're trying to, somehow, have me defend the anti-pedophilia sentiments?Do you really enjoy twisting the words of others to suit your own purpose? What I said was that you were being ambiguous by providing no point of reference for your comparison on intellectual ability. To say that I am unsure now is pure bullshit because your questions and refutations have been so utterly ambiguous that I can't even begin to respond without attacking a straw man.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

I would merely like to know why kids are not smart enough to consent to sex, making pedophiles bad.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

I think you are confusing issues again. I don't think I have ever said or even meant to say that the inability of children to consent makes pedophiles bad. It makes pedophilia illegal. I've already said, the idea of a "consenting child" makes as much sense as a "married bachelor".
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

As you've stated in the beginning, you said that using a human for their means (i know i'm fucking up the paraphrase, but you know what i'm saying) is immoral, or so. Then explained that sex with a child is exploitation.I just want you to explain why sex with a child is exploitation 8l
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

I have already explained why sex with a child is exploitation. I won't be bothered with trying to explain it again when I have done in great detail previously.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

If that's truly how you wish to end it.---------------------------------------
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Don't get me wrong. I welcome your challenge. But if you want to see what I said about exploitation, refer to my earlier comments. I will continue to watch this space for further refutations.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

You said that it's exploitation regardless of whether or not the child consents... you made some comments here and there about the child not knowing any better, but never explained why exactly...You really haven't answered anything.I need you to explain why exactly the pedophile is exploiting the child when he has sex with him. Legality is NOT a proper rebuttal, unless you believe the law to be "important" in determining "morality". However, I already know that you don't believe this to be the case. So1. The Law doesn't determine morality, and can in some cases be "immoral". If you deny this, tell me so. If you believe this to be possible, then we can not make any moral comments based on what the law says.2. What, to you, makes a consenting child different from a consenting adult? Once again, do not say that consent is a legal term, because I've shown you how it is NOT. The law can apply it's own legal definition, but consent is not restricted to what the law says. Consent is merely giving permission to another. If you really find that part difficult, I can switch it to "what makes a child who gives permission different from an adult who gives permission?" If you really don't like the word consent out of legality, there are other ways to go at this.3. After you explain to me the difference, I would like to know how, exactly, that makes it so that a pedophile is "exploiting" a child when he engages in a sexual act with the child. After all of this, I suppose you'd successfully explain to me why you, personally, find the pedophile to be "bad" or "immoral" based on how you view morality.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

3 has already been tackled in my first post based on Kantian ethics. Refer to that and if you wish to dispute it, fine. I'll promise you that I'll meet your challenge.1. The Law doesn't determine morality, and can in some cases be "immoral". If you deny this, tell me so. If you believe this to be possible, then we can not make any moral comments based on what the law says.Certainly, the law doesn't determine morality. I don't believe I have suggested this at all. I would think that the law is based on morality."what makes a child who gives permission different from an adult who gives permission?"I have already argued that a child would perhaps be less informed about the effects of sexual relationships with adults (assuming that the pedophile is an adult). I don't really think that you have given a very good counter-argument to suggest otherwise.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Saying "a child would perhaps be less informed about the effects of sexual relationships with adults" is not enough to suggest that it's, therefore, exploitation.If you feel that's all that is required, tell me so.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

You're attacking a straw man. That was obviously not why I think that it is exploitation. I have already said to refer to my argument from the Categorical Imperative.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

You still didn't explain why, exactly, it IS exploitation. You make the assumption that sex with children is exploiting them.I want you to explain why.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Wow. You can't read, can you? You know what? Enough is enough. My patience with you is wearing thin. In previous posts, I have clearly defined what "exploitation" is, taking the definition from the OED. Obviously, you continually choose to ignore my arguments and keep attacking a straw man. Until and unless you read what I have written before writing unlettered replies, I will not honour you with a reply.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

I understand, your argument is "read this thing I already wrote, so that I don't have to defend it".But sure, get frustrated if you have to. Clearly you don't wish to debate this topic.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

No. What I said was, "Read this thing I already wrote, try and refute it and then I'll defend it."As I have said, I more than welcome your challenge. However, you haven't challenged anything I haven't yet defended.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

However you wish to dodge it, it's fine. Clearly this isn't for you.-----------------------
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Surely looking at a few pictures of naked kids isnt as morally wrong as that?You're fucking kidding, right? Why have you not been down-voted?
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Sexual desire is something that can not be helped. Years of therapy could POSSIBLY alter someone's sexuality, but it is very unlikely.I suppose the best example is to ask how you would view yourself if you were raised in a culture where sex with whatever types of people or creatures was considered disgusting and a criminal act (if you like having sex with women, imagine a world where shit like that is illegal and viewed as disgusting). Orwell, in 1984, showed us a world where sex was a disgusting act in general (and even for the purpose of making a baby, it should still be despised).Pedophiles are currently in that state. We did not ALWAYS live in a time where sex with the young was looked down upon. The Greeks commonly experimented with bisexuality and boy-loving.To me, looking down on pedophilia is a cultural thing, nothing more. Our morals have caused us to see them as disgusting and something that must be prevented.Do I believe that pedophilia should be legalized? Not exactly. It's possible to set up a system where the pedophiles aren't chastised for acting out on their desires, but even I don't know how that would work (although, I hope to do research in that field, since I do have much fascination with human sexuality).As for child pornography, I do not believe that the viewing of it should be illegal. The making of it, sure, but the viewing harms no one. It is media, just like snuff films.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

I disagree with you purely on literary grounds. For my view on this topic, see the rebuttal I have written above.Orwell, in 1984, showed us a world where sex was a disgusting act in general (and even for the purpose of making a baby, it should still be despised).This is a gross misrepresentation of what Orwell wrote. In the novel 1984, sex was discouraged purely because the Party was afraid that the love and attraction that males and females have for each other would either diminish or replace the love they (were supposed to) have for Big Brother. Pro-creation was described as (I can't remember the exact quote) "service to the Party". Sex was despised for the intimacy that it will cause males and females to have for each other, but not because of pro-creation.And therefore, comparing pedophiles in society to the people in Orwell's fictional world in 1984 is a false comparison. Pedophiles are not hated for their love and attraction towards children. According to the OED, pedophilia refers to "An abnormal, esp. sexual, love of young children." The crux of the definition lies in two words - "abnormal" and "sexual". Thus, by definition, what pedophiles are hated for is their abnormal fetish for children. This is vastly different from the society in 1984.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

I was merely trying to bring up an example of a world where your sex would be looked upon as "disgusting" and "wrong".1984 didn't make sex illegal like how we do for pedophiles; I wasn't trying to say that it was the same thing, exactly.But I know what pedophiles are hated for... because they find kids sexually attractive... yes.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

I was merely trying to bring up an example of a world where your sex would be looked upon as "disgusting" and "wrong".In 1984, sex was only seen as "disgusting" and "wrong" if it is not for the purpose of pro-creation, but for pleasure. While this is very similar to pedophilia, it is still a false analogy because pedophilia does not include sex with children/minors.But I know what pedophiles are hated for... because they find kids sexually attractive... yes.Yes, however the motivation behind the feelings of hate is quite unique to pedophilia. Pedophiles are hated because they profess an unusual form of sexual attraction. In this sense, a better comparison might possibly be homosexuality. However, the reason why pedophiles are hated goes beyond that. It is due to an amalgamation of legal reasons and parental instinct. Legally, pedophilia is not allowed because convicted pedophiles would be charged for a multitude of crimes which include outrage of modesty, illegal possession of pornography, child abuse and possibly even rape or illegal sex with minors. Parental instinct then takes over because no rational parent will allow their child/children to be hurt in any way.Therefore, it is for these reasons I maintain that the choice of 1984 as an analogy is weak at best, and false at worst.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Well, not false, for I've pointed out that it's not meant to be the same thing... more like "put yourself in their shoes."I don't know of any other stories where what we consider as normal sex is actually looked at as disgusting.Of course there's a REASON for people hating pedophiles... there's a reason to hate just about anything.However, I don't exactly know where you're getting at when you tell me why pedophiles are hated. Illegality and personal preference, to me, is not a good enough reason to hate someone. After all, I do not hate those who like to have sex with animals, despite how some feel that it should remain illegal because it is animal "abuse" or "rape".Of course, you may not have been going at that angle...
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Perhaps I got a little carried away going through all that. My point was that the reasons why they hate sex in the world of 1984 is very different from why society, in general, hates pedophilia.Illegality and personal preference, to me, is not a good enough reason to hate someone.Obviously not. Which is why I have gone at length to show why pedophilia is immoral. Go dispute that argument if you wish to.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Probably sounds silly, but maybe a good way for pedophiles to act on their desires without causing harm is virtual reality? Gaming technology is improving at a very fast rate, and porn games aren't exactly uncommon today. Production of child porn has victims, but have you seen how realistic modern game graphics are? As a teenager, I know plenty of people capable of getting off to characters in video games. An argument would be that it could encourage pedophiles to act out in real life, but that would be like saying Grand Theft Auto caused a rapid increase of prostitute murders and helicopter thefts... I personally think it isn't a bad idea.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

I don't think anything should be classified as inherently bad if they do not act upon it. For example, if a pedophile rapes a child then yes, that person has done wrong. But the same can be said for a man who rapes a woman, people don't classify him as wrong because he liked women, but because he raped one of them. If a pedophile merely likes children, but does not act upon it with evil intentions then how can one deem them evil? The act of being a pedophile, much like a homosexual, isn't bad in that sense, but acting upon them can be perceived to be bad.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

I found your initial argument persuasive, so it was with sincere regret that I proceeded to the end of your post where you compared pedophilia to homosexuality. The two are not even remotely comparable, and the juxtaposition of the two together is both ignorant and prejudiced.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

I've always thought that pedophiles have been unfairly given a bad rap. Even child molesters aren't as bad as the media makes them out as being. What is so bad about adult-child sexual relations? True, it may be viewed as an infringement on the rights of a child to be secure in making their own choices regarding something which has so elevated a level of importance as sexuality, but it is not unheard of for the child to share the same feelings as his "rapist". Until rather recently, persons were married at a very young age, as Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet emphasizes with a personal favorite line of mine: "CAPULET: She hath not seen the change of fourteen years. PARIS: Younger than she are happy mothers made."Sex acts between an adult and a child are far from unheard throughout the world; the Keraki tribe of Papua New Guinea, for instance, are only one of many for whom sexuality betwixt older males and young children is a must. Were it not for our primarily Christian society, pedophilia would probably not be as shunned as it is in Europe and America.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Your are kidding right? You can't use history as a yardstick by which we judge right and wrong because it is rich with examples of barbarism and ignorance. Throughout history societies have treated slavery as normal, pedophiles were honored (especially in Greece), public executions were standard in many civilizations, and even gladiator fights were conducted for the masses. Would you argue that none of these practices are bad because they occurred in civilizations in the past?As we advance we learn that certain behaviors are damaging to the development of children, that is why America has passed child labor laws, and they are not allowed to drink, smoke, or have sex at certain ages. Pedophiles are mentally sick people, period.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Your are kidding right?Why would I kid?You can't use history as a yardstick by which we judge right and wrong because it is rich with examples of barbarism and ignorance.As well as more enlightened thought.Throughout history societies have treated slavery as normalDoes this really matter? Many to-day believe that slavery is normal; whilst I am opposed to slavery, I do not believe that slavery is in any way unnatural.public executions were standard in many civilizationsIncluding America; you may recall a female character in Charles Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities 'counting the heads as they fell from the guillotine' (paraphrased).Whilst I am opposed on moral ground to any form of death penalty, as long as they exist I cannot say that I would be too opposed to them being made more public than they currently are.and even gladiator fights were conducted for the masses. What is wrong with this? Were all parties involved to consent, I would personally have no qualms with contemporary gladiatorialism.Would you argue that none of these practices are bad because they occurred in civilizations in the past?Occurring in the past does not make them right; however, neither does it make them wrong.As we advance we learn that certain behaviors are damagingMorals change, but our modern - and by no means more enlightened or transcendent - morals do not make truth.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

The objection of course is that a child is not legally considered to be capable of giving consent, particularly younger children further from attaining the age of majority. This is not as arbitrary a distinction as you make it out to be, and has some basis in the science of cognitive development. At any rate, there is a marked power difference based simply upon the age discrepancy.I should also remark that I find your note regarding Christian society to be rather an amusing one, as the betrothal and marriage of children to significantly older adults has been common and endorsed throughout Christendom. Truth be told, I consider the move away from such practices to be more secular in origin and not at all a bad thing.