RoadMAP Debate Script

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Have a seat...

The semi-automated Debate Script makes it easy to reply to most challenges in short-form social media debates on MAPs and sex between adults and minors. It also seeks to close the debate by pushing it towards an inevitable and unresolvable ethical dilemma (for the anti). All you have to do is identify 1 or 2 of the following 3 truth claim types in your opponent's argument, then immediately make the opposing "golden rule" truth claim/s and applicable sub-claims. You then cite the evidence/upload and reproduce the visual excerpts linked in this article. This advertises the fact that you are well-read on the topic (whether or not you actually are) and allows viewers to access relevant information.

This script does not address misdefinitions, which are common in these debates.

Strategy

The way you use the script is dictated by the nature of your target's arguments/assertions.

Countering well-developed arguments

Remember, this applies if your target has made two or more distinct truth claims. Most targets will only make one (see below).

  • Important: If your opponent has already made these two or more truth claims requiring evidence to rebut, only ever address and provide counter-evidence for two in your reply. Any more is overkill, and should simply be ignored.
  • First reply: To display confidence and clarity of thought, you first make your corresponding truth claims, then evidence them in the same reply. This could take up many tweets (have it written out in a text document before composing it in Twitter, etc). But the strategy is worth the investment, as you are dominantly rebutting the argument at the top of the thread.
  • First reply (caveat 1): If your rebuttal includes 3c, you should then state your unwillingness to take part in a tweet marathon, and move on to a new target. At this point, you should only ever return on max 1 occasion to state incredulously that the peer-reviewed evidence has been presented, and your opponent is arguing from their emotions/prejudices.
  • First reply (caveat 2): If your rebuttal does not include 3c, lead your first reply with a provocative pivot, to introduce 3c: "The topic of importance here, is that of outcomes for minors/young people. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of voluntary, nonviolent sexual contact with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple consent has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the inescapable moral dilemma explained in section 3c, and gives your opponent an opportunity to embarrass themselves. From that point onwards, follow the strategy in the second reply bullet points below.

Countering simplistic statements

Most responses will fall into the below category.

  • First reply: If your opponent only makes one truth claim (from any section barring 3c itself), make your counter-claim, but without immediately evidencing it. Then, in the same reply, make a provocative pivot, to introduce 3c: "but far more important for me, are the outcomes for minors/youth/children. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of voluntary, nonviolent sex with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple consent has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the inescapable moral dilemma explained in section 3c, and gives your opponent an opportunity to embarrass themselves.
  • Second reply (caveat 1): If their reply then contains the sought-after 3c truth claim, shoot it down with the provided evidence in a few successive tweets (have it planned out in a text document), and immediately follow with the evidenced rebuttal to their original claim - showing polite incredulity, since you have already addressed the fundamental argument.
  • Second reply (caveat 2): If they do not make a 3c argument, then you should still rebut up to two of their arguments and 3c, but starting with the arguments and evidences that address their truth claims. If they then respond with two or more non-3c truth claims, calmly address both with evidence, and make one final attempt to introduce 3c as per above - stating that you do not wish to debate for long, but will discuss topics of substance, such as this.

The Script

Identify one or two of the following claims (may be in different categories).



1. Pedophilia (or Hebephilia) is not a sexuality, or is "invalid"

Their specific truth claim/s might be:

  • 1a) Pedophilia is a pathological paraphilia and/or uncommon.
  • 1b) No chronophilia (age preference) is a sexuality. It is therefore invalid.
  • 1c) Pedophiles or MAPs in general are attempting to gain entry into/being enabled by the LGBT community.

Your golden rule: Pedophilia (or Hebephilia) is already a sexuality, or orientation.

Your immediate and corresponding counter claim/s:

  • 1a) Forget about MAP activists, even psychiatrists have accepted for a long time that pedophilia can be an orientation - have you read the DSM-5? Also, phallometric studies have (again, for a long time now) shown that pedophilia is relatively common and hebephilia is very common. Historical and cross-cultural evidence suggests that strong hebephilia is actually normative in men. This isn't something we can just deny or legislate out of existence.
  • 1b) Phenotype refers to more than just gender, and invalidation/erasure is a common tactic employed by neo-reactionaries. Even modern psychiatrists (see the DSM-5) have entertained chronophilias as sexual orientations for many years. Historical/anthropological evidence shows that age-structured relations are very common - even in historical eras before there existed any widely received social definition of homosexuality or other alternative gender-based expressions.
  • 1c) This is flat-out incorrect; all we ever hear are conspiracy theories about MAP Flags, and evidence that some MAPs are also LGBT. While the modern LGBT movement was pro-youth rights and largely pro-pedophile til the late 80s, MAPs created their own identity as a response to their own exclusion from an LGBT Movement that was becoming increasingly bourgeois and exclusionary. MAPs are seeking to reduce stigma and defamation, not create provocative unicorn subjectivities, like the modern LGBT!


2. Minors or children are developmentally inferior

Their specific truth claim/s might be:

  • 2a) The adult partner has a lot more power, meaning it's abusive.
  • 2b) Brain development only ends at 25 years of age. Minors are underdeveloped.
  • 2c) Children or minors (thus) can't give "informed consent".

Your golden rule: Minors are developmentally sound & can consent.

Your immediate and corresponding counter claim/s:

  • 2a) Under the current system, the younger partner has access to blackmail (ultimate veto) power and the power of attraction - this is backed up by numerous studies that asked minors how they felt. Also, physical relations are not like hand-to-hand combat, so - if power difference automatically led to exploitation, far more adult relationships would have led to lasting trauma.
  • 2b) This is a common myth based on outdated studies from the late 00s and early 10s. Gray Matter peaks at around the start of puberty, just after total brain volume. Regardless of size, the prefrontal cortex is already functionally mature at that point, and myelination continues to progress into the 40s. "Impulsivity" is highly debatable and laden with negative value judgments, but is likely adaptive and pro-reproductive to the limited extent it might exist.
  • 2c) This is not necessarily true, as even mainstream opinions on older minors would now hold that they can give informed consent to life-changing procedures. Informed consent is always condemned to be an arbitrary legal concept, although in reality both children and adults regularly give uninformed consent. With regards to sex, even assuming present social stigmas, simple (yes/no) consent is already enough to tell us that outcomes will likely be positive or neutral... go straight to 3c.


3. Harm is far too common - inherent/fundamental

Their specific truth claim/s might be:

  • 3a) Children are naturally innocent, and sex robs them of/destroys that innocence.
  • 3b) Most modern societies outlaw adult-minor sex because we know it's harmful.
  • 3c) Studies (of survivors/criminal/therapeutic samples) demonstrate this terrible harm.

Your golden rule: Harm is not inherent to or even common with voluntary/nonviolent activity.

Your immediate and corresponding counter claim/s:

  • 3a) Innocence is an age-old postindustrial myth going back to the Victorian era. You are essentially protecting a quasi-religious social institution, and a harmful one at that. Literature strongly supports this.
  • 3b) Popularity of a policy does not make right, and who is to say we know better nowadays, when previous societies had quite different standards for far longer than the current post-industrial norms? The assumption of harm is completely contrary to the facts, indicating that today's laws are an early-phase over-reaction in the development of public morals/ethics... go straight to the 3rd sentence of 3c
  • 3c) Your sampling is unrepresentative. If I wanted to research interracial marriage, I wouldn't form a sample by searching for survivors of physical/sexual assaults by married black males. What is important for predicting positive or neutral outcomes in peer-reviewed studies, is simple consent (yes/no) - something adults and minors are very familiar with already. When we make the mistake of including simple consent cases within our definition of Child Sexual Abuse, the entire concept of CSA as a predictor of harm becomes empirically invalid. This is because we start counting far too many cases where the child or minor gave simple consent and was left unharmed. This fact has been known for over 20 years (Rind et al) and confirmed repeatedly since then, but is highly taboo.


Evidence material you should cite

Decide what arguments and how much material you will cite on the basis of their argument, your reply and whether you want to keep some of your powder dry.

1. Pedophilia (or Hebephilia) is already a sexuality, or orientation

Gallery of excerpt graphics supporting 1a, 1b, 1c, with reference and function in description box.

Link to relevant list of excerpts in Web Archive/Alternative Wiki, and live NW alternative.

Some links to highly pertinent articles.

1c.

Your evidence for 1.c is our article on Minor Attracted Person (the foundations of the term) and Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity (for former associations between the Gay Movement and what are now referred to as MAPs). Link them direct, as NW is the original MAP website, and the LGBT article cites historical facts.

2. Minors are developmentally sound & can consent

Gallery of excerpt graphics 2a, 2b, 2c, with reference and function in description box.

Link to relevant list of excerpts in Web Archive/Alternative Wiki, and live NW alternative.

Some links to highly pertinent articles.

3. Harm is not inherent to or even common with voluntary/nonviolent activity

Gallery of excerpt graphics 3a, 3b, 3c, with reference and function in description box.

Link to relevant list of excerpts in Web Archive/Alternative Wiki, and live NW alternative.

3a) David Evans (screencap).

3c) Outcome research by Rind et al. Explanation of sampling fallacy in other studies. Link to CSA dilemma.

Some links to highly pertinent articles.

So they called you names?

So, you tried all of this, but your opponent just called you a pedophile or an enabler and pretended they won the debate? Even if this is to be your last contribution, you should remind them:

  • 1. That they just lost a debate, so have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
  • 2. They are (if presented with it) unable to read basic statistical analysis or engage in high-school level deductive reasoning or logic, and therefore not worth your time.
  • 3. They clearly never had a genuine interest in pursuing an evidence-based policy discussion, since they just ignored important data on outcomes for youth/minors. They are taking advantage of children by using them to virtue-signal.
  • 4. Further, if they profess an interest in tolerance or social justice, point out that they just assumed your minority sexual identity, putting you at risk in a public place. Even with less stigmatized, less commonly defamed identities (trans/non-binary people, gays in homophobic countries) this is considered a grave offence.
  • 5. Finally (optional) they are cowardly and inauthentic, butthurt, whining like a bitch or triggered (include a nice triggered gif).

Further discussion of the genetic fallacies and name-calling used against suspected pedophiles can be found on Debate Guide.