Debate Guide: "As a parent" or "as a survivor"

"You clearly have no children. If you did, you would never argue for [POV] because all good parents would know what is in their child's best interest".

It should be noted that as far as sex crimes against children go, the child's own family is more of a danger than the general public.

Strictly speaking, the argument is fallacious and unimportant. Whether a person is a parent or not fails to add to or subtract from the value of their argument. We could of course go into the intricacies of debating the merits of pedophiles' opinions on similar issues, but that is not for this debate. But ultimately, only reasoned, watertight arguments are going to have any bearing here. Can the proponent provide them?

Also note that hysterical parents do not have a monopoly on deciding what is in "the child's best interest". There are a number of arguments that refute that belief.

Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered

• Ad hominem fallacy: Based on an appeal to the percieved and unproven authority, knowledge and good intentions of a parent.
• Cognitive distortion: Emotional reasoning

See also

• Parenthood and pedophilia