Debate Guide: Your arguments must be self-serving

Never trust a pervert.
Only a pedo would make this argument.
You are just a pedo loser, trying to legitimize your perversion in order to get access to kids.
Since you as a "MAP" are biased, you are always going to lie and obfuscate. There's just no point engaging with vermin.

1. It doesn't add up. According to this, every supportive member of the Spartacist League, ASFAR, the old Gay Movement, or even various societies throughout history must be a pedophile.

Still, as the personal is the political, there does seem to be a trend towards a high representation of such people among advocates of more liberal laws on all forms of sexuality. Today's "sexual deviants" are after all openly despised and left frustrated, much like homosexuals were back in the day. Also bear in mind that simply being able to question these social values might mean that you are more willing to recognize that you do indeed have a preferential or non-preferential attraction to minors. The prevalence of sexual attraction, even towards small children, is far more common than we realize. A study by Hall indicated that around 30% of men in the sample were equally or preferentially aroused by prepubescent stimuli. Other examples exist.

There are of course other sexual minorities who may themselves identify as victims of the "pedophile witch hunt". Some may be ephebophiles/hebephiles (preferring older minors or pubescents) and others may have a broader sexual interest which encompasses minors at some level. In this sense, such people are only necessarily pedophiles, etc in the colloquial sense specified by some dictionaries, where any attraction to/behavior towards an object qualifies one with the applicable orientation. Support has come from man quarters; for example, advocates include various academics and authors who have made the argument that absent social intervention, unlawful minor-adult sex may be harmless.

2. Self-interested arguing is strategically illogical and a misnomer for a "practicing pedophile" - at least in the short and mid-term. There exist many outlets for those who seek to break the law, including erotica, the dark web, discord, dating sites and social media. What point is there asking random people to accept something one is free to go out and do, if said arguing does not immediately reduce the attendant risks, and may increase them? At the end of the day, a MAP ally on social media is probably just arguing for what they believe to be fair and just, accepting the considerable possibility of having their account suspended.

3. Why speculate about the author when their argument is plain to see? Only an inauthentic, intellectual weakling would do so. Humor their accusation for one moment and still, all you are left with is a genetic fallacy and they would still be left with the task of providing a reasonable counterargument. Ad-hominems are just an admission of weakness and serve to waste time in an argument.

4. Let's go mad and apply the same argument to something entirely different. Postwar America. Why not undermine the campaigning of the ethnic or gay civil rights movement, because their arguments were in their own interests? Why not also ban registered Democrats from voting on the party leadership, or ban NRA members from referenda on gun control? But for subjective and preconceived notions of "motive" and "self-interest" against minorities, experience is otherwise valued in most fields of insight. For example, we now talk of the "lived experiences" of black people, gays and transsexuals (particularly black transsexuals) as something that cannot even be challenged.

Invoking the "indefensible" by way of a challenge

Are you, or are you not trying to defend pedophilia/degeneracy by describing yourself/other person as a "MAP"?

Basic guilt by association fallacy, but let's play with it a bit:

The extent to which you must "defend" something found to be unpalatable by most of society is actually determined by the level of misconception/bigotry circulated about that topic. So in this instance:

• It is the person who objects to/misrepresents pedophiles/hebephiles who is actually creating the demand for a public debate or use of a neologism within that debate. They then proceed to act snowflake/hurty when said debate arises after they express their ignorance.
• When the MAP/ally gives a nuanced response to the yes-or-no challenge, they are invariably accused of evasion. However, their opponent has most probably not defined what "pedophilia" or "defense of pedophilia" means to them, while unfairly seeking a binding answer from their opponent. So in fact, it is they who are engaged in a form of evasion that allows them to manipulate the debate.

Genetic fallacies concerning use of sources

The source you provided has no value, just like anything else re-published by Ipce. Their site appears to be a pro-pedo free for all.

This argument is another dumb guilt by association fallacy. You can not categorically reject data or arguments, simply because you disapprove of the messenger. For example, many scholarly works would not be publicly available if not for the efforts of activist organizations that publish them.

Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered

• Genetic fallacy: In particular, ad hominem, guilt by association, appealing to motive.
• Cognitive distortion: Jumping to conclusions, mind reading and emotional reasoning