Debate Guide: Starting a debate

To your opposition, a panicked, apologetic argument is the first step towards proving that you fulfil the stereotype criterion; a self interested pervert who makes intellectually dishonest points, desperately in pursuit of his evil lust. You have to show a level of confidence and positivity in your point of view, of the type that convinces an opponent that you are normalised within your school of thought, that you are making an argument not from your heart, but for the benefit of humanity, via reason. You can rarely make a convincing argument when your ego itself is under attack.

When debating in an informal forum, e.g. bulletin boards it is perhaps worth adapting your strategy. While your ultimate goal may be to argue in support of adult/child relationships or child sexual emancipation, in such a forum you will never get the opportunity to present your full case. Accordingly (and bearing in mind that here, your intended audience is not your opponent, but rather the hundreds of people reading) you might instead strive for an intermediate objective: getting across a particular message. The focus of your argument, then, might be to expound upon one central issue, e.g.: 'children are naturally sexual beings'; or 'man/boy relationships are not exclusively concerned with sex'; or 'the fallacy of arguments concerning power inequalities'; or 'sexual activity should not be treated as a distinct category of behaviour'.

Naturally this approach will depend on the circumstances in which you find yourself; but clearly the advantage of the 'message-orientated' rather than 'ultimate goal' approach is that you stay focused on what you are trying to achieve, and it is easier to avoid becoming defensive. Thus, as soon as your opponent makes a point that is off-message, it can easily be dismissed (using any number of debate techniques, e.g. the rhetorical question; redefining what your opponent has said) and then you can get back to the goal of hammering across your message.

Although a discussion thread with anything 'Pedo' in it's title is likely to take off anyway, an ideal opening post should start with a question, to at least make people think instead of setting themselves on fire, in response to a statement such as 'All Liberals are Nutcase Gadflys'. The question should reflect your interests and knowledge. For example, if you have first hand experience of a sexual relationship between an Adult and a Child, the question and thread title may read:

"The Sexual Predator who I loved: would you deny us?"

Another question to really get people thinking may be:

"Child - Adult sex. Where does it begin?"

Such a question should be extended in your message to specifically ask what constitutes 'sex'. Is it petting, caressing, fondling, kissing, oral or only penetration of the anus or vagina? When confronted with the idea that what they are doing to their child may be seen as 'sexual abuse', a parent's ability to reason may kick in.

Another tip is to pre - empt the arguments of others, when setting out a debate. This shows that you know the arguments made against yourself 'all too well', and immediately puts the proponents of irrational dogma where they should be: On the 'back foot'. To further demonstrate your knowledge and wisdom, the pre - empted arguments should be accompanied with a counter argument. You can find this elsewhere in the guide, and hopefully in the creativity that it inspires.

As well as putting in a good 'first showing' with a well researched opening argument, another way of demonstrating your natural disillusionment with the contemporary status of intergenerational love may be the use of humour and sarcasm. It would be sensible to judge your audience and opponents before making comments about 'predator children' or slightly more humorous attacks on opposing arguments, but if it seems that you will still be taken seriously, then it is just another way of diffusing the edginess and hand wringing around the subject, whilst demonstrating your confidence. Instead of waiting to be attacked with the many negative 'child protection' slogans, use them constructively; showing their invalidity by mentioning them first and and turning them on your opponent, flaunting just how ridiculous they are.