Debate Guide: If we could only save one child

"If this drastic action only saves one child, we will know that it has been worthwhile".

How can this be so, when there are so many adverse effects of child sexual hysteria?

[The argument is otherwise known as negative utilitarianism]:

"The best assumption is that children are often hurt by sexual situations. This assumption is made because we must apply the "precautionary principle", as any harm done to a child offsets any benefit the sex act could bring".

Your assumption is flawed from a nativist perspective, but this is not my primary concern in refuting your argument. I would like to ask you how any harm has an absolute quality which overrides all benefit. Could you not oppose virtually anything with this "negative utilitarian" argument?

I prefer to apply a more realistic principle. A lack of benefit is just as bad as a burden of harm, assuming that they are of equal and opposing magnitudes (as far as it is possible to determine). In reality, we cannot risk repressing our sexuality, as this carries a risk of suppressing positive sexual experiences. Also, many beauty spots must be accessed via a bumpy road; life is not about avoiding all harm and ignoring the rewards our adventures may present. This is not to say that sex with a young person should represent the bumpy road, but to the contrary, our society should celebrate and accept this inevitable love.