The technique of a good response
Misdefinition
Pointing out the general problem of misdefinition, and sticking to a set of precise, objective words of your own is fundamental to your argument. Via the use of misdefinitions, opponents have been able to get away with indefensible arguments - yet the majority probably know little about their faulty use of language. As far as labelling is concerned, remember to make the point that there is no such thing as 'the paedophile/pederast', any more than there is such a thing as 'the heterophile' or 'the homophile'. Minor-attracted individuals have no essential characteristics that distinguish them, save that their sexual tendency is strongly directed towards young people. Just as heterosexuals have no other distinguishing characteristics. What we are debating is the activities of an individual, adult or child, not a de-personalised category. Make sure to point out the following examples:
Pedophilia
This is not 'child sexual abuse', 'illegal', 'child - adult sex', 'child porn', a 'mental illness' or the 'problem' associated with these. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction towards prepubescents. Check a reputable dictionary definition, e.g. 'sexual desire directed towards children' (Oxford, 1991). Abuse of a child does not automatically qualify you as a Pedophile either, as Pedophilia - by definition has nothing primarily to do with behaviour (see 'Pedophilia is common in child molesters' - Section 4). Such a misdefinition may show a writer's vulnerability to the media, e.g. note how many news programmes simply use 'Pedophile' in place of 'child molester', whilst 'Heterosexual' would not be used to describe that bearded, warty rapist of a 25 year old woman!
The term 'Pedosexuality' may be preferred by some, if the opponent fails to accept the actual definition of Pedophilia. On the other hand, 'Nonce', 'Kiddy Fiddler' and 'Duck' have been used alongside the 'Large, groping hands', 'Thick rimmed / dirty glasses' and 'Sly old fox' stereotypes, of which the latter replaced the 'Rampant child destroyer' image, once news stories and studies revealed an alternative but equally disturbing nature to society's current 'devil' of choice.
Pederast
This is the real word for a man who interacts 'sexually' with adolescent / pubescent boys.
Ephebophilia
Although rarely used and not often misdefined, you may wish to introduce this word alongside a critique of your opponent's definitions. Ephebophilia is defined as a sexual attraction towards adolescents; particularly pubescents of either or both sexes (although Hebephilia may be used for an attraction to Girls), even though an 'Ephebe' is traditionally a young, male military recruit. An 'Adolescent' may be of any pubertal age, or up to around 21 years old, depending on your definition. 'Sexually active Ephebophile' is better than 'Pedophile' for describing someone who has preferentially - driven sex with pubescents, and the distinction is important, since it clarifies that some degree of pubescent sexual character is preferred.
Abuse, Molestation
These are often used to describe child - adult sex, and are correct from a legal point of view. Although they are misdefinitions, you must be able to back this up, before making such an assertion.
The main problem is when someone may quote a study that concluded strongly against 'child sexual abuse' and then say 'I told you so'. The behaviours that are included in such a study are very likely to be unrepresentative of all such contact. If this is not the case search for bias, social causation of problems, any cases of 'correlation as causality' (e.g. 'something else causing sex and violence', or 'violence causing sex', instead of the assumed 'sex causing violence') and any evidence to the contrary from our link list or list of studies. Richard Kramer provides a good starting point for critiquing these problem papers. Still, you must point out precisely how the evidence conflicts with theirs, instead of just linking it.
Fucking Children
As well as seemingly assuming penetration, such a definition of what you advocate sounds harsh, one sided and at the worst, intrinsically involuntary. A reasoned debate can only be had if the very definitions that we use are objective, and preferably shared by all sides of a debate. You advocate child - adult sexual contact, and must never be implied as supporting such a vague, emotionally laden and flexible idea as 'Fucking Children'. Nor should you use 'pleasuring' or 'making love' in anything but a descriptive sense - e.g, a correct usage would be -
"You would be surprised how many sexually active Pedophiles are simply pleasuring their partners. Whats more, their partners agree with a smile". [Link to an account]
The well-known author and feminist, Patrick Califa, has noted that if engaging in sexual relations with their partners, boylovers generally show more concern for the pleasure of their partners than does the average heterophile. Naturally such concern occurs to a greater or lesser extent in most relationships, but it seems that this aspect is particularly important in man/boy contacts – whether it occurs in a long-term relationship or even a casual sexual encounter: accounts almost uniformly show that what the adult appreciates most is the pleasure experienced by the child, even to the exclusion of the man's own contemporaneous sexual release.
'Normal' / 'Normality'
If your opponent uses this term, be sure to point out that it is an entirely relative concept, and you should re-define it to make the point that 'normal' only means 'majority'. The use of 'normal' automatically implies that the contrary is 'sub/ab-normal', and its use must be shot down immediately.
The Straw man / other fallacies
The Straw man is a common logical fallacy, in which the opponent builds an exaggerated, caricatured or ludicrous version of your argument. They may simply parade the stupidity of the straw man, or take what you said out of context, and then argue against it. An example of parading / floating a straw man is as follows:
''The censorers are coming! They're going to stop the free exercise of "luring" little kids into pornography or sex slavery! GAWD HELP US ALLL!1111'' (DaninGraniteCity, IIDB, 2006)
In a more dangerous example, someone may establish that you are trying to force yourself upon children, by relaxing the age of consent (in fact, you advocate no law that requires children to behave sexually at all). They may then build a detailed critique of such a straw man, i.e. they will burn the straw man. Always point out that they are arguing aimlessly, and don't try to defend opinions that have been attributed to you via the straw man. Criticise the assumptions that they make, and maybe even take what they say to it's ludicrous, logical conclusion, i.e. a rational straw man.
Make sure to point out association fallacies, in which an opponent may say that, for e.g. ''most swingers (who are sexually liberated people) think lowly of sex with minors''. This would be honor by association, i.e. the swingers, with whom the ultimate title of 'sexual liberation' is identified 'think lowly' of our most important arguments, which must therefore be false ideals of liberation. The opponent might as well say that house music is dire, since classical musicians (the 'only true musicians') supposedly denounce it as so. The 'swinger' argument is also faulty because it assumes that such people are the model for sexual liberation, when in fact they are just one subculture, one thread of the cloth. The argument also puts beliefs into our swingers' heads, when in fact, they may be even more liberal than most regarding child sexuality. If this is so, maybe we are more entitled to this fallacy!
Other fallacies include personal attacks, circular arguments, non sequiturs, appeals to popularity, authority, pity and emotion. You will automatically pick up on a lot of these, but it is best to read up on logical fallacies, so that you can increase your vigilance, and avoid making a confused or emotional comment yourself (maybe in response to a logical fallacy that you 'can't quite put your finger on').
The Power of Rhetoric - 'Sexual relationships' as an example
It is very likely that an opponent will sometimes use the language explained in 'misdefinitions' without building a strawman or another fallacy. This should be pretty obvious, but there are more discreet, powerful ways in which they can win points over you, via rhetoric. The example that we will present is the sexual 'relationship'. Although such complex interactions are possible and mutually agreeable between adults and minors, you should not feel obliged to characterise this possibility as the "only hope". The nature of emancipated "childlove" interactions is unknown and likely to be very different to that of a typical adult relationship.
Your opponent is probably mentally superimposing adult relationship models upon the potential "childlove" relationship (i.e. closed mindedness). This is a problem for you to identify and confront, as adult relationships are currently constructed to satisfy every need and right that modern 'adults' have, and 'children' do not. Our current preconceptions of what a child is and what they can do are skewed against this relationship model. It would be far more sensible to imagine the potential nature of childlove relationships, taking into account the needs of young people who had chosen in what way, and how often to interact. The likely result would probably be a much softer, less impulsive kind of love, and in fact this has been clearly observed in accounts and studies. We must also note that it is too much to robotically expect a full sexual relationship from any sexual activity that we seek to decriminalise; it totally bars the likely norms of casual contacts, caring parental relationships that merge into sexual intimacy and implies levels of complexity that almost mirror those of a couple functioning at the head of a family. And just because a relationship contains sexual intimacy, this does not mean that 'sexual' should override all else in describing the relationship. Romeo and Juliet, or the more modernistic Fuck Buddy arrangements are good examples of full - on sexual relationships. An educational, yet sexually intimate relationship between an adult and a younger person, whom they also play / talk with and look after, is most likely not 'sexual' by majority.
Bulletin board dynamics
It may be impossible to identify one repeat offence being made by an opponent, despite knowing that they clearly have no will to engage in an objective discussion. They may even be 'shouting from the sidelines' and making absolutely no constructive points at all. In such a case, it is a fine balance as to whether you should point them out individually, but a general comment about the 'ethos / attitude of some 'child protection' advocates' or humorous reply to the said shouting - which any reasoning person can identify with, may be the way forward. Don't forget to report threatening or unnecessary content to moderators, if the board has a good moderation policy. Remind yourself that with the rule of reason, you should never be effectively countered with jibes. 'Emancipationism' is a better armed position, although not a well manned one at this moment in time.
If your opponent's contributions are respectable, but unreasoned and repetitive, do not shy from mentioning this before you, yourself are made to look monotonous. Explain how such assertions are 'just not good enough to stand up against reason / persuade me' - i.e. you should not write as if you are below authority, or trying to excuse the inexcusable. Never forget - however hard it may seem, there are lurking members and at least twice as many non - members viewing your words. You have an audience, and are doing a service to much more than the debate itself, so hyperbolic rebuttals are by no means the end of the debate. In fact, this may only be the beginning.