frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Is the left really trying to normalize pedophilia?

Debate Information

 Just to make it clear, I am not taking a side here. I have just seen some videos on this topic created by those from the right wing. 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    This is the first I've ever heard of this and depending exactly how right you are talking here this could be the same group of people that came up with pizzagate, so desperate to paint the left as pedophiles.
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCUjZzuMQq8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf4mOLdvKSs

     These are some examples. But really, youtube is full of these left shaming videos about the child drag queens.
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland yeah these YouTube videos lack any reasonable authority. There is a point to be made around children doing drag shows but it's certainly not pedophilia. These children are no different than the little girls who's parents force them to do pageants, which I believe is just as sexualizing. But in terms of the sexualization of children look even more broadly. Look at the teen magazines and ads from fashion companies. They push very suggestive messages and even companies that are trying to sell underwear to teen girls will try to give them very sexual clothing pushed by sexual models. The real issue that the right has is that it's drag which is something they don't like but they are using sexualization as a hollow argument to call it immoral. There is absolutely sexualization of children in this country but it isn't exclusive to drag, the left, or any activities, it permeates across many businesses and the political spectrum, it's an American thing as a whole. These videos are not concerned with that fight so their use of the argument, while a valid cause it's filled with empty words and targeted specifically at drag rather than sexualization. I find the claim that this is trying to normalize pedophilia as absolutely ridiculous, pageants, teen mags, and businesses are sexualizing children, but not normalizing pedophilia.

    Drag is an art more than anything. It's an art that has generally taken sexual tones, but in this country that's not a problem in and of itself, especially when we have the swimsuit competition in pageants, we all know why that is included, and yes little girls have this in their competitions as well. Many drag Queens are not LGBT or even of a different gender identity other than male. In fact some people get upset at the art of drag because it is entertainment out of a caricature of women, comparable to black face. No one of a different gender identity dresses like a drag preformer as drag used very exaggerated hair and makeup that pretty much no woman actually uses to such a degree. RuPauls drag race is immensely popular not because of sexualization but because of the art involved in drag and for some of the 'reality tv' aspects with the drama

    What I believe the core issue should be here is that parents couple be forcing their children to do something that maybe isn't appropriate for kids of their age. TLC used to have a show called little pageant Queens or something, and it was ridiculous that parents would force their children to do that. Sexualization of our youth can be a real issue but again that needs to be fought on many fronts and children in drag shows is one tiny drop in a much much larger bucket, and certainly doesn't normalize pedophilia. That's how you know these videos are really just against drag and use sexualization as a cover.
  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -  
    I find that young kids doing drag in very “sexualized” attire on stages doing questionable acts while people throw money at them is disgusting. Its also disgusting for adults to do the same thing but only in front of kids. You’ll get mad at them for finding PornHub but its okay for them to watch and this sh@t? Disgusting.
    Anyway, thats my opinion.
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @AmericanFurryBoy so how do you address young girls being put in pageants with swimsuit competitions or the Victoria's secret and aerie ads we see targeted at children?
  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -  
    @WordsMatter
    I really don’t suport those either. They’re just as disgusting as the afore-mentioned topic
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @AmericanFurryBoy well you are consistent in your views then, I applaud that. Do you think the issues that I presented get enough or as much attention as these children in drag shows? Particularly around their reach, this is a tiny population doing child drag, whereas these sexual ads directed in children hit most high schools and middle schools in America.

    Also back on topic I think you would agree the drag shows sexualize children but doesn't normalize pedophilia?
  • ih8shartsih8sharts 59 Pts   -  
    This might sound polarizing, but there is a lot more danger to kids from legal child marriages to protect statutory rapists. FOX News opinion provider Tucker Carlson actually defended a statutory rapists because he married the girls.
  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -  
    @WordsMatter
    No I don’t think they normalize pedophilia. 
    But, yes, I think there should be more focus on the issues you mentioned. Ill use my school as an example, here in Minnesota, it gets cold in the winter. Now, no matter the temperature, girls will wear stuff that makes them look like they belong in the playboy mansion rather than at school.
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • crossedcrossed 58 Pts   -  
    given the last comment on my evolution debate page yes
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    First of all, phrases like "Left is trying X" or "Right is doing Y" are really meaningless; there are dozens millions people in this country alone who lean "left", and probably every single individual has, at least, one view that can be considered "left". You cannot group those people up and attribute a single action or view to all of them.
    That is not to mention that "left" and "right" are pointless labels to begin with as they suggest a one-dimensional dichotomy on a political compass consisting of infinite number of dimensions - but that is a topic for another discussion.

    Next, there is a difference between sexualization of children and pedophilia. Pedophilia, by definition, is a sexual attraction in adults towards children. If children have sexual attraction towards each other (and they do - it is a part of growing up; I personally had my first sexual reaction to a girl my age when I was around 11, and for some it happens as early as 8-9), then it is not pedophilia - not any more than elderly people having sexual attraction towards each other is gerontophilia. People are naturally attracted to other people of their age; this is just nature.

    Finally, the topic of sexual expressions in children has been tabooed long enough already. I always get blasted for expressing this point of view, but nonetheless: let children engage with other children their age in whatever acts they might want. Sexuality is so marginalised in the modern society, yet it is a part of who we are. I doubt there are children above, say 13 years old nowadays in the First World who have never seen porn. Children understand very well what sex and sexuality is, and adults should stop posing as authority in this regard. In fact, adults can be more careless with sex than children - as countless child support lawsuits and divorces indicate.

    In Medieval ages, it was not too uncommon for 9 years old children to have sex - and nothing horrible happened; civilization did not die out. Nowadays the age of consent is steadily going up, reaching 21 years old sometimes. Do you really think a person at 20 years old cannot figure out how to spend a quality time in bed? Come on now. We should stop being ashamed of our bodies in all regards and embrace nudity and sexuality fully.
    Zombieguy1987
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar There is no evidence that the sexualization of children is only for other children around the same age as the one being sexualized. This is like defending child porn with saying that it is actually intended for children. It is apparent what kind of people enjoy this sexualization. 

     Now, I agree with you on the idea that "The left" is a useless label. But we cannot deny the fact that the sources defending these acts belong to the left. Not all of the left supports this but a portion of it does, meaning it is indeed a problem. Maybe some people defend this point without noticing what it entails but, still, that doesn't make the problem disappear.

     Yes, sexuality is a part of what we are. But this fact would not make a sexual intercourse with a newly born baby okay, would it? The problem is that we must draw a line, somewhere, where we think the child has aged enough to decide for himself/herself. I have no idea where this line should be drawn exactly but I agree with you that currently, it is drawn at a very high age. 

     In medieval ages, parents decided who their children would marry and they had complete control over their children. This prevented those "horrible events" that you mention. In our century, if we give children complete freedom at the ages of 9 and around, they can be easily manipulated into doing anything. Or they can just get mad that their parents did not allow them to spend all their money on Fortnite skins and leave the house because they are considered "independant". 

     The problem is not that children do not understand what sex is. The problem is that most of them lack common sense when it comes to deciding what to do. Children understand what throat pain is as well, but this doesn't stop them from trying to eat 3 entire kilograms of ice cream. Children understand what poverty is but they would still try to spend 10 000 dollars on roblox if they had a functioning credit card. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    There is no evidence that the sexualization of children is only for other children around the same age as the one being sexualized. This is like defending child porn with saying that it is actually intended for children. It is apparent what kind of people enjoy this sexualization. 
    It does not matter whether it is only for them, or for someone else; the fact that it can be for them, and even, some would argue, is needed for them means that it should not be discouraged. 
    Next, even if some adults enjoy sexualization of children - what is the harm here? Pedophilia refers simply to the fact of sexual attraction towards children; it does not imply acting on that attraction. There is nothing wrong with having some devious thoughts in one's mind. And while those thoughts can potentially lead to violent action, that action is already outlawed, hence we have everything covered legally.
    Finally, the problem with child porn is not that it sexualizes children. Some would say that it is one of the problems with it, but it is not the reason it is outlawed pretty much everywhere. The reason it is outlawed pretty much everywhere is that, in order for it to exist, children must be employed in sex industry, which - at least in its current marginalised state - is not exactly child-friendly.

    AlexOland said:
    Now, I agree with you on the idea that "The left" is a useless label. But we cannot deny the fact that the sources defending these acts belong to the left. Not all of the left supports this but a portion of it does, meaning it is indeed a problem. Maybe some people defend this point without noticing what it entails but, still, that doesn't make the problem disappear.
    Well, if it is a useless label, then how can the sources belong to this label?
    I would say that the people defending these acts are simply not big on traditions and societal norms. That is not the same as being left. I am leaning pretty much fully to the right as of now if we discuss the conventional left-right separation; I cannot even call myself libertarian confidently now, as I am too much into anarchism at this point. And yet I do not see anything wrong with sexualization of children.
    There are many issues our children face currently and may face in the future. Sexualization is hardly one of the important ones. If anything, the opposite - sheltering children too much and hiding them from the real adult world - can have serious damaging long-term effects.

    AlexOland said:
     Yes, sexuality is a part of what we are. But this fact would not make a sexual intercourse with a newly born baby okay, would it? The problem is that we must draw a line, somewhere, where we think the child has aged enough to decide for himself/herself. I have no idea where this line should be drawn exactly but I agree with you that currently, it is drawn at a very high age. 
    I do not think this is a question of drawing the line. I think this is a question of applying common sense and individual approach. Some children are well ready to have mature sex at the age of 9, while some people still cannot do it properly at the age of 90. Rather than defining "age of consent" and similar arbitrary quantities, it would be more reasonable to approach each case individually.

    AlexOland said:
     In medieval ages, parents decided who their children would marry and they had complete control over their children. This prevented those "horrible events" that you mention. In our century, if we give children complete freedom at the ages of 9 and around, they can be easily manipulated into doing anything. Or they can just get mad that their parents did not allow them to spend all their money on Fortnite skins and leave the house because they are considered "independant". 
    Not only children can be manipulated into doing many things. Entire populations have been manipulated into serving ruthless dictators, for example. I do not see it as an argument against freedom.
    I also find that people do not give children enough credit. It is true that children are more reckless and lack the foresight and experience to make mature decisions, and to put long-term gain before the instant gratification. However, they are hardly completely unable to make reasonable decisions. I do not think a child given, for example, $10,000 would instantly buy a lot of games and candies - especially if the parents have taught the child something about family economics.

    AlexOland said:
     The problem is not that children do not understand what sex is. The problem is that most of them lack common sense when it comes to deciding what to do. Children understand what throat pain is as well, but this doesn't stop them from trying to eat 3 entire kilograms of ice cream. Children understand what poverty is but they would still try to spend 10 000 dollars on roblox if they had a functioning credit card. 
    But, perhaps, we need to first investigate why this is the case. It may have something to do with the fact that the topic of sex is a hard taboo in most families, so children grow up getting their information on sex from random sources, rather than being properly educated about it by adults. We have a culture in which most porn sites, for example, expect the viewer to be, at least, 18 - or even 21 - years old. Of course in such a culture children will have a very poor knowledge of sex - and its consequences.
    I remember, back when I was 10 or so, my family was watching a movie, some criminal detective. The bed scene started, and my parents switched the channel to another one for a couple of minutes, so me and my brother would not be exposed to the scene. How can we expect children to have a mature view on this topic when the topic is so carefully concealed from them?

    Your second point is, actually, a good illustration of my approach. Yes, a child can potentially eat 3 kilograms of ice cream, even knowing what will follow - but we do not have a law against children eating kilograms of ice-cream, let alone simply any amount of ice-cream, do we? There is no "age of consent" for eating large amounts of ice cream. Instead we rely on parents teaching kids a proper diet, and if that does not work, carefully watching them and not letting them eat too much.
    If we approached the topic of eating ice cream as we do the topic of sex, then children would not know what ice cream tastes like until adulthood. Or, to be more precise, they would not be supposed to know it until then - in practice, of course, they would find a way to experience it, and without the proper guidance, probably make a mess out of it.

    This is a systematic problem in our society: when we fear the negative consequences of something, we try to prevent people from being exposured to that something. We are afraid of gun deaths - we control gun ownership. We are afraid of traffic accident deaths - we control driving privileges. We are afraid of children being hurt by sexual experiences - we control the age of consent.
    But as we do all that, we actually, rather than solving the problem, contribute to it. When people are not exposured to something, then they do not learn how to deal with that something. Would we have so many gun deaths if guns were normalised and people from a very young age knew everything about guns, knowing, among other things, how to protect themselves from gun attacks? Would we have so many traffic accidents if, just like many decades ago, parents taught their children driving at the age of 5, letting them practice on the farms? Would we have so many unwanted pregnancies if children knew the mechanics of sex well and understood all the precautions they needed to take as well as they understand that jumping off a 50-stored skyscraper is not a good idea? I do not think so.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    Yes. I've seen liberals on facebook.com glorifying an anonmymous pedophile, and when I critiqued pedophiles, I was attacked. I was raped by my father when I was thirteen, so that was triggering and offensive to me. I hate anyone who commits sjuch a vile act.
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    @MayCaesar "there is a difference between sexualization of children and pedophilia." I was responding to this with my first paragraph. Yes, they are different things. But no, they are not unrelated. They are related in the same way that "child porn" is related to pedophilia. Now, I was not trying to make any further points other than stating this one fact. I thought you were defending that pedophilic attraction is wrong at the start, so I am sorry to make that assumption. "Next, even if some adults enjoy sexualization of children - what is the harm here?" therefore I agree with you on this. If we take a very rational approach, there is nothing wrong with what you say. I remember doing some research about whether watching porn raises the amount of sexual violence done in a country or not, and I was not able to find a correlation. 

     "The left" as refering to all the left is useless, in cases like ours. But this does not mean that people can not belong to "the left". And it is a fact that there are leftist media sources in existence. And it is also a fact that these sources are the ones defending the sexualization of children. You can be "right" and still defend sexualization of children, but this does not invalidate the fact that leftist sources are doing the same. 

     "...it would be more reasonable to approach each case individually."  I have actually thought about this, but just disregarded it because it would be too hard to implement in practice. Now, you defend that each individual should be put to a test to determine if they deserve to be independent or not.  The first problem is, there are a lot of people. How are you going to test all of them? The second problem is, how are you going to construct a test like that? What do they need to prove exactly? And remember; as you make the test more comprehensive, it is going to take even a longer time to apply it on every individual. The third problem is, a person can just intentionally give the wrong answers and he will not have the obligations that come with independence. 

     Most children are reckless. You can argue that it is because of the way we raise them, but this is true. Yes, it is true that everyone can be fooled. But children are far more easily fooled than adults.

      "...Instead we rely on parents teaching kids a proper diet, and if that does not work, carefully watching them and not letting them eat too much." exactly my point. If you are going to make it possible for kids to marry, you have to give the parents authority on to whom the child is going to marry. If you decide to consider kids "individuals" they will have the right to not listen to their parents and just do what they want. If an 18 year old wanted to marry but their parents did not allow this, he would just do it anyway. Because he has the right to. Now, if you make children "independant" they will have every right to go against their parents and do whatever they want. This would be solvable if we invented that test you were talking about, but I really think it is impossible.

     Now, on that last paragraph, I do not have anything against that. I am just pointing out that it actually is a problem of drawing a line if you want children to be able to marry, take part in sexual acts and basically be independant. Say your baby tried to crawl off some cliff, should you stop him? Maybe he is aware of what he is doing and wants to commit suicide? Or what if a child is trying to consume Tide Pods and he says that he knows these will harm him, the child is aware of what he is doing right? What exactly is the problem here? I will tell you the problem: The child is an and wants to eat Tide Pods because they look nice. The solution to these problems is either: A) We draw a line  B.) We come up with a test that proves that a person is ready to be independant . Now, I really think option B is impossible. But maybe you know a way to make it happen? Or maybe you have an option C in mind?

     
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland in reference to your discussion on "the left." You aknowledge that it's left wing media in your view that is defending this. Media is significantly different from the people it is trying to pander too. If you look at right wing media you see it saying Trump is of good character and a very smart person. When in reality plenty of people on the right and that voted for him think he is of poor character and not that smart, but they can still support his policies.

    Second on this topic you say that people on the right can also support the sexualization of children, which they do. So deciding to only focus on the left in this discussion is falling into the same pit that feminists do when discussing rape or sexual assaults. They frame it as only something that happens to women, and at best give lip service to male victims. The result of this is a large population of males that don't commit these actions feeling demonized and then not wanting to participate in any conversation around rape. If the narrative was about how anyone can be a victim there wouldn't be such a push back.

    With your tide pod example or walking off the cliff we have that suicide is already illegal, as is the act of pedophilia, or sex with a minor. You can stop someone from suicide just as you can stop a pedophile from raping a kid. You can talk about your pedophilic feelings or suicidal feelings and you can't be stopped from that. If suicide did become legal, which it should, then you shouldn't be stopped when you attempt it, kid or adult.

    This can bring us to drug and alcohol laws. I find them ridiculous in any capacity. Look at the issues this country has with alcohol abuse because it is cool as a taboo under 21, and you are supposed to know nothing about it and then overnight be free to drink a handle on your 21st. In Europe the drinking age is much younger so parents are able to teach their kids how to drink, it's dangers, what too much can be. The result is a young population that wants to drink the same as in the US, but that won't drink themselves to death because they are experienced with it. Of course there will always be some that drinks way too much and dies, or some kid that wants to have sex with everything and gets diseases, but you don't make anything anywhere illegal for the majority because someone somewhere could use it irresponsibly, example gun rights.

    Consent is a plenty good line to draw in terms of who can and can't have sex. Consent has a legal definition and it's not just giving a yes but your have to be found to be able to give that yes understanding full well what it means as well as having full faculties to give it. There are adults that can't legally give consent to things that they are technically of age to do.

    I side more with maycaesar here. Don't you think a hard line is pretty ridiculous that av teenager and their older partner can have sex one day, and the older partner is committing a federal crime that would put them on the sex offender list, but an hour later is perfectly legal? Context is much better to make these decisions rather than a hard line. Even a soft area would be better.
  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought
    You seem to be very unlucky due to the fact that you say you’ve been “raped” multiple times
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @WordsMatter "You aknowledge that it's left wing media in your view that is defending this." Yes, that is what I was trying to say. Maybe I did not word it properly? 

     "Second on this topic you say that people on the right can also support the sexualization of children, which they do." Not really. Most do not. And if we are talking about the right wing media, they most certainly do not. And if we add in the fact that I am talking about the left wing media trying to normalize pedophilia, this statement of yours becomes irrelevant. Yes, not all left wing people do not need to listen to left wing media, I am not claiming that. 

     I have no idea what you are trying to say with your third paragraph. Those examples were presenting a problem. "If suicide did become legal, which it should, then you shouldn't be stopped when you attempt it, kid or adult." so, you should not stop a baby trying to crawl off a cliff? If you say we should, why should we stop him? Because he does not have the capacity to understand what he is doing? Exactly. Therefore, we must draw a line. A line that will only let people exercise their full freedom if they acquire a certain capacity of understanding. The problem is not an adult/kid problem. I have already stated that I think the line today is drawn at an unreasonably high age. But there needs to be a line. 

     "but you don't make anything anywhere illegal for the majority because someone somewhere could use it irresponsibly, example gun rights." This is not the same case. We know with certainty that before children hit a certain age in their lives (individually. I am not claiming that all children mature at the same age), they are not able to make reasonable choices. Now, if we give these children the right to make choices, what is the logical outcome? Yes, we get unreasonable choices being made. You are just assuming my arguments, I have not even defended any of what you have said in your comment.

     "Consent is a plenty good line to draw in terms of who can and can't have sex. Consent has a legal definition and it's not just giving a yes but your have to be found to be able to give that yes understanding full well what it means as well as having full faculties to give it."  How will you know a person understands what that 'yes' means? Even if you invent a test and even if you somehow apply it to everyone succesfully, you will have drawn a line just like I am suggesting to do. So what are you objecting to exactly?

     
     "Don't you think a hard line is pretty ridiculous that av teenager and their older partner can have sex one day, and the older partner is committing a federal crime that would put them on the sex offender list, but an hour later is perfectly legal? Context is much better to make these decisions rather than a hard line. Even a soft area would be better." 
     I never said 'a hard line' though. I just mentioned a line. You cannot consider everyone undependant individuals right from the start. This is my main objection. But, my second objection is that there is no reliable way to tell if someone is ready to make decisions or not. Let's say you invented a test, what exactly are you going to test for? Do you think this test will be %100 accurate? Do you think some people will not just knowingly fail the test because they do not want responsibilities? What if the person in front of you is ready to make decisions but he is not good at communications, so he will have a lower chance of succeding your test?

     So: 1- The test will not be %100 accurate  2- You will have to test every single person meaning this will take a large amount of effort.
     Therefore, why do not we just draw a hard line? The hard line will not be %100 accurate either but it will be easier to apply. Therefore, it is more logical to use a hard line.

     Or, we could kind of combine the two systems. A hard line + an extra test if there are people who do not agree with this hard line. We do not have a certain point when discerning mature from the unmature but there are some people who we can certainly call "mature". Just like we let some people be considered "unmature" even though they have passed that hard line, we can let some people be "mature" even though they are still behind the hard line. An 8 year old, for example, could come and show that she is good at making choices and she could show that she is intelligent. If she can prove to us that she has matured, then we can consider this person "mature". The point is, only people who have matured enough that they can actually prove it  get a pass. This will not help the ones that are not very mature but still mature. But it will save us time, only people who are confident that they have matured will take the test. 


     

     
  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland i dont think so the left is pretty broad maybe some creepy aspects of the far left, but i think most people find it disgusting comrade stalin was pretty far left and he used to have them boiled in acid
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland the left wing media? what exactly is that? we need to define terms, and the left is pretty broad i consider myself a socialist, most people consider socialists on the left or far left and i think pedophles should be euthanized
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    i was wondering what made you that way@YeshuaBought
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -  
    indirectly they are, unforeseen consequences of them trying to normalize all the abnormal stuff, like pretending a man can have a baby etc so the pedos are latching onto that train for the ride as well. The interviews I've seen, they say it's like homosexuality or any other non hetero attraction, they know it's wrong to act on it, but they want to be accepted because it's who they are, it' show they identify. Then you move the goal posts, like that congresswoman who tried to lower the age of consent to 10, though that was probably for the Muslims benefit and not the pedos.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch