I saw a whole lot of "B-but these people will never listen to you!" in this thread (e.g.
@Beginner ), but debates have inherent rules to them, if you're going to make an argument, you're going to base it off a specific system, and the default one is "reason".
If it's a made-up, bullshit system, no one will give a shit, no one gives a fuck if "muh SJW does not use reason because it's oppressive", no, you're not there to convince a fucking social justice warrior, if you're going to enter a debate like this, you're either there to trounce them for your own pleasure, show everyone that this person is retarded or BOTH (although both doesn't always work, some people are turned off by you mentioning how mentally retarded your opponent is).
What I'm trying to say is, you're wasting your fucking time this way, you've already "won" against someone that isn't using reason from the start, you don't have to actually "win their way", you have to pose for the public, you have to "win" the public in that case.
Anyway, "it's just a drawing" indeed isn't "enough" if you want to have a debate.
The main problem with this is a language deficiency and it's incomplete, "it's a depiction of a child" is the same.
How far is it a depiction though? How far is it "the same" like the real thing? If you start to deconstruct that, you're going to notice that things become awry, that's where the (also incomplete) analogies like "what about tentacle porn" or "what about furries" or "what about violence" come in, but what if the drawing is realistic enough then? Then it's the psychological argument, what exactly is the viewer thinking of when he's looking at this drawing? Is it the drawing that arouses him or does he change the drawing to another ideal version of the real thing?
I mean, this is pretty much what I mean when I talk about why "it's a depiction of a child" is incomplete and stupid:
This is cubism, and it's retarded, but at least it proves a point. Do you see this "deconstruction" of the tree concept? (It's not the same tree, bear with me, he does this with all trees he made anyway) Yeah, you're still thinking this is a tree because your mind doesn't live in a fucking vacuum, you've seen the first, and the artist clearly wanted you to do that, and now you've seen the other two, and you're thinking "yeah, I guess it's a tree, and a deconstruction at that".
So basically, you have to go into detail (that's why arguing on Twitter is a waste of time). How much of it actually "depicts" a child? How far does it go "anatomically" and "psychologically", and what do YOU think when you see that "depiction"? What does this image in your head stands for? Is it a standalone or is it some fetish that is just your brain recognizing arousing elements?
I mean, even experts will not use your arousal to depictions to determine what you are, they will see if it's repeated and if the elements therein are "real" (e.g. even "pictures" aren't real, but you get my point, we're not going there because we know why CP is illegal), both of those need to be true for you to be "something". We all also know the disconnect of our fetishes and reality just like the experts do, you can't just look at someone that likes the idea of an anime girl's armpits and directly equalize it to the real thing, because armpits smell differently in your mind, they taste differently, even the sweat doesn't become dry and stale.
You'd also often hear how "sexual arousal is not the same like aggression", this is honestly harder to argue against (because the nuances are lost on retards) but the truth of the matter is that no, both are equally complex sentiments. For sexual arousal though, you have to consider the above, those that like tentacle porn either are monkeys and like squids somehow, or they use the squids as analogies for "arousing elements", just like with pornography, the meme about how "lesbian sex" is "straighter" than "straight sex" for example is just another way to trivialize our psychology, yes, the sexual act itself arouses you so you want to also take part in the sexual act, you are not aroused by the man or necessarily the woman, and that's where the complexity comes from.
As for the "You will become a pedophile" argument, that's either them claiming that humanity as a whole has a predisposition to having sex with children, or denying sexual orientations. "B-but pedophilia is different", in what way exactly? It's a pretty well-defined concept. The average human being is interested in what has reached puberty, so technically "ready for sex", while a pedophile will throw that away because of different connections in their brain, just like with orientations. The average human being will be interested in the other sex, for the purpose of reproduction, but the gay brain is connected differently and is aroused by the same sex, still, for the purpose of reproduction (that is just not there at that point).
Even attraction has a myriad of characteristics (so it's complex as well) we are attracted to shit not only because of looks, but also smell, sound, movement, texture, and so on.
"It will influence pedophiles to do the real thing" goes back to "gaming will influence you to violence", and we all know that this is the easiest to beat because of statistics. Statistics don't show this to be the case for violence of any kind, there's simply no correlation or it's a negative one. I've added this at the end because if you're good enough to defeat the arguments above, you just follow to here with your opponent, meaning this point is moot from the start because there's no correlation between being a pedophile and a lolicon, the only addition is the obvious statistical truth of how gaming decreases violence at best and at worst is not correlated to it if you wish to go the "even if lolicons are pedophiles" route.
I can't think of more really, this is I'd say the end of the subject as a whole.
Semiotics and other garbage is covered here as well and going into that much detail is a waste of fucking time with monkeys that think lolicon is pedophilia.