The Instigator
zippo
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Friends with benefits is not ok

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,309 times Debate No: 7558
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

zippo

Pro

Friends with benefits is not ok
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for creating this open debate, and I hope we have a good one.

==========
Definitions
==========

[Word/Phrase - Friends with Benefits]
[Source - http://en.wikipedia.org...]

"The physical and emotional relationship between two people who may have a sexual relationship or a near-sexual relationship without necessarily demanding or expecting a more formal romantic relationship as a goal."

[Word/Phrase - Ok]

In context of this debate, "ok" or "okay" means "morally acceptable", or anything of that guideline.

If my opponent meant something else less common, then the onus was on him to first define the terms - not for me to choose the most probable definitions. Now onto the arguments:

==========
Sex is "okay"
==========

Basically, friends with benefits (known as a casual relationship) revolves around sex. Emotional attachment is avoided, and instead the main line of relation the partners of a casual relationship have is sex.

Sex is the act being scrutinized. With that said, sex that is A. involving adults and B. consenting, is fine. Under these two circumstances, no type of sex is immoral or reprehensible. Whether it be a calm missionary, or a rough bondage style - it doesn't matter. Whether it be two heterosexuals of the opposite gender in a marriage, or two transgenders going at it - it doesn't matter. Sex is in itself clean.

Therefore, two people who have casual sex with each other is just as fine. As I said before, it's just sex.

==========
Conclusion
==========

I await the rebuttals!
Debate Round No. 1
zippo

Pro

zippo forfeited this round.
TheSkeptic

Con

Kinda funny, huh, zippo ;)? You made a forum thread and a debate about forfeiting, and now look what's happened. Karma sucks!

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
zippo

Pro

zippo forfeited this round.
TheSkeptic

Con

Seeing as how my opponent's account is closed, I am obviously the winner.
Debate Round No. 3
zippo

Pro

zippo forfeited this round.
TheSkeptic

Con

Another forfeit - more reason you should vote for CON.
Debate Round No. 4
zippo

Pro

zippo forfeited this round.
TheSkeptic

Con

Unless you are a vote-bomber, the vote goes to ME!
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
All points 2 skeptic 4 obvious reasons.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Ah...
Posted by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
um...... skeptic, i dont think zippo will respond, i checked his account and it has been closed.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
thanks, good luck with your counter counter argument :D
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
No problem, I wouldn't expect for you to have a response by a day anyway - sometimes I take long too. And not much confusion was caused, I just don't want to misinterpret your position haha. Anyways, have fun typing a counterargument :)
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
About your confusion. Its morally wrong among other things, i should have been more specific but i really didnt know what to open up with lol.. I still have to research this as well, i will have more specifics later on in the debate. Again sorry if it caused confusion.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
thanks skeptic for taking on this debate. I don't want to rush this one, because i don't think it needs rushing. Also its somewhat personal to me as well. I will use probably as much as the time as i can before i post. So don't think I'm ignoring it, and I'm definitely not forfeiting lol
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
zippoTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
zippoTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
zippoTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by numa 8 years ago
numa
zippoTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
zippoTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
zippoTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
zippoTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
zippoTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07