The Instigator
crackrocks
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Intercourse with a non-contaminated persons while infected with A.I.D.S. should be criminalized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,029 times Debate No: 17465
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

crackrocks

Pro

Assault with a deadly weapon.... But seriously I'm interested in your opinions.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for a chance to debate.

I would like to start by defiing AIDS.

AIDs - A dealy desease with cure that is passed threw chemical exchanges with infected people or things.

My opponent says that it is basically 'assault with a deadly weapon', but this is simply untrue. In the act of rape it could be seen as this, but in most cases the sexual act is voluntary.

I will be assuming that my opponent is talking about in the U.S.A.

My contentions will explain why intercourse between infected people and uninfected people should not be criminalized.

C1: When each person in the U.S. is born they are given multiple rights. Among these rights are the rights to private property, which includes their on bodies as private property. If this a fact, then anyone should be able to have sexual relations with anyone just as long as it is voluntary and with a member of the opposite gender. So, if a uninfected person wants to have sex with a infected person and take that chance, then the government should not intervene in the personal lives of the common people.

C2: If people do want to take that chance, there is also condoms to keep AIDs from spreading to the uninfected person. If people practice safe sex then further contamination of a 'clean' person is decreaded dramatically.


In concluson, sexual intercourse between infected and uniffected people should not be criminalized since everyone under the U.S. Constitution has the right to self-ownership, and things such as condoms decrease the risk of further spreading of the deadly desease.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 1
crackrocks

Pro

The idea that we should remain autonomous in all decisions no matter what the costs I think is obviously wrong. The fact is, suicide is illegal in this country and what you effectively do while have intercourse with someone that is infected is just that. The freedom to make your own decisions regarding your own life or possibly the lives of your infected children should be left up to the majority of the populace the same way abortion or animal-human relations should be.
The use of condoms isn't a guarantee that you will not be infected or not. The fact is we should quarantine the infected persons the same way we would any other pandemic outbreak for the safety of everyone.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for her response.

~~~Rebuttal~~~

My opponent says that people shouldn't make their own descisions without the majority of the people's concent. This is clearly unconstitutional. In cases such as Abortion and Drug legaliztion this is necessary, because the actions of the people involuntarily affect other people.

It is not suicide if there is no gauruntee that the person would become inffected, especial if a condom is used.

Infected children that are the result of the deed are not the children of the rest of the populace, therefore they have no say in thos case.

I stated in my second contention that it decreased the chance of infection.

We can not quarantine these people, because it would mean denying them their basic rights. Also, unlike the pandemics of the past AIDs is not spread through the air. It is spread through intercourse, which is a voluntary act. If the uninfected people get inffected it is by their own choice.


In conclusion, my opponent never successfully refuted my arguments, she only stated different arguments. The people of America have the right to self-ownership, and therefore have the right to have voluntary intercourse with anyone they want (except minors). Condoms don't guarrantee that it would be safe, but it increases the safety level.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
crackrocksDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was more convincing and organized.
Vote Placed by VocMusTcrMaloy 6 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
crackrocksDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Con because his arguments were more organinzed Both had equally convincing arguments. Pro could have won had she put any effort into the debate. The opening argument "assault with a deadly weapon" was very well stated, but was not given any back-up arguments
Vote Placed by Meatros 6 years ago
Meatros
crackrocksDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't attempt to rebut Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
crackrocksDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly had the stronger argument. Also this resolution seems extremely hard to affirm. How would such a law even be enforced?
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
crackrocksDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Con clearly made a stronger argument. All Pro did was give his brief opinion of Cons argument.
Vote Placed by t-man 6 years ago
t-man
crackrocksDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a more organized argument.
Vote Placed by tudaloo 6 years ago
tudaloo
crackrocksDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 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: con got my vote