The Instigator
MrScriptX
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Buckethead31594
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Is sex before marriage a good thing?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Buckethead31594
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,407 times Debate No: 44030
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

MrScriptX

Con

Hello,

No, it is not a good thing. For me, it expose young people to the danger of grown up world where is hiding a lot of bad people. It helping them too, to be more loyal and to learn that sex is not every thing in life, to see beyond that to prepare them to a good life.

Thank for accepting this debate.
Buckethead31594

Pro

Considering that my opponent has not yet stated otherwise, I will assume that this round is merely for acceptance purposes. I accept, and await my opponent's arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
MrScriptX

Con

Hello,

(I don't really get your argument for Round #1) Since none of my argument has reply I can just wait until he decide to reply.
I mean I gave three argument in first round, isn't that enough. Or maybe some more explication are needed?
Buckethead31594

Pro

I apologize for the confusion. I was unsure whether or not my opponent's post in round one was just an introduction. Now that I have his confirmation, I will post my rebuttal to his arguments.


Rebuttal


"No, it is not a good thing. For me, it expose young people to the danger of grown up world where is hiding a lot of bad people"

I would ask my opponent to provide a basis for which to support this opinion- so far, he has not provided any evidence to promote his point.


"It helping them too, to be more loyal and to learn that sex is not every thing in life, to see beyond that to prepare them to a good life."

Again, I ask that my opponent provides evidence to support his claim.


Counter-Arguments

There are a variety of reasons why sex before marriage can only be a good thing. Firstly, it stabilizes the immune system:

“Sexually active people take fewer sick days,” says Yvonne K. Fulbright, PhD a sexual health expert.

People who have sex have higher levels of what defends your body against germs, viruses, and other intruders. Researchers at Wilkes University in Pennsylvania found that college students who had sex once or twice a week had higher levels of the a certain antibody compared to students who had sex less often.

It also boosts libido, improves women's bladder control, lowers blood pressure, and reduces the chance of heart attack[1].


It is also a natural sleeping pill:

"Sex prompts your brain to release oxytocin, which can improve your sleep," says Helen Fisher, Ph.D., biological anthropologist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jerse


More sleep could mean gaining less weight: Sleep regulates the hunger-related hormones known as ghrelin
and leptin, which helps curb unwanted cravings[2].


Sex also
significantly reduces stress[3]; something that most younger, unmarried people suffer from[4].



I contend that these qualities can only be beneficial for everyone- including those who are not yet married.

Debate Round No. 2
MrScriptX

Con

Good argument there,

But when I say no sex before marriage that didn't mean, we can't marry sooner. Most of people who didn't have sex before marriage stay they partner longer than people who had sex(survey from college of psychology and behavior of Ontario) . They marry sooner too and establish a more trust in the couple(survey taken by "60 minutes inside"). So for antibody and stuff like that it just a matter of 2-3 years, same for heart attack and other stuff like this.

Having sex before marriage mean, having sex with different people, which bring unwanted baby and sickness, virus( SIDA ). All "security" against those things are not 100% sure. Beside most of young people are having sex unprotected, which lead to sometimes abortion(but that's another matter).

Your turn...
Buckethead31594

Pro

I have searched throughout the Internet for records of these sources that my opponent has provided, but to no avail. As of now, I'm not even sure if the "College of Psychology and Behavior of Ontario" actually exists. Perhaps he is referring to the "College of Psychologists of Ontario." Regardless, I still can't find evidence for the existence of a survey geared towards the resolution at hand. Furthermore, I have previously heard of "60 Minutes Inside," but not specifically the scenario mentioned by my opponent- even after researching. I would ask my opponent to provide evidence to which I can personally attest to the validity of his sources- preferably, evidence that can be found online. Nonetheless, I will attempt to address his arguments for what they are worth. On a separate note, my opponent has yet to rebuke any of my previous arguments from Round Two; I will extend my counterarguments into the next round.


Rebuttal: Round Two

"But when I say no sex before marriage that didn't mean, we can't marry sooner"

When it comes to marriage, nothing destroys a marriage quicker than marriage at a young age:




As you can see from the NCHS chart above[1], there is reason for concern here. Young marriages, especially very young marriages in that data set certainly do show a higher risk of divorce[2]. This is not an optimal statistic for my opponent if he wishes to argue for younger marriage.



"Most of people who didn't have sex before marriage stay they partner longer than people who had sex"

According to statistics, 95% of Americans don't wait to have sex until their wedding night[3],[5]. By this standard, my opponent claims that only 5% of Americans actually wait until they are married. So out of 2,118,000[4] marriages within the United States, annually, only 105,900 married couples remain abstinent every year. As of now, I have no evidence to conclude which category the majority of divorce rates comprise of; my opponent has not yet provided me with traceable evidence.

Furthermore, even if abstinence could lead to longer relationships- there is no evidence for which to conclude that long term relationships are a good thing, in accordance with the resolution. As a matter of fact, a total of 25,000 residents of East and West Germany participated in a landmark study and were surveyed every year for fifteen years. 1,761 individuals of those surveyed got married and stayed married, but evidence indicated that marriage only had a temporary effect on happiness; people generally adapt to their circumstances[6]. There is evidence to support that humans may actually be happier in short-term relationships[7]; In this debate, happiness could certainly be considered a good thing.



"They marry sooner too and establish a more trust in the couple"

As I have previously mentioned, earlier marriages equate to a higher chance of divorce, and therefore: unhappiness within the relationship.



"Having sex before marriage mean, having sex with different people..."

Not necessarily. What about those couples who have premarital sex, and then continue to get married? Not to mention that married couples are just as likely to receive STD's as unmarried couples[10].



"Beside most of young people are having sex unprotected, which lead to sometimes abortion"


This is not true. In 2006–2010, 86% of female teens and 93% of male teens reported using contraceptives at last sex. These proportions represent a marked improvement since 1995, when only 71% of female teens and 82% of male teens had reported using a method at last sex. However, the proportions were generally unchanged between 2002 and 2006–2010[8],[9]. We could assume that it hasn't changed much since then, according to the trends.




This concludes my rebuttal for Round 3


On to Con.








[1] http://www.cdc.gov...

[2] http://dalrock.wordpress.com...

[3] http://www.alternet.org...

[4] http://www.cdc.gov...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] http://psychcentral.com...

[7] http://www.academia.edu...

[8] Martinez G et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity, contraceptive use, and childbearing, 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth, Vital and Health Statistics, 2011, Series 23, No. 31.

[9] http://www.guttmacher.org...

[10] http://www.makingloveinthemicrowave.com...
Debate Round No. 3
MrScriptX

Con

MrScriptX forfeited this round.
Buckethead31594

Pro

Extend arguments and refutations: my opponent has conceded the debate. It is conclusive that sex before marriage is, indeed, a good thing.

I thank my opponent for his attention.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
Now that the debate is over, I don't believe that premarital sex is a good thing. Throughout my research endeavors, I have discovered more evidence to conclude that premarital sex is the leading cause of divorce within the United States. It is also among the leading causes of unintended pregnancy. To those who have not yet voted: vote on my debate and not on this comment.

I was simply arguing as the devil's advocate the whole time.
Posted by Che-Guerilla 3 years ago
Che-Guerilla
I Think sex is a natural need of men, and marriage was created to force men to don't be with a different women evereyday, the relation between feelings and sex it's a social issue.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
MrScriptXBuckethead31594Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I personally think that PMS is a bit risky (STDs, unplanned pregnancies, etc.), but Pro did a much better job in this debate. He gave convincing, well-formatted arguments backed up by reliable sources, and Con forfeited.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
MrScriptXBuckethead31594Tied
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: Pretty lopsided here. Con really should proofread, the grammar here was bad. The forfeit gives Pro conduct. As Pro was the only one to actually cite verifiable sources, Pro also wins there. As for argumentation, Pro's was better sourced, more logical, better warranted, more reasonable on the whole, and engaged in better rebuttal.
Vote Placed by Schopenhauer 3 years ago
Schopenhauer
MrScriptXBuckethead31594Tied
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: Pro cited more reliable sources, had more evidence and arguements, better s&g and had superior cnduct