The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
MoralityProfessor
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

It is more beneficial in a relationship to have sex before marriage instead of waiting until after

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 14 votes the winner is...
MoralityProfessor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,922 times Debate No: 40149
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (14)

 

Mikal

Pro

Resolution : It is more beneficial for a couple if they have sex before they get married, instead of waiting until after marriage to have it. In specific regards to future happiness in the relationship.

R1 : Acceptance

R2: Present you case. no Rebuttals

R3: Build on previous points and offer rebuttals

R4: Build on previous points, crystallize points, rebuttals, and closing statements. No new points shall be made in this round.
MoralityProfessor

Con

And here we are....

I will be arguing that abstinence until marriage is more beneficial to a relationship than engaging in premarital sex.

As per the above conditions, I will wait until next round to present my case.

Many thanks to my opponent for changing the conditions in order to fix the problem with time constraints.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

I would like to thank my adversary for taking me up on this topic, and wish him/her the best of luck. I am going to jump straight into this and offer one major contention and show why I believe it is more beneficial to have sex before marriage, instead of waiting until you are married. I would also like to rule out round 3 because for some reason, it went from being 4 rounds to 3 rounds when I changed my criteria. So we will abide by the rules for round 1, 2, and 4 since a round was deleted by mistake.

Sexual Compatibility

This is a key factor in a lot of relationships if not all of them. A vast majority of people will often say that looks are not an important factor in a relationship and I would argue against that in a majority of cases. How attracted you are to someone physically plays a monumental role in your relationship with them. Granted after you are with someone for a while and start to know everything about them, physical attraction can be replaced with emotional attraction but in a lot of cases physical attraction is still a huge factor in that relationship as well. You want to like who you are with both psychically and mentally.

Almost all relationships begin by some type of attraction and in most cases it is physical[1]. After the first initial stage of dating, feelings and emotional attachments can develop which can lead to marriage and greater stages of commitment. The point of this is that we have to acknowledge that almost all relationships begin with attraction.

So the next question we must examine is "what is the role of sex in a relationship". Sex is a way for two people to enjoy, pleasure, and satisfy themselves together. Sex is not strictly limited to love, but can be used as just a way to please yourself or the other person involved. Essentially if you are in a relationship and you are having great sex, you will tend to be happy. If you are in a relationship and the sex sucks, you will not be happy. An article by psychologytoday says this

" So, it is important to recognize that sex plays an important role in strengthening relationships in a way that goes above and beyond mere procreation " [2]

So we know now that sex is a huge factor in relationships and can even determine happiness in some cases. So the next logical step we must take is whether or not it is better to wait to marriage to have sex, or have sex before marriage.

The first argument I am going to address is one that Con might bring up and that is often presented. It is the idea that women lose interested in sex the more they have it. I could go into a long study on this and show where fallacies are committed with this line of logic, but I do not think it is necessary. I am going to simply leave it with this. If your spouse gets bored of sex because of the amount you have it, this will happen irregardless of whether you wait to have sex prior to or after marriage.

So what are the benefits of having sex before marriage?

The first major benefit is that it reveals expectations at an early stage in the relationship. When people wait to have sex after marriage, they are putting sex on a pedestal. When this happens, it can be a let down in a lot of cases. Almost everyone first time at having sex is not some glorious experience. It often is awkward fumbling and fiddling around with each other, trying to figure out what to do. In addition to that if you feel each other out before you are married, you will know if you are compatible with each other.

Issues that can come up if you wait to have sex until after marriage.

(1) Partners wanting to try different sexual experiences and ideas, and the other not being comfortable with it
(2) Oral sex
(3) Premature ejaculation
(4) Penis size. Where it could pleasure a girl or hurt her.
(5) Sexual identity
(6) Sexual attraction in the nude
(7) Fertility
(8) Sexual diseases

If you practice safe sex before you get married, it allows you to address these issues before you are married instead of waiting until you are after married. Addressing issues like this prior to marriage could help the couple find out if they actually want to be together, instead of the relationship possibility ending in a divorce because they decided to wait. Even if the couple did not divorce, it could still lead to pent up frustration because of bad sex or sexual incompatibility . This could lead to arguments and other issues in the relationship. Had this been addressed prior to marriage, it would help them understand and know everything about each other and even help them determine if they really wanted to be together. Some couples who get married think divorce is wrong, and will not get divorced either way and just stick it out for the bad or the good. This could lead to hate in the relationship and many other factors that could go as far as parenting and how their children perceive them.

Let us look at the effects of sexual comparability and good sex within a relationship.

"Promotes longevity When one has an orgasm, a hormone called dehydroepiandrosterone is released. This improves immunity, repairs tissue and keeps the skin healthy. Men, who have at least two orgasms a week, live longer than men who have sex just once every few weeks."[3]


"It Increases levels of Oestrogen and testosterone In men, the hormone testosterone is what makes them more passionate in the sack. Not only will it make you feel way better in bed, but it also improves your muscles and bones, keeps your heart healthy and keeps a check on your cholesterol. In women, on the other hand, the hormone oestrogen protects them against heart disease and also determines a woman's body scent."[4]



Now lets take a look at the effects of sexual incompatibility

"Therapists generally define "sexless" marriage as having sex less than about 10 times a year, and they estimate 1 in 5 couples are in such a relationship."[5]

"Sexual incomapbility troubles marriages. Sexually unfulfilling marriages aren't limited to new parents or aging baby boomers with hormone imbalances. They can ensnare even the relatively young and the recently married. When they are unable to blame kids, stress or physical issues, many couples struggle unhappily to identify -- and resolve -- the problems behind their lackluster sex life." [5]

Another odd fact

"Male Penis size and erectile dis-function play a role in around .7 percent of break ups that occur yearly"[6]


In Closing

It is more beneficial for a couple to have sex prior to marriage. It can help lessen issues that occur because of sexual incompatibility and help the couple understand everything about each other prior to getting married. It will show them if they are sexual compatible with each other, and have a high possibility of reducing problems that can occur due to sexual incompatibility after marriage.


[1] http://faculty.babson.edu...
[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[3] Standford.edu
[4] articles.timesofindia.com
[5] http://www.cnn.com...
[6] menshealth.com
MoralityProfessor

Con

Once again, thanks to Mikal for agreeing to change the time conditions for posting arguments. Much appreciated. Also, the cancellation of round 3 has been noted.

To get right into it:
In order to decide whether sex is more beneficial before or after a marriage, we must first take a look at what marriage constitutes. Legally speaking, marriage is a recognized union between spouses that establishes rights and obligation between them, them and their children, and them and their in-laws. [1] However, marriage is more than just a legal contract. It is a commitment to developing a long-lasting, positive relationship with another person. Obviously, a certain amount of objectivity is required in deciding who you want to spend your life with.

Studies have shown that pleasure increases our bias. [2] Imagine the difficulty of making a decision to get out of a warm bed on the morning of a cold day, as opposed to the previous night. When in the moments of pleasure and comfort, our minds become considerably less able to make rational decisions, particularly long term ones. That is not just limited to sexual intercourse, but to many other forms of physical intimacy as well. Touch is a very powerful mode of communication, for example. According to some recent studies, even non-sexual physical contact cause people to feel stronger connections to one another. [3] Waiters that touched their customers yielded bigger tips than those that didn't. According to the study, '"Lots of times... people don't even remember being touched. They just feel there's a connection, they feel that they like that person more," Guerrero says.' [3]

In many relationships, quality is determined by the amount of pleasure a person experiences. If we aren't happy being around that person, then we are naturally unhappy with the relationship. Physical contact and sexual intercourse are both ways that a person can feel pleasure in a relationship without it having any substance to it. In other words, people may mistakenly feel that their relationship is a good one - not because they are emotionally satisfied, but because they are physically satisfied. Before one gives of themselves physically, it should first be determined that they are compatible with their partner in regards to who they are (their goals, personality, opinions, etc.). There's a big difference between letting sex establish a false connection and letting it express a genuine one.

In other terms, a relationship based on pleasure is at the very least faulty, because pleasure is temporary. However, pleasure based in a relationship can stand when the relationship itself is withstanding.

Until a couple is married there is no real form of commitment. Even engagement is not much more than a commitment to be committed. As long as sex is in the cards before marriage it is not possible to tell if the relationship up until that point is genuine or not; the reason being that it is much easier to break up with someone than to get a divorce. If someone is willing to spend the time and effort that goes into marrying a person - without sex - then they have shown an integrity and seriousness in fulfilling that relationship.

In addition, the last two citations are both sources citing the benefits of abstinence until marriage, including but not limited to: lower divorce rates, reports of being happier and earning higher annual incomes than those that had engaged in premarital sex. [4] [5]

I'd like to add that waiting until marriage for sex gives a couple the opportunity to learn how to relate to each other and communicate with each other more so than those who use physical intimacy to feel close - which may be one reason that virgin-marriages have a lower level of divorce rate.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://io9.com...
[3] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[4] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

As per the rules, I will be posting counter arguments to my opponent's position in the next round. Thanks to PRO for what is a thought-provoking and respectful debate.

I'd also like to ask if PRO can expound on his 'list of issues that can come up if you wait to have sex until after marriage' because I wasn't sure of how all of them were applicable, especially 2,3,5, and 6.

Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

Refuting Cons claims

"However, marriage is more than just a legal contract. It is a commitment to developing a long-lasting, positive relationship with another person. Obviously, a certain amount of objectivity is required in deciding who you want to spend your life with"



Marriage - Is a union or contract between two people [1]

Literally that is all it is. The only other ties that can be claimed to this are religious, because the church feels it has the right to moderate it. Regardless of that, it is irrelveant to what we are discussing. Couple =/= marriage.

At the stage of dating you are exploring and looking to find someone whom you could possibly commit too. Factors that could play a role in determining a spouse.

(1) Income
(2) Personality
(3) Sexual attraction
(4) Sexual compatibility(R1)
(5) Family
(6) Religion

Also a fast majority of other issues. The point being, that the dating stage is an experimental stage to learn everything about that person that you can. So when you get ready to marry them, there are no hidden secretes. Think about if you were dating someone, and they wait till marriage to tell you that they had HIV. This issue was never addressed because no intercourse had ever taken place and they were scared of losing the other person. That is using marriage as a way to lock someone into commitment and ultimate causing unhappiness to both. Without being able to explore sexually prior to marriage, there is a good possibility that when a couple gets married and has sex it will not be what they think it is or they possibly may not be satisfied with their partner. If they are married and this occurs they have 1 of 3 options. Deal with it and stay married, file a divorce, or try and find a way and fix it. All of this leads to issues within the relationship. Having sex prior to marriage addresses this issue and helps the couple decide whether or not they are truly compatible for each other.

Refutation 2

"Before one gives of themselves physically, it should first be determined that they are compatible with their partner in regards to who they are (their goals, personality, opinions, etc.). There's a big difference between letting sex establish a false connection and letting it express a genuine one."

This was somewhat addressed in the prior contention so I will keep it short. Sex can literally be just sex. People over glorify what sex is. Most people first experience with sex is not some magical moment with lights shining down from heaven upon you, as you are doing it. It is two klutzy people trying to fiddle around each other to find what goes where or how to do what.

While determining your goals before marriage such as career options, money, personality and many other issues, you are accomplishing the purpose of dating. As I said In my prior contention, dating is a way for people to see if they are ready to or possibly want to commit to the person in question. If you are going to do that with personality, income, and any other variable you can think to place here. The next most logical process is to also try out sexual experiences. As I have shown in R1 sex is a huge factor in a relationship whether we like to admit it or not[2]. Not knowing anything about your partner sexually and then getting married to them, can cause people a severe lack of happiness within marriage or even just in a relationship.

"In addition, the last two citations are both sources citing the benefits of abstinence until marriage, including but not limited to: lower divorce rates, reports of being happier and earning higher annual incomes than those that had engaged in premarital sex"

This claim is quite easy to debunk. I knew it would be brought up and I will spend a short paragraph explaining why you see statistics like this. Why are divorce rates lower among people whom wait to have sex? Alright so the first question we mus ask is who waits to have sex until marriage. I mean it is almost commonly accepted among liberals and non Christians as having nothing wrong with it. Generally people who wait to have sex until marriage are either Christians or Extreme Conservatives. Now what are there two policies regarding marriage. Both of these types of people regard marriage as more than just a union, but label it "Holy Matrimony" or sacred territory [3]. So if a christian or conservative couple waited to have sex until after marriage, and happened to be completely unsatisfied with their partner sexually, do you think they would have a divorce? No they most defiantly would not. They would either try to stick it out and endure the lack of satisfaction or work on a way of fixing it which may not be possible. This can even be the case with trying to have kids or a sexually transmitted disease. Divorcee is considered sacrilege against God[4], so it is not an option and often locks Christians into unhappy relationships after marriage. This further goes to prove my resolution. That waiting to address these issues after marriage, is not beneficial to relationship because of the amount of strife and issues it can cause. All of this is especially applicable to Christians because to them marriage is a contract that should never be broken, while more modern people just see it as a contract that you can opt out on. So either way we look at it, the resolution would stand. More liberal people whom wait to have sex until marriage, are probably going to use divorce as an opt out if they are not sexually happy and should never have been married in the first place because they failed to explore each other sexually. Christian people who wait are possibly suffering from immense amounts of unhappiness in bed or sexually, because they feel obligated to stay with the person and not get a divorce.


While I am on the topic, I will expound upon points in the prior round since Con asked me too. Since it is in the same topic I shall leave it under this rebuttal.

[2] oral sex - sadly a lot of girls will never try this and feel its horrible. While most guys always want it. To be honest it can ve a vise versa thing as well. Where a girl may want it and her partner may not want it. It all depends on the persons expectations of sex. If a guy expects this and does not get it, it can cause issues. Believe it or not I have seen multiple friends break up primarily because of this reason. Waiting to after marriage brings the issue up later rather than sooner

[3] Premature ejaculation - If a guy is not use to sex or just not good at it, or even possibly have medical issues with it. Sex could just last for no longer than 3 minutes. A bunch of issues could play into this such as his penis size or even just inexperience. Granted some people just can not have sex for long periods of time, which may leave one member of the couple very unhappy.

[5] Sexual Identity - I don't know how else to word this, but just basically how kinky and crazy you are in bed. One person may want to try and film stuff or dress up, and the other could be really conservative about sex.

[6] Nude attraction - if you wait to have sex chances are you probably want see your partner naked. When they take off their clothes you may not like their body or parts of them. Again breast size, penis size, etc. It just plays a role into how much you want to have sex with the person or if you are pleased with them physically.

The point being is that waiting to address all these issues can lead to strife in a relationship or in marriage. I have explained how and why prior to this and in the last 2 rebuttals.



Rebuilding Contention on Sexual Compatibly.


For fear of repeating myself, I am going to keep this short. The most logical thought process someone can arrive at while trying to date is to find everything out about the person whom they are dating to see if they are meant for each other. This can include all the reasons I listed above such as money, personality, attraction, and sexual compatibility. If you address all these issues prior to marriage, there is nothing left hidden when you do get married. So you have a really good idea of whom you are marrying. If you wait to address certain issues after marriage, it can lead to divorce or unhappiness within the marriage.

The resolution is simple. Addressing all of these issues, especially sexual compatibility and having sex before marriage can reduce problems within the marriage. It helps he couple find out if they really want to be together, and if they are compatible and think they actually want to stick it out for the long run. It is a way to understand everything about your partner before you enter into a contract with them.


[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.archden.org...
MoralityProfessor

Con

Refutations:

The first few paragraphs in Pro's argument are summed up in the following points:

1. Physical attraction is an important factor in a relationship.
2. Sex in a relationship often results in happiness.
3. If people wait until marriage to have sex, it can be a let down.

I agree with all of those points, but not one of them suggests a benefit to having sex specifically prior to marriage. Number one is true, but has nothing to do with sex. Number two is also true, but only under specific criteria. For example, sex in the case of rape would not make the victim happy. I will reiterate later in this argument why premarital sex is not beneficial to a long term relationship (marriage). In point number three, though first-time sex can be a let down, Pro fails to point out that it is not contingent on the couple being married.

"When people wait to have sex after marriage, they are putting sex on a pedestal."
The alternative to 'putting sex on a pedestal' would be to feel casual about sex, which, in turn, would mean more sexual partners. Studies have repeatedly shown that as the number of sexual partners a person has had increases, so does their risk for divorce. [1] Which, in regards to marriage at least, proves that there should be some boundaries in relation to sex. A major problem with Pro's 'sexual compatibility' argument is the solution it must employ. Assuming that a relationship can be good and the sex can be so bad it is grounds for a break up, the solution would be to move on. And, if the studies are correct and more sexual partners increases risk for divorce, then the solution is a rich irony. Have sex to save yourself from possible divorce, thus lowering your chances of a long-term relationship by having sex with someone who may or may not be your future spouse.

Pro's other argument is that issues in regards to sexual incompatibility can come up if a couple doesn't engage in intercourse before marriage. The faulty reasoning behind this argument is in the separation of person and body - in other words, relating to the body independently of the person. One study - that I cited last round - talks about the power of touch. In the study, an experiment was conducted where heterosexual men were touched on the leg by an unseen person. The men were shown a video of either a man or woman touching them. Subjects who had 'seen' they were touched by a woman rated the experience as more pleasant. The primary somatosensory cortex (a part of the brain) of the subjects, responded more sharply to a woman's touch then to a man's. It turns out though that the unseen person was always a woman.

To quote directly, "The results were startling, because the primary somatosensory cortex had been thought to encode only basic qualities of touch, such as smoothness or pressure. That its activity varied depending on whom subjects believed was touching them suggests that the emotional and social components of touch are all but inseparable from physical sensations. "When you're being touched by another person, your brain isn't set up to give you the objective qualities of that touch," says study coauthor Michael Spezio, a psychologist at Scripps College. "The entire experience is affected by your social evaluation of the person touching you." " [2]

Which implies that emotional connection accounts for most of the pleasure received in a physical relationship.
This is a response to a number of the points you address with sexual incompatibility.

To address your specific points in regards to 'issues that can come up if you wait to have sex until after marriage':

1,2,5,7, and 8 can all be discussed - sex is NOT required to sort them out. On the contrary, discussing them seems to be more practical anyway. Does it make sense to try have oral sex with someone in order to see if they're comfortable with it? And someone shouldn't need to have sex with their partner to determine if they have HIV. (That seems sort of counterproductive.) These are all important things that should be discussed before any sex takes place.
3 and 4 aren't inherently causes for sexual dissatisfaction. Both can be addressed by doctors. [3]
And point 6 is explained in the study above. (Emotional connection influences the physical.)

It is very interesting to note that in regards to the sources Pro brings in round 2 (sources 3,4, and 5), not one of the articles specifies that it is talking about premarital sex. I agree that good sex is important. But the articles don't specify that good sex can only be achieved through premarital relations, nor do they state that good sex before marriage leads to happier, better marriages.

"Literally that is all it is. The only other ties that can be claimed to this are religious, because the church feels it has the right to moderate it. Regardless of that, it is irrelveant to what we are discussing. Couple =/= marriage."

Actually, it is essential to what we are discussing. As Pro states in his opening round: 'Resolution : It is more beneficial for a couple if they have sex before they get married, instead of waiting until after marriage to have it. In specific regards to future happiness in the relationship.'
We're talking about sex in relation to marriage (before or after) and future happiness in the relationship. Nowhere have we discussed sex when a person is not interested in committing himself/herself to marriage. (That's another discussion entirely.) Therefore, the subject at hand is limited to cases where couple = marriage, and the question is simply in regards to when is it appropriate to have sex within that circumstance.

"...the dating stage is an experimental stage to learn everything about that person that you can. So when you get ready to marry them, there are no hidden secretes."
A general rule in going out with someone, contrary to what Pro stated, is to find out if you're compatible in issues that are important to you. You don't need to know everything about your future spouse - it's actually impossible. Human beings change, and have depths to them that cannot be expressed. Though it is impossible to know everything about them, it is sufficient to know the important things. For example, whether or not they like hot peppers is not integral to a relationship. But if they want to have fifteen children, that might (as in, it must) be mentioned. A general rule to information that is integral to a relationship is information that you would get divorced over. If that includes someone's sexual identity, then it must be discussed.

"As I said In my prior contention, dating is a way for people to see if they are ready to or possibly want to commit to the person in question. If you are going to do that with personality, income, and any other variable you can think to place here. The next most logical process is to also try out sexual experiences."
Unfortunately, the next logical step is not to try out sexual experiences. Among Pro's list of important qualities to look for, he writes religion. If your date is a Mormon, does that mean you have to try out being a Mormon? No. It's enough to talk about it. Income is also not something that needs to be 'experienced'.

As for the articles I referenced, your point could be a decent refutation assuming:
1) Every lasting Christian and conservative marriage is because the partners don't consider it holy to get divorced.
2) We were talking solely about divorce rates.
But we're not. The one article specifically states, "Couples who do not have sex before marriage have happier more stable relationships and a more rewarding sex life, according to a new study." Which seems to be the point of this debate.

Until a person marries, there is no commitment officially. If there are standards involved in a relationship and both parties are required to meet them, the relationship is already stronger than a free-for-all because both parties have accepted responsibility upon themselves. Prior to marriage there is no such commitment. When a person decides that sex is integral to making a decision about marriage, they lose sight of the other - possibly more important - points to consider. Why? Because, as Pro pointed out several times, sex is a huge factor in a relationship, partially because of the physical pleasure that comes from it. So if someone has the opportunity to have sex or engage in a discussion, they are more likely to choose the former. As I proved in round 2, people should wait to know each other properly before engaging in sex. If they are having relations before they know each other, everything else flies out the window. By the time the couple realizes they are not compatible - on other, more fundamental levels - they are already involved in an intense emotional relationship because of the sex.


[1] http://www.jstor.org...
[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


As a closing note, I would like to thank Mikal for a thoughtful, respectful debate.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by revic 2 years ago
revic
Mikal actually got wrecked here, damn.
Posted by Kleptin 3 years ago
Kleptin
Interesting note:

I posit that the lack of sex in a relationship actually has an artificial, negative impact on the relationship. I would argue that the pleasure of being in a relationship is actually a natural part of the relationship and the artificial exclusion of a component of that relationship as crucial as sex actually biases the thinking of the involved individuals.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
The crux & clincher of this debate were the studies that con mentioned, which I thought pro very effectively explained away in the next round by explaining that the lower divorce rates were very plausibly ideology related. However, what I & apparently pro as well failed to realize is - as con pointed out in the next round - The study did not mention lower divorce rates as the sole benefit. In fact, the headline of the telegraph article didn't even mention lower divorce rates, but rather "Couples who don't have sex before marriage are happier, study claims". I looked back at the previous round and see that Con did in fact make this clear writing "the benefits of abstinence until marriage, including but not limited to: lower divorce rates, reports of being happier and earning higher annual incomes than those that had engaged in premarital sex. ". Thus, Con had better arguments.
Con also technically had better S&G, but Pros S&G errors weren't really all that significant (& I don't want it to look like a V.B.) (The lack of links also could be grounds for S&G since they make it harder to read the debate, but I'm not sure about this.).
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
(Part 2) You needed to be providing some kind of evidence or reasoning as to why definitively sex wasn't what was causing the lack of divorces in the post-marital cases of sex, and I just didn't see that coming out of the pro rebuttal. But also b) even if I buy your response as saying definitely it's not the sex that's causing the lack of divorces, I don't really get a whole lot coming from the pro side of things explaining why pre-marital sex causes less break-ups or divorces, so even if he's probably wrong, I still have to give him credit because he's at least possibly right whereas you're not doing anything to show me why you're right. So I at least have to give him a little bit of credit for at least trying to solve the problem whereas you're not really showing me how you're solving the problem at all.

I feel like at that point I'm looking to see if there's any other kind of impact I can weigh against the lessening divorce rates and I'm not finding a whole lot because Con does a good job effectively non-uniqueing a lot of the pro offence, leaving the only place I can pull the trigger on the negative side of the flow.

Good debate from both sides. Any questions about my RFD can be PM'd to me (I do not mind answering questions in the slightest).
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
(Part 1) I actually thought this was a close debate. The problem was the only reason it was close is because there was a lot of discussion that I really didn't see having any sort of relevance to a voting decision and a rather lackluster amount of discussion on stuff I could actually pull the trigger on.

The way I saw the debate break down was this: both sides are arguing that their side promotes good healthy relationships. That's the end goal of both sides. So since I buy that, I'm also forced into buying divorce/break-up as the ultimate consequence and harm simply because if you're trying to strengthen a relationship by doing x action, and because you did x action the relationship ends, we would be hard pressed to say that x action really did a whole lot of good. And since every other kind of weighing mechanism for determining the strength of a relationship is muddled to the point of obscurity, I end up evaluating the round through the lens of who's staying together and who's not.

Right out of the gate I see evidence coming from the Con side saying how waiting has a lower rate of divorce and better overall happiness. "Great!" I think to myself, "now I can actually start going somewhere with this!" I look to pro for a response to this and I'm a little disappointed with it, and here's why: first of all the article isn't specifically a faith-based study but rather a more general study, and while I wouldn't doubt that a portion of that is a result of faith or political beliefs, it's a dangerous assumption to make. But second of all, even if I do buy pro's response, it leaves me in a really awkward place as a judge where I still have to give Con's argument at least a little bit of weight and here's why: a) even if I buy your response, that doesn't necessarily mean that the statistic is wrong. It shows that there could be another explanation, but saying that the cause could be x or y isn't the same thing as saying x isn't the cause, but rather y is the cause.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I hope you read the prior statement lol , I changed the time constraint.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I hope you read the prior statement lol , I changed the time constraint.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
Sorry, just got your second reply. That sounds fine with me.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
Ah, well. Maybe another time.

Anyway, thanks for the quick response. Have a great day!
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Actually Ill just try to find time, seeing as how I really want to debate this because of boredom. I am going to send it to you since you are the one who asked first. Try to reply swiftly if you can. The faster this goes the better for my time constraint as well.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
MikalMoralityProfessorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I really feel like giving Con the full 7 points, & here's why: I noticed in round 2, half of pros sources (including the one from Stanford.edu which I consider a most reliable source) were not linked, & not because they came from offline books or articles, they came from websites which pro did mention, however, he just posted the site name without a link to the page. Suspicious, I goggled the quote, and found that 2 of the 3 were simply not true. Stanford.edu did not say what pro quoted it as saying & #6 (which I found to be rather insignificant anyway) as well was not found. Continuation in comments
Vote Placed by LtCmdrData 3 years ago
LtCmdrData
MikalMoralityProfessorTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Yo! Typos by Pro, hard to access sources, and hard numbers all worked in Con's favor. I still agree with Pro, but Con gave good sources that backed up her args and convinced me that she won. Nice job...!!! I just saw some other RFDS, and I'm on the same page as fruitytree...
Vote Placed by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
MikalMoralityProfessorTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G were mostly equal, only a few typos here and there. Sources were both well cited, and never called upon for illegitimacy. Arg goes to Pro as Pro sufficiently proved statistical bias in cons source regarding virgin marriages. Pro also made excellent points regarding sexual compatibility and the necessity for experimentation. Con's rebuttal to this point was well made but not strong enough to disprove it sufficiently. Con seemed to want to compare sexual experimentation to other forms of experimentation, but the pro takes my favor here as Pro argued that you must be sexually compatible, not identical. It can be assumed that this means that one must only be religiously/ideally/morally etc. compatible in a relationship and not identical and therefore the cons point here is irrelevant in my eyes. Well done debate by both sides. Con would have had to have gone a long way to convince me of their side, but did a good job. Ultimately the pro was more convincing.
Vote Placed by GiantSpoonMan 3 years ago
GiantSpoonMan
MikalMoralityProfessorTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar, sources and conduct were all pretty close in my opinion. The arguments from pro were stronger.
Vote Placed by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
MikalMoralityProfessorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: There is nothing better than numbers to tell who's happier, the married couples that abstained before marriage were happier, and knowing a partners limits or preferences can be talked about , it doesn't necessitate premarital sex, and it can change too! basically Con was way more convincing. Source points for Con because some of Pro sources were not precise , or were not accessible. Pro committed more typos, hens the spelling point.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 3 years ago
AndrewB686
MikalMoralityProfessorTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an expertly crafted and well documented debate. Conduct and spelling were equal. I thought con's arguments were not as strong as pro's; sex, according to pro, must be experimented in order to truly ascertain a complete understanding of your partner. Con's premise is that this may distort the relationship by convincing one partner that everything is alright when, in actuality, there are other issues. The manipulating power of sex, as Pro states, is overrated and any chance of Con's argument being effectual is slim. Because of this, I award Pro the points for arguments. Both parties used multiple sources, so it is a tie in that regard. A well fought debate by both sides.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 3 years ago
Nyx999
MikalMoralityProfessorTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Fantastic, interesting debate, but Pro had the better arguments by far. I especially liked Pro's refutations of Con's claim that sex postponed until after marriage leads to lower divorce rates, etc., because Pro recognized that there are a variety of factors that go into divorce rates etc. including but not limited to religion.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
MikalMoralityProfessorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Wonderful debate. I thought this round was not so much won by Con, but lost by Pro. Pro rebuts Con by arguing that "sex can be just sex," yet this only addresses part of Con's advocacy. Con, in the opening remarks, claims that pleasure can cloud the mind as to the suitability of the partner. Not only was this a creative argument, but saying that "sex is just sex" does not fully rebut that argument because sex is still a form of pleasure and can still cloud the mind. Thus, I have to buy into that argument of Con's, and I am left voting Con. I also give sources to Con because I could not access several of Pro's sources. Great Round!!!
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
MikalMoralityProfessorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A nice, respectful debate at last! Whoop! I wasn't too certain about the motion before, but Mikal convinced me that *in general*, the motion is rational. Conduct was good; as were both spelling and grammar. Arguments: This was a difficult choice and I feel that the motion was really difficult to prove either way. Therefore, I read this debate with the added phrase "in general". With that in mind, I think Pro argued better than Con, although both presented good cases. The problem with Con's arguments is that they only applied to specific people (when you consider what the results show), whereas Pro's arguments were all-round: in general. Arguments to Pro. Sources were excellent to both sides, so I'll keep that tied. Good debate!
Vote Placed by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
MikalMoralityProfessorTied
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: RFD in comments