The Instigator
philochristos
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Milliarde
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

It is possible to get your virginity back after you have lost it

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 6 votes the winner is...
Milliarde
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 31,468 times Debate No: 26960
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

philochristos

Pro

I am going to defend the claim that a person who has lost their virginity can get it back.

Definitions:

Sex: When the penis of a living human male enters the vagina of a living human female.

Virginity: The state of having never had sex.

Loss of virginity: The state of having had sex. The initial loss of virginity occurs at the moment sex begins.

Possible: It could actually happen in the real world we live in. I'm talking about physical possibility, not broadly logical possibility. I'm not going to be using possible world semantics or time travel scenarios to defend my position.

Yes, I realize 'sex' has a broader definition in common usage, but I want to stick to this definition for the purpose of this debate, not because it has any semantical value in the argument I intend to make, but just because it makes things more simple.

Rules:

1. The burden of proof is on me, but you are welcome to share the burden of proof if you think it will help you.

2. You must engage my arguments. Don't be one of those people who just makes a short comment and doesn't engage, or who goes off on a tangent. No red herrings. I want this to be a debate.

3. You must not forfeit. Please don't accept this debate unless you think there's a good chance you'll be willing and able to finish it. Of course life is uncertain, and I won't hold it against you if you absolutely must forfeit due to unforseen occurences. I'm a reasonable person. But please try to finish.

4. Don't play games. What I mean is that sometimes a person's meaning is fairly obvious even if they didn't put it exactly right, and it's open to humorous misinterpretations. Don't pretend to misunderstand me if you honestly understand what I'm saying. Of course real misunderstandings happen, and if you misunderstand me, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're being honest and not just playing games. I ask the same of you if I misunderstand something you say.


Round 1: Acceptance, greetings, felicitations, and well-wishes.
Round 2: My argument/your first rebuttal
Round 3. My attempt to salvage my argument/your explaination of why I failed

Diclaimer: I do not actually believe what I'm defending here. This is just for fun.

Good luck, and may the odds be ever in your favour!
Milliarde

Con

Thank you to Pro for this debate. May it be ever fruitful!

I cordially accept this debate and look forward to hearing your initial argument!
Debate Round No. 1
philochristos

Pro

Thank you for coming to tonight’s debate. May you find enlightenment by reading this debate and pondering the arguments herein, and may you find hope and encouragement if you mourn the loss of your virginity and desperately wish to get it back. For, I am here to tell you that getting your virginity back is a real possibility, and I do not mean merely to offer you some platitude in which you can recommit yourself to a life of celibacy and call it ‘virginity,’ but that you can literally be a virgin once again.

Let me begin with a thought experiment. Suppose that your neighbor has a wooden chair made entirely out of sticks. Each night, you sneak to his porch and carefully replace one of the sticks on his chair with a different stick just to see if he’ll notice. Night after night, you replace one stick at a time until eventually you have replaced every stick that his chair was originally made of. Having done so, there are now no original sticks in his chair. They have all been replaced by new sticks.

Now, ask yourself this question: Is the chair on your neighbor’s porch really your neighbor’s original chair? Or is it a completely different chair altogether?

Most people I have put this to have told me it’s a completely different chair. That is the correct answer. If that’s the answer that you came up with, then give yourself a pat on the back for being such a brilliant person with keen insights into the subtleties of metaphysics and ontology.

But if you are unconvinced, let’s press the analogy a little further. Let’s say that having hid all the original sticks in your shed, you decide to bring them into your garage and assemble them into a chair exactly like the original chair (after all, your neighbor will want his chair back, and you’re not really a bad person). Now, the chair in your garage shares every property in common with the original chair that was on your neighbor’s porch, and it is made of all the same material that your neighbor’s original chair was made out of.

Now, I ask you: Which is the original chair that belonged to your neighbor and sat upon his porch—the one in your garage with all the original sticks, or the one presently on your neighbor’s porch with completely different sticks?

Hopefully by now you can see that if either of these chairs stands a chance of being your neighbor’s original chair, it’s the one in your garage (and it’s questionable whether even that one is the original chair, but that’s beyond the scope of this debate). The chair on your neighbor’s porch is a completely different chair. It may have the same basic shape and form, but it’s not the same chair because it’s not the same substance.

In fact, it really doesn’t matter whether the parts were replaced one at a time or all at once. Imagine if they were replaced all at once by a supernatural being who instantly caused the entire chair to cease to exist, and in the exact same moment caused an identical chair to pop into existence and take its place such that if you saw this event, you would not even notice that it had happened. Well, surely it’s a different chair. But the chair in this analogy is not different than the chair in the original analogy except that whereas the parts were replaced one at a time in the first analogy, they are replaced all at once in this analogy. The result is the same in both cases—you have a completely different chair sitting on your neighbor’s porch.

Well, the human body is exactly like the chair in the first analogy. It is in a constant state of flux. Cells die and new cells take their place. There is even replacement on the molecular level. After about ten years, most of the cells in your body have been replaced. The only cells that don’t get replaced are cerebral cortex neurons, heart muscle cells, and cells in the inner portion of the crystalline lens of your eyes, which last most of your life.[1] That means that within every ten years, you basically have a new body with only a few original parts. But certainly your penis or vagina is completely replaced, so you do not have the same penis or vagina you had ten years ago.

If you go ten years without having sex, then you are a virgin. The reason is because the body you have after ten years will have never had sex. And certainly the penis or vagina you have after going ten years without sex will have never engaged in sex. That makes you a virgin.

Thank you for lending me your eyes for reading and your mind for understanding. I look forward to my opponent's critique.


[1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... Other sources say it takes 15 years or so to replace most of the cells in your body. http://www.newscientist.com... The argument is the same in either case.

Milliarde

Con

Thank you as well for inviting me, and I hope enlightenment will be achieved by both parties! However, if you are reading this, I'm disappointed to inform you that if you are mourning the loss of your virginity you shan't get it back no matter how hard you try. At least as the term is defined in the structure of this debate :D

I will be debating the Con side, namely that it is not possible to get your virginity back once you have lost it.

I will be keeping with the definitions put in place by Pro for the following words: Sex, Virginity, Loss of virginity, Possible, etc.

As I think Pro's thought experiment is best carried out by every person individually, I won't say what I think is the correct chair, if indeed there is a correct chair. However, I'd like to continue with another thought experiment:

Let us suppose that you have a purple balloon. Furthermore, let's say it's your favorite balloon that you have promised to never, ever pop since you can't stand the mental anguish of hearing it pop in front of you.

For the first part of our argument, let's assume it's an unfortunate Monday night, ~60 degrees outside and you have your purple balloon with you on your patio. Your kid sister is playing with your purple balloon and accidentally lets it go, slowly floating up into the upper atmosphere. You can't stand to lose your purple balloon, so you quickly pull out your pocket BB gun, take aim, and fire. Fortunately (yet unfortunately) you have dead aim and the balloon quickly pops, thus falling back down to earth into your trembling arms.

You take it to a master balloon repairman, and he successfully reconstructs your purple balloon to exactly how it was before the tragic event. However, you must ask yourself now: Did the balloon still pop? Or since it's been reconstructed completely, does that change the past event and mean that it hasn't popped?

Clearly, no matter how good a job the master balloon craftsman has done, he cannot change the past. What's done is done, and the poor purple balloon has still been popped, even if no one who wasn't there can tell that it has been.

Let us now extend this argument as so: Let's presume you weren't there when your kid sister let your balloon fly, and she was the one who had to shoot and pop the balloon to get it to fall, then take it to the master balloon craftsman, then present it back to you. Effectively, you have no memory of the balloon ever popping, and you may never know if your sister takes that fact to the grave. As they say, ignorance is bliss [1]!

However, as should be obvious, the balloon still popped, and whether or not you know it does not change that fact.

The human body may be in a constant state of flux, but it's also like a balloon in a way. Once you lose your virginity, you cannot get it back. Similarly, once your purple balloon has been popped, it has always been popped. You may have it repaired and then pop it again (if you so choose) and experience the same sensation as if it had never been popped, but it's still not the first time to pop it. This can be extended to losing one's virginity. Once you have sex, whether or not you remember losing it, having sex again may not feel any different than the first time, but it's still technically not the first.

If you go ten years without having sex, you are a virgin. Only if you were a virgin ten years before, though. Once you have had sex, there's unfortunately no way (to our knowledge) to go back in time before it had happened. If that were possible, I might have to concede this argument, but until then I must say that it is not possible to regain your virginity once you have lost it.

Continuing regards to my opponent..

Sources:
[1]: http://en.wiktionary.org...
Debate Round No. 2
philochristos

Pro

I consider myself fortunate to be debating somebody with a good head on his shoulders. They say the mark of a good sushi chef is how well she can prepare a tamago. Well, the mark of a good philosopher is how well he can construct a thought experiment. This is also Milliarde’s first debate on this forum, and he is sure to enhance the level of dialogue here.

In my opening, I gave a couple of thought experiments to show that the body we have now is not the same body we had ten or more years ago. Since virginity consists in having never joined your genitalia with that of the opposite sex, and since the genitalia you have now is not the genitalia you had ten or more years ago, it follows that if you have gone ten years without sex, then you are a virgin.

My opponent responded with the following words: “As I think Pro’s thought experiment is best carried out by every person individually, I won’t say what I think is the correct chair, if indeed there is a correct chair.” That’s it. That is the extent of his “refutation” of my argument. I submit that this response doesn’t even rise to the level of refutation. Since he has not attacked the soundness of any of my premises or the validity of any of my reasoning, there is no need for any salvage operation on my part. My argument has established my point.

Having left my argument behind, my opponent then went on to construct an argument of his own to show that once you have lost your virginity, you cannot get it back. Note that if I fail to refute my opponent’s argument, that will not be a win for him. At best, that will leave us at an impasse since it will mean that neither one of our arguments have been refuted. But I will attempt to refute his argument so as not to leave us at an impasse.

My opponent made an argument from analogy where the popping of a balloon is analogous to the loss of virginity. Even though the balloon can be repaired, it will not change the fact that it was once popped.[1] In the same way, once virginity has been lost, it cannot be un-lost. The past cannot be changed.

There are a few reasons for why my opponent’s argument fails to support his point of view:

First, his thought experiment does not amount to an argument. He has simply used the balloon analogy to illustrate his point of view. An illustration is not an argument; it’s just an explanation. In the end, my opponent merely asserts that virginity cannot be regained, but he doesn’t give an argument for why.

Second, while it is true that you cannot undo the fact that you once lost your virginity, that is not the same as to say you cannot get your virginity back. Saying you can get your virginity back presupposes that you once lost it. By analogy, if I lost my cell phone, then later got it back, the fact that I got the cell phone back doesn’t mean I didn’t once lose it. In the balloon analogy, my opponent is only making the modest claim that no matter how well the balloon is repaired, it will still be the case that the balloon had once been popped. But that doesn’t mean the balloon will forever be in a popped state.

Third, the balloon thought experiment is not really analogous to human beings. In the balloon thought experiment, when the balloon is returned repaired and inflated, it’s the exact same balloon that was once popped. But in the case of people, the body we have ten years down the road is not the same body that lost its virginity in the first place. So even though we can rightly say that the intact balloon we get back at the end of the thought experiment is the same balloon that had once been popped, it’s not true that the body we have now was the same body that lost virginity ten years ago. If you have gone ten years without sex, then the penis or vagina you have now has never been engaged in sexual activity. That makes you a virgin.

That concludes my portion of this debate. Thank you very much to my opponent for an interesting exchange, welcome to debate.org, and congratulations on participating in your first debate here. And thank you to the reader for your kindness in carefully reading and thinking through our arguments so as to make an informed vote.


[1] Am I the only one who laughed at the subtle innuendo?

Milliarde

Con

Thank you again to philochristos for providing the opportunity to engage in such an enthralling debate. The fortune is all mine to be debating someone with not only a good head on his shoulders, but an intelligence-bestowing hat as well!

I would like to first note that in the second paragraph of round 3, my opponent attempts to redefine something he once defined for us. In the original rules post, he defines virginity as "the state of having never had sex." However, here he redefines it as "having never joined your genitalia with that of the opposite sex." Although subtle, these are clearly different terms, and as per the rules we must use the first definition.

If virginity was something that was typically ascribed to one's sexual organ, then one could make a compelling case that over time a man's penis may regain its virginity. However, this puts the proponent in a sticky situation, since it's near impossible to know the exact amount of time it takes for an organ to "replace" itself. There is also no presented criteria for what constitutes new genitalia. Is it greater than 50% new material? 100% new material? In light of these holes in the argument, it becomes more evident why virginity is a trait assigned to a person's self and not his/her individual organs.

When I mentioned that I thought my opponent's thought experiment was best carried out by each person individually, he responded:
"That’s it. That is the extent of his “refutation” of my argument. I submit that this response doesn’t even rise to the level of refutation." I should point out that I stand by my original assertion, not only due to the increased brain power each reader gets from carrying out the experiment himself, but because Pro's comparison of the human body to the chair is just that, a comparison, well crafted as it may be.

I am glad my opponent points out that my balloon analogy is simply an illustration, since the same can be said about his chair analogy. However, since my opponent claims that I have not given an argument, I will attempt to remedy this problem. First of all, I did make an argument about the lack of time travel leading to the impossibility of regaining one's virginity, but I shall move on since my opponent does not seem to be debating the forward-moving nature of time.

My opponent tries to change the topic of debate by using words like "different" to lead to the conclusion that if something is different in one way (such as the composition of its materials) that it loses other traits as well. However, my opponent's first sentence betrays him in such a way that I needn't talk about these definitions. He states that he will "defend the claim that a person who has lost their virginity can get it back" (emphasis mine). Note that he writes "person" and not "sexual organ". Once a person has had sex once, they have by definition lost their virginity. The particular stage of cell replacement of that person's sexual organ is irrelevant, since the act of sex is independent of the age/state/size/strength of said sexual organ. At that moment, the person has lost their virginity and is lost forever.

My opponent claims that "while it is true that you cannot undo the fact that you once lost your virginity, that is not the same as to say you cannot get your virginity back." However, in this case they are the same. It may be possible to get back a sexual organ that has never entered a sexual organ of the opposite sex, but it is impossible to revert to a state of virginity, since that person will have always had sex.

I will agree that the balloon mustn't forever be in a popped state after it's been repaired, but if we were to create a state of being that starts true and becomes false the moment the balloon has been popped, it will remain false once it becomes false. Repairing the balloon may fix it's popped state, but not the state of being that became false.

My opponent next attempts to discredit the [purple] balloon thought experiment because it is the same balloon as before. However, if one allows the master balloonsmith to use new balloon material in the repair, this point is nullified, and becomes the same situation as the chair thought experiment. Again, however, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, this untimately does not affect the state of having once been popped, which is analogous to one's virginity in a way that a chair cannot even begin to imagine.

Thank you for your time, both to my skilled opponent and the fortunate readers. I hope my explanations have been strong and to the point in order to clarify my positions.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
That would've been a good argument, neptune.
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
I have to agree with wrich. The definition given by philo states:
Virginity: The state of having never had sex.
Sex: When the penis of a living human male enters the vagina of a living human female.

Whether or not you have a new penis or vagina is completely irrelevant considering that "you" have still had sex at some point, given the definition, regardless of which penis or vagina you had at the time. So, in reference to the chair example, it would be like saying that if you sat on your original chair, that you had never sat on a chair once I've replaced your chair with the new identical chair. The only thing that pro has shown is that your "new" genitalia may be somewhat "virginal" although you still will never be a virgin again.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that you are a totally different person, in which case it still does not work because "you" are not actually "you" but the completely different person you have become having the cells be replaced. The person that inhabits the current body is a totally different person, and although you might say that the "new" person is a virgin, "you" most definitely are not. Therefor, no one has "regained" virginity, but has rather been "replaced" by a virgin.

Either way, even by pro's arguments, no one has "become" a virgin when they weren't a virgin before.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
lol, this was an interesting read. Good effort by PRO but I remain unconvinced. Just because on a cellular level our bodies are wholly different from what they were 10 years ago does not make us different people.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Oh, and just to come clean on this debate, my real position is that it's the person who engages in sex that determines whether you're a virgin or not, not the body parts you used to do it. So even if you have a different body 10 years down the road, that doesn't make you a virgin.

But notice this point of view depends on substance dualism. If all we are is the sum of our physical parts, and if all our parts are replaced, then a new person has come into existence after ten years (just like the chair in the thought experiment), and that person is still a virgin. The only way you can keep your "lost virginity" status is if you maintain your personal identity through physical change, and that is only possible if the "person" is not identical to "the body." In other words, if you are an immaterial self, i.e. a soul.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
I agree, but since the debate wasn't even close, I'm not really bothered by it. It would bother me if his vote had made the difference between winning and losing.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Bordenkircher's vote was unfair. Playing devil's advocate is a fun thing to do, in my opinion, and that you don't believe your arguments shouldn't affect the outcome of the dbate. Perhaps he was convinced to Con's side, but I think if you were convinced for reasons beyond factors relevant to the debate, it'd be best not to vote at all.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Congratulations, Milliarde! You're the first person to win a debate against me since I've been here.
Posted by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
Okay, I'll take back the conduct vote.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
tulle, as I said at the beginning of the debate, this is not a position I actually believe. It's just something I thought would be fun to debate. Whether lesbians are virgins or not depends on how you define "sex." In this debate, I defined it in such a way that lesbians are virgins (unless hey have sex with men, which they usually don't).

I don't want to argue the merits of my case until after the voting is done because I don't think it would be fair to bias the voters with additional arguments. I just wanted to make a clarification since it seemed like more than one of the voters was confused about how I was defining "virginity" in the last round.
Posted by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
I should clarify, you can undo a "state" but not in the sense that it never happened. Me being cold 10 years ago and hot now doesn't mean I've never been cold.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Bordenkircher 4 years ago
Bordenkircher
philochristosMilliardeTied
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: Pro didn't believe in anything he said, and therefor I couldn't be convinced by him. If you debate for fun, please argue for what you actually believe.
Vote Placed by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
philochristosMilliardeTied
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's analogy of the balloon popping is more analagous to loss of virginity than Pro's. Basically Pro's argument is this. A person born in Mexico who moves to the United States and lives there for 10 years has never been to Mexico.
Vote Placed by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
philochristosMilliardeTied
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: Pro basically used a fallacy of composition, that since it was true, for the "new" genital, to be a virgin, it follows the entire person is now a virgin. Con wins arguments since it was still YOU and YOUR genitals that lost virginity regardless if you still have them in their original makeup or not.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
philochristosMilliardeTied
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: First 1,000 character vote. Wewt! Anyway, let's get to substance. I find pro's argument that our cells recycle themselves every ten or so years into a new construct to be a very interesting one (i'm not exactly sure how true this actually in because in theory that would mean that we would have a new heart and lung after ten years, which would allow us to escape such things like terminal heart failures and defects). I think the problem with that, though, and as con correctly points out, is that the state of virginity is not a physical thing that is based around our body, but is a state of being that once violated, cannot be restored. Like, I may be a teenager for a certain number of years, but once I turn 20, I am no longer a teenager and cannot become a teenager again, as that state of being has changed. Because of that, even if we get a new shlong every ten years and our current one hasn't undergone sex, our very personhood has undergone sex, and thus makes us still not a virgin.
Vote Placed by AshleysTrueLove 4 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
philochristosMilliardeTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Seems as if philo is arguing in a biological physical sense that ontology is based on the actual same penis and vagina not the individual himself. But the hymen in females is regenerated if a female doesn't have sex. Philo also used better and more sources. I think that the ontology of virginity is personal not physical nevertheless philo won the argument.
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
philochristosMilliardeTied
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: Philo seems to think that a person is his/her skin cells... He never understood what a person is nor really made a decent attempt at defining it. Despite the body regenerating after having had sex, that person is eternally not a virgin after sex. this was made clear in the final round of con's debate.