The Instigator
american5
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ScarletGhost4396
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

It should be illegal to have sex till married

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
ScarletGhost4396
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,469 times Debate No: 22980
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

american5

Pro

I believe it should be illegal to have sex till marriage because it will help lower teen pregnancy and abortion ratings. Also because studies have shown children born in wedlock live better easier lives. And because sex is something special not something to be thrown around to a hundred people in a night. People used to save their virginity for one person and it was important to them now people try to get rid of it so fast it could be mistaken for poison. we should do something to stop it.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

I thank my opponent for such a stimulating topic, and because of my position, I will be on the CON side of this debate arguing against measures prohibiting premarital sex. Before continuing, some parameters should be established for the debate at hand:

Observation 1: The resolution does not specify a specific region or country at which to analyze this, meaning that a global perspective should be taken when analyzing this debate.
Observation 2: By stating the term "illegal" in this debate, the PRO implicitly takes on the challenge of proposing a law that makes premarital sex illegal. Henceforth, many of the burdens of the PRO would include the following:

-Providing a feasible model of a law that will detain premarital sex.
-Providing a practical and moral justification for the coming of the law.
Conversely, for the CON, the objective is prove the opposite of the PRO's burdens. This determines the winner of the said debate.

I move toward my main points.

Contention 1: A law banning premarital sex is infeasible and unnecessary.
Aside from the possible moral repercussions of the law and questions thereof, we analyze the idea of a law barring premarital sex and realize that the idea of it is infeasible, comparing current laws to attempt to reduce premarital sex.

Sub-point 1a: Laws against premarital sex are ineffective.
The laws in Iran banning premature sex, where premature sex is a crime punishable by capital punishment or corporal punishment, prove the ineffectiveness of the measure considering the rise of youth engaging in premarital sex, as Newser reports: "Iran’s Islamic law bans premarital sex and abortion, but an increasing number of Iranians are engaging in both, the Guardian reports. More than a quarter of men aged 19 to 29 had premarital sex, and 13% of those situations resulted in the termination of an unwanted pregnancy, a state survey found. The average age of marriage spiked to 40 for men, 35 for women.
The figures represent a setback for Tehran’s efforts to promote weddings, dialed up after the marriage rate dipped an unprecedented 1.2% in 2005. The government blamed the “unpleasant and dangerous social side effects” of premarital sex, but many Iranians cite economic hardship. One sociologist posits that working, educated women are unlikely “to accept masculine domination through marriage.”

Contention 2: Anti-premature sex laws are immoral because they violate human rights.
I contend that the human body is the property of the individual, and as human rights contend, humans have their right to their property, meaning that a prohibition of laws against premature sex violate human rights.


Debate Round No. 1
american5

Pro

1. It is not infeasible to make this law it would simply state that any two people gay, bi, or strait caught have premarital sex will be sent to jail and go through the legal system not exactly in that order and if the female has become pregnant from the happening then she will be kept until she has the baby then will be put in jail and the child left with another person until a parent is freed.

1. a. I don't know about you but I don't live in Iran the outcome would be very different in the West if people break the law it gets tightened the punishment gets worse.

2. Human rights are not worth having most people abuse them so it wouldn't hurt to limit them slightly

3. It is better for the child if they have one studies prove that a child with married parents has a better chance living a much better life.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Point 1: The problem with my opponent's argument is that the resolution doesn't specify any particular region of the world to look at, meaning that the scope of the resolution implies a ubiquitous perspective for analyzing the question at hand.
Point 2: Even if my opponent actually had evidence to the idea that most people abuse human rights, the reasoning is completely fallacious. He says that because rights are violated so much, we might as well continue to violate them. That doesn't make any sense because if the aim is to provide as many rights as possible to people, they should be enforced, not violated or neglected in any way. Human rights are important because they are the warrant to stop many injustices done against people by corrupted governments, rebellious organizations, non-state actor, and many other things detrimental and immoral to the human population.
Point 3: First, how would this then apply to the gays, bisexuals, and lesbians in any way? If this is your main reason or one of your main reasons for this law? Also, is there not abortion, contraceptives, and adoption if maintaining the life of the child is necessary?
Debate Round No. 2
american5

Pro

1. No region the whole world.

2. My opponent states that what I say is against human rights but is it not inhumane to have children suffer difficult lives because of loose parents.

3. It would apply to homosexuals and bisexuals for the reasons of equality.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Point 1: I think my opponent just agreed with me in the point that we're looking at the scope of the entire world. This is why evidence from Iran and Iraq are totally fine in the scope of this debate and why punishments that could result from premarital sex could include capital punishment. This is not the point however. The point is that I have proven to the judges that these laws that try to stop premarital sex don't really do anything in order to deter premarital sex, even with something as severe are capital punishment.
Point 2: Let us remember that this is coming from the very same person who just said that we shouldn't have human rights. Now, he's trying to protect the human rights of the child that MAY result from premarital sex when he just said that hurting human rights wouldn't be too bad because people already abuse them way too much. He's clearly contradicting himself in his reasoning. I contend that my opponent's scenario is all under the assumption that a child will result inevitably from premarital sex, and at the point where we're analyzing a scenario where two people are about to have sex out of wedlock, the human rights that are important are the ones of the humans that currently exist, i.e, the two about to have sex. I have already said adoption, abortion, and contraceptives can solve for these problems anyway if a child does result from the premarital sex.
Point 3: This really doesn't make sense. The main point of my opponent's law is to protect children, but sex between gays and lesbians doesn't procure children, so the law doesn't even apply to their sex. Furthermore, if the requirement to have sex is to be married first when gay marriage is currently not legal everywhere in the United States, it means that gay people are prohibited from having sex at all. This creates an inherently discriminatory scenario because in my opponent's world, only heterosexual people will be eligible to have sex. This is not equality in any way, shape, or form.
Questions about the feasibility of this law: With the morality aspects covered in the debate, we can move on toward the practicality portion. My opponent has procured no evidence whatsoever to prove that his law would be functional. My opponent has procured no reasoning or ideas about how this law would even be implemented, or how police officers or other authorities would be able to catch people having or about to have premarital sex. My opponent has procured no information about how this law will be funded--unless you count increasing taxes and placing more burden on taxpayers as a way to procure funding for this plight. My opponent has procured no evidence that this law would actually deter people from having premarital sex, in contrast to what I have shown you. Basically, the entirety of my opponent's entire case is unfounded by anything except logical fallacies and assumptions, showing to you, the judges, that my evidence and case is much stronger than my opponent's.

Debate Round No. 3
american5

Pro

1. But Iraq and Iran do not have the legal systems of America

2. I said we should make human rights looser not that they shouldn't exist also you were just defending human rights and are now going against them and attacking me for doing exactly what your doing hypocrisy much and so the human rights of your children and grandchildren don't matter? Also why should the child have to die with abortion because of the parents foolishness or suffer with adoption which can be a horror for children?

3. Well if the Americans don't want gays to get married than they don't want them to be considered equal in that sense and because majority rule that's not a bad thing.

Law: If the majority likes it in America where majority rules than by law it should pass.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Arguments about America: It's clear at this point that my opponent has not even the slightest understanding of his own resolution. Nowhere in his resolution does it specify looking at America in perspective alone, meaning that arguments and examples from Iraq and Iran are plausible. The content of the evidence provided in the Iraq and Iran cards, however, are ubiquitous in that it gives us a glimpse into human behavior and reactions to law, and when we're looking at the quality of the law in question, we realize that laws that try to ban and prohibit premarital sex are ineffective in the scope of succeeding in stopping it.
Human Rights: Nowhere did my opponent say that we should make human rights looser. If you go back to Round 2 of the debate, he says clear as day that human rights are not worth having and even advocates hurting them slightly because people hurt them so much anyway. He's now attempting to protect human rights of children. This is totally contraditory to his initial position. My opponent clearly doesn't support adoption or abortion, but at the point where I've proven that the law like the one my opponent is making doesn't work, my opponent has provided absolutely no evidence that it can work, and accidents can happen in premarital sex, does my opponent have another option when it's implied that the ones engaging in premarital sex do not have the means to support a child? All of this provides to you, the judges, an idea of how seriously ill-conceived my opponent's law is and how much he is failing to uphold the burdens on his side of the case.
Gay Marriage: Whether gay marriage should be legalized or not is a different debate entirely, but at the point where the idea of his law is to prevent children from suffering these problems of having incapable parents, this law isn't remotely applicable to gay and lesbian intercourse, which doesn't produce children, and because of the fact that they cannot get married (unless they get married to someone of the opposite sex, which they don't want to do at all, and they'll have to have sex with other people outside of wedlock, which is contradictory to the principles of a functional marriage), they aren't allowed to have sex at all, meaning that this law is inherently discriminatory to LGBT patrons of the society. My opponent states that because the majority supports a decision, this means that this is right in America, which is just an ad Populum fallacy argument considering that can be applied to so many immoral and cruel things that have occurred in America (since this is the scope he's looking at and whatnot), including slavery, Japanese internment, and other such positions.
Questions about his case: We should also take notice of the fact that my opponent answers to not a single one of my inquiries about his law proposal...
Debate Round No. 4
american5

Pro

american5 forfeited this round.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Many of the reasons as to why I should be the winner of this debate are almost too self-explanatory, so I'll try to make this quick.
Conduct Vote: You, the judges, will give me the conduct vote with the consideration that my opponent has forfeited the final round of this debate, and I have been completely punctual to this debate to the very end of it.
Observation 2: Since my opponent made no attempt to argue against my observations, they're completely extended across the flow, and when we analyze the entirety of my opponent's case, we realize that he has done absolutely nothing in order to uphold the burdens of his case. I have shown you through my evidence as to why this law is infeasible, impractical, and has no sort of moral justifications in the context of philosophy whereas my opponent hasn't even given you a shred of evidence to make you believe that anything that he's saying is right.
Human Rights: My opponent is totally conflicted about human rights. He said earlier that it was fine to limit the slightly but then became a staunch advocate of these said rights, which contradicts his earlier statements. He talks about how children would be better off with this law in the future, but again, he has provided no evidence that it will be functional, and then under the scenario where even under this law where a girl gets pregnant before marriage, my opponent's world would not like to provide any sort of remediation in order to solve the problem.
Gay rights: Then, the argumentation of gay rights also shows you the inequality of the law because at the point where gays cannot get married everywhere and have no interest in getting married with the members of the opposite sex, there's no way for gay people to have sex amongst the members of the same sex. This law is completely discriminatory against LGBT groups.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Contradiction are you for same sex parenting? (my opinion is con)
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
I learned a new word today. lol
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
@Contradiction Someone's studied for the SAT. lol
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
I think we've found one more conservative than contradiction. *GASP*
Posted by Contradiction 4 years ago
Contradiction
Not even I'm this puritanical.
Posted by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
Oh my...
Government police state For The Win!!!!
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
No that's why there is charity. People voluntarily help poor mothers. And adoption which ultimately places children in better homes. There is almost always a positive outcome that is possible.
Posted by american5 4 years ago
american5
But it does hurt others if a mother who can't support the child gets pregnant someone else pays for it it hurts people.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Unconstitutional.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
1. Just because one does not want to get married before having sex does not make them ignorant.

2. Even if it was ignorant people have the RIGHT to choose to be ignorant as long as it doesn't directly hurt anyone else.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
american5ScarletGhost4396Tied
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: ff
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 4 years ago
Multi_Pyrocytophage
american5ScarletGhost4396Tied
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: FF
Vote Placed by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
american5ScarletGhost4396Tied
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: FF
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
american5ScarletGhost4396Tied
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: FF