No more sex!
In this debate I will be opposing my opponent’s view of ‘No more sex!’ I am, however, presuming that he/she is meaning sex as in “sexual activity , especially sexual intercourse,” as opposed to “gender.” Considering that my opponent’s views are extremely non-mainstream, and that he/she is bring a somewhat new-ish idea, he/she has the burden of proof. All I simply have to do, in order to win this debate, is negate his/her arguments. However, to further strengthen my case, I shall take the liberty of presenting some of my own arguments, one of which is in this round.
I argue that, considering engaging in sexual intercourse produces people, this is good. I offer this following syllogism
P1) Overall, producing new people is beneficial towards society, and we should not block this
Contention 1 is probably the most controversial premise in the syllogism. This can be for several reasons. My opponent may argue, for instance, that over-population is a factor that makes producing new people become detrimental towards society, due to issues such as a lack of resources. However, this does not mean that we should stop producing people. Instead, perhaps, we could implement mitigation measures to limit the amount of people produced, such as birth regulations (eg. One child policy in China), or educating people about overpopulation and environmental issues, which over time, would result in less people being produced.
Contention 2 and the Conclusion are pretty much undisputable. Unless my opponent wants to attempt a refutation of this, I shall leave this alone.
If we stopped having sex, on the other hand, no more people are produced! This would be extremely detrimental towards society, leaving it with an aging workforce, and ultimately, a long period of time, leave the human race to die out. Other alternatives, such as scientifically ‘creating’ babies are not viable, for they are not well developed scientifically, and may offend certain religions, (Catholic, for instance) because humans are ‘playing God.’ 
In conclusion, I have, in this round, presented one argument against the resolution, ‘No More Sex.’ In order to win this debate, my opponent must refute this, as well as my other (perhaps) forthcoming arguments, and present superior arguments.
* Sex diseases
* Teenager drop outs
* People are not ready
Men, and women are tricking each other to get in bed with them when they have a disease. Example, HIV, std, and aids. These diseases are spreading around like a wild fire. It's sick. Half of the deaths in America is because of these sex diseases. http://www.foxnews.com.... Take a look at that and read some stories.
Teenagers are getting knocked up in high school which cause them to drop out. And education is a very important part of life. http://www.livestrong.com...
I didn't say I wanted sex to stop, but you just have to know when the time is right for you. You should finish high school, find a partner, get married, THEN comes sex. But people are so eager to have sex now. You guys aren't ready.
There are so many creeps out here. They take little children and rape them. That is sick. Some of those creeps have diseases and give it to the child.
In her second round, my opponent says that she “didn’t want sex to stop, but you just have to know when the time is right for you.”
My opponent begins her Second round by listing some of the negatives of sex. However, the positives of sex outweigh the negatives. In the worst case scenario, having sex can (indirectly) lead to death through disease. However, in the worst case scenario, not having sex ultimately leads to an aging work force, which in turn causes malfunction in economies, higher demand for health care and social security, and inevitably, lead to the extinction of humans.
She specifically mentions sexual diseases, and claims that half of deaths in the United States are caused by such diseases. However, this is simply not true. A rudimentary search on Google of: ‘causes of death in America’ and clicking the first link, which is from the National Centre for Health Statistics shows this to be the case. As a matter of fact, the leading cause of death is heart disease, followed by cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases and stroke.
She then argues that teenagers are “getting knocked up in high school which cause them to kick out.” Whilst I agree that education is extremely important, poverty is a far more significant factor of high school dropouts. 
In conclusion, my opponent has changed the resolution mid-way through the debate, has not affirmed her new resolution, not provided any cogent arguments, provided misleading claims and failed to respond to my argument.
My opponent cordially invites me to look at several links instead of one. I will do this.
Leading Causes of Death in the United States
1st link: already described
2nd link : In developed countries, Ischaemic heart disease is the biggest killer. Second is cerebrovascular disease. Third is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Fourth is Lower respiratory infections.
3rd link : The biggest killer is heart disease. Second is cancer, third is stroke, and fourth is chronic lung disease.
4th link : The biggest killer is ischaemic heart disease. Second is stroke, third is lower respiratory infections, and fourth chronic obstructive lung disease.
5th link : The biggest killer is heart disease. Second is malignant tumours, third is cerebrovascular disease, and fourth is chronic lower respiratory disease.
In the top five links found when I typed ‘Leading Causes of Death in the United States,’ not a single link had sex diseases listed high. This utterly refutes my opponent’s erroneous claim that half of deaths are caused by sex diseases.
My opponent also does not understand why healthcare demand will become higher with an aging population. This is because, the older the people become, and the more they need some form of healthcare in order to stay healthy. Here are two graphs that shows such a correlation 
Finally, my opponent laments the fact that people are having ‘sex every minute’ with ‘strippers, thots, sluts, just everyone.’ I agree that this is not necessarily morally desirable. However, I also shall note that many things that are morally desirable are beneficial economically. Illegalizing prostitution, in the Chinese city of Dongguan will ‘knock off 50 billion yuan of its economy.’  The prostitution and drug industries, in the UK, contribute 10 billion dollars of wealth, to the British economy every year.  We should not change this because we should not be controlling people’s sexual activities.
In conclusion, my opponent still has not affirmed her (changed) resolution, nor has she provided a cogent response to my arguments.
I take it that my opponent has virtually conceded her point of view. Her only two rebuttals were that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that the data I showed was from 1996. Neither of those 2 arguments are cogent.
My opponent complains that the data I showed was from 1996. This is irrelavent. Recent data confirms this. Vicenzo Atella's paper "The Effect of Age and Time to Death on Health Care Expenditures," published last year, shows a similiar correlation. 
She also tells me to stop using Wikipedia, as it is unreliable. I agree and disagree. Although Wikipedia can be an unreliable source at times, this is not always the case. Contrary to the vast majority of history teachers, Wikipedia can be quite a reliable source. Adam Reiss, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics alongside Brian Schmidt and Saul Perlmutter for providing evidence that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rates, when for a rating of the 'Dark energy' page says: "It's remarkably accurate. Certainly better than 95%"  But anyway, we are not debating whether it is a reliable source. I only used Wikipedia as a source, because it was one of the first links of my Google Search, due to the fact you asked me to look at 'multiple different links.'
All in all, my opponent has more or less conceded her main points of the debate. She, in the last round, did not provide any form of response to my arguments, conceded a major point, and failed to properly defend her own arguments.
I thank my opponent for such lavish praise. This is possibly the first time, in my life that I have been called 'hilarious!' My opponent then claim two things:
Both statements are simply untrue. She has not even come close to backing up her statements. I have provided reasonable responses to all your arguments. You have dropped all you arguments. The only response you have given is against my assertion that healthcare costs are higher with older people; and it is an unreasonable response.
Nor is the graph invalid, simply because it was published last year. She has not provided any justification why this is wrong, thus committing a bare assertion fallacy. My opponent is essentially suggesting, that in the space of one year, the overall trend of the graph took a dramatic turn towards lower healthcare costs. She also has not responded to my reasoning why healthcare costs rise with age. She simply is cherry-picking arguments to respond to.
Finally, it shall be noted that Pro has the burden of proof due to the fact that she is making an extraordinary claim. She has virtually dropped all her arguments. She has not fulfilled her burden of proof. The resolution has not been affirmed
Vote Con. At least the debate was interesting.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|