People should have a sexual partner
>>Resolution: People should have a sexual partner.
My position: that people should indeed have a sexual partner, or partners ;)
I'd first like to note that Con has more or less conceded his case by stating that 'it is natural behaviour for people to have sex with someone'.
Therefore, it is natural behaviour for people to have a sexual partner or someone to engage in nice, satisfactory, mutually beneficial sexual activity with.
They proceed to assert that this 'may affect you in later life'--however, they fail to define or explain exactly how this can affect you.
*If* Con is referring to 'physical effects' (again: one can only assume), there exists precautions that people can take when engaging in intercourse with sexual partners--moreover, there is enough information available to learn how to be responsible when approaching sex.
As Con is the instigator of the topic and the one advocating for a change/alteration to the status-quo--which is: people not having sexual partners, the BoP is on them to show why and provide valid evidence for their case.
Well, let me go over my standpoint of why it is a bad idea to have a sexual partner in your life. My ideas are based on my experience and knowledge.
First of all, for me personally, I don't see any value for having sex with someone that you don't desire to have baby or officially marry. We all know having sex is an action to have a baby and good thing to release daily stress you get from somewhere. To be quite honest with you, I want to have a lot of sex with girls simply cuz I want to, however, it is a short term and not long-lasting benefit for both man and woman. When it comes to marriage, making babies, I don't support the idea of having sex before marriage is a ok thing to do. However, it is still natural behavior that anybody has.
Emilrose forfeited this round.
Takaakiishikawa forfeited this round.
As expected, Con has failed to meet their BoP and show why people should have sexual partner(s) or engage in sexual relations. I will point out once again that this was especially important for him to prove, as it is completely commonplace and the *status-quo* for people to do so~~thus, additional effort was required from him.
Cons resolution can more or less be negated by the fact that have a 'sexual partner' is absolutely vital for the continuation of the human species. I.E~~if everyone ceased in having a sexual partner, humankind would eventually cease to exist.
But this isn't to deflect from the fact that (as previously stated) people *can* take precautions~~such as those that prevent sexually transmitted infection, disease, etc. Thus, it's still perfectly safe for humans to have sex.
Con states that:
'First of all, for me personally, I don't see any value for having sex with someone that you don't desire to have baby or officially marry. We all know having sex is an action to have a baby and good thing to release daily stress you get from somewhere.'
Essentially, this is opinion and nothing more. While Pro may not approve of such relations, it doesn't necessarily make them wrong or provide a valid reason for people not to have sex under whatever context they like, and with who they like. Moreover, Con himself negates that sex is also a tool for people to 'relieve stress', or in my view: gain pleasure. So they have absolutely not been successful in arguing against it.
'To be quite honest with you, I want to have a lot of sex with girls simply cuz I want to, however, it is a short term and not long-lasting benefit for both man and woman. When it comes to marriage, making babies, I don't support the idea of having sex before marriage is a ok thing to do. However, it is still natural behavior that anybody has.'
Once again, Con has negated his own points by acknowledging that sex is a 'natural behaviour' that 'anybody has'.
Thus: why exactly should people not have it? Something that Con has failed to answer satisfactorily.
In addition, Con assumes that sex doesn't have any long-term lasting benefits. However, it can have a number of 'benefits' in *many* different areas-->>the positives are significantly *bigger* than any 'negatives' that may exist, and naturally go very deep.
As Con didn't affirm his resolution or use good arguments, vote PRO.
|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||4|