The Instigator
Takaakiishikawa
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

People should have a sexual partner

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 1 vote the winner is...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 440 times Debate No: 83716
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Takaakiishikawa

Con

Hey guys. Lets start debating about this topic. I personally think it is a natural behavior to have sex with someone. However, It might affect you later in life.
Emilrose

Pro

Debate accepted.

>>Resolution: People should have a sexual partner.

My position: that people should indeed have a sexual partner, or partners ;)

Opening Statement:

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.


Debate Round No. 1
Takaakiishikawa

Con

Thanks for the replay and feel really sry for not replying you quickly.
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

Pro

Emilrose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Takaakiishikawa

Con

Takaakiishikawa forfeited this round.
Emilrose

Pro

Rebuttals:

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.



Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Takaakiishikawa 1 year ago
Takaakiishikawa
It's actually one of famous quotes from a tv show
I don't remember who.
As you probably have noticed, my language is terrible
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
O.o

Did you or Google translate say that?
Posted by Takaakiishikawa 1 year ago
Takaakiishikawa
My friends are starving. My nipples are no use to him
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Yess ;)
Posted by Takaakiishikawa 1 year ago
Takaakiishikawa
You are totally fine. I was also almost forgetting lol
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Dam it...it's strange how these winter days go so fast...I totally forgot about this debate.
Posted by EllieRa 1 year ago
EllieRa
People are free to do with their bodies whatever they would like.
Despite the fact the debate's author did not clarify should it be a permanent sexual partner or a randomly selected person for this purpose, I don't see anything wrong in having "one-night sex" as far as you are aware about protection and safety.
Sex is a natural and physiological need of each person. If you don't have a permanent partner, it should not be a barrier to live your life and to feel all the "opportunities" are given by it.
Posted by Takaakiishikawa 1 year ago
Takaakiishikawa
There are a lot more ways to release stress without being in danger of undesired pregnancy.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
Con, you never said for a rule that a sex partner *had* to be on in a relationship *just* for sexual purposes. Though I will admit that better relationships are determined by personality, you conceded that it is a stress reliever. What one of the partners has a hard day at work, and then the part number offers sexual intercourse, and then afterwards, they both happy. It also seems you concede that they can have a baby, which is of course a good thing. That's adding another human life.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
TakaakiishikawaEmilroseTied
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: Con keeps saying you should have a sexual partner at some point in life. Either he needs to work on his wording of the resolution, or he actually conceded before the debate even got started. Conduct for the forfeits and all.