The Instigator
Yvette
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
michaelkeim
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Pre-marital sex

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 11 votes the winner is...
Yvette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 21,007 times Debate No: 12391
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (11)

 

Yvette

Pro

Our last attempt at this debate fell apart due to lack of time, so we'll be trying again. All the rules from the last debate apply, and each of our arguments from the last debate will be our starting arguments. I made the last argument, so it is my opponent's turn to form a rebuttal.

For reference, the debate this continues: http://www.debate.org...
michaelkeim

Con

I am going to start out with the same three points on made in my previous debate and let you do a better job of arguing pro's side. I do keep an open mind so lets begin.

My first three points are:
- It will help your marriage to have had only sex with the one you are going to marry. Rather than 10 others before marraige, which if you do train your body to have sex with multiple people then it will be hard to refrain these bad habits once you are married.

-There is NOT a 100% surity that you will not get/make someone pregnant. Preventives do fail people quite offten.

-Disease if you are going to decide to have sex before marriage, who is to now say when to stop? Therefore, you are bound to run into a disease sooner and later, and preventives surely can't stop the spreading of the countless amout of disease with the abilitly to spread through means of any type of bodily fluid. (this explains a lot of why diseases are indeed becoming more rampid as it becomes a more popular look at have pre marrital sex).

POINT #1- If you begin to have sex before marriage you will weaken the relationship with the one you do indeed marry. If you are sure she/he is the one then go ahead get married or wait just a little longer or intill you are able to get married, rather than running the risk of having sex with the worng one. Now, we come to the point if you do decide to have sex before marriage then what is the surprise and fun of marriage? What does "you may now kiss the bride" really mean if you have already gone much futher than this. Not to mention, say you did have sex with the wrong one, now when this relationship splits by having added that much more emotional drama to both parties it becomes a much bigger scar in your life and can send you into a declining sprial. Also if you begin to have sex with multiple women/men before marriage do you believe you will just be able to stop once you've found the right one and have been married for several years and have trained your body to be "ready" for someone new? Why creat the bad habbit?

POINT#2- POINT#3-If it is exeptable to have sex before marriage then knowing that not all Diseases can be stoped by preventives then eventually you to will have some type of disease if you "gamble" enough. If your are not ready for marriage then you are not ready for sex. You can never be 100% sure that the preventives will always work. Therefore, everytime you have sex your running the risk of getting the countless number of diseases out there and starting a family. So if you are ready for sex and marriage then GET married.

I'll leave with this to think about and wait for your responce. This is just a start to see where I"m comming from. Good Luck!!
Debate Round No. 1
Yvette

Pro

INTRODUCTION
Pre-marital sex can mean a person engages in sex with people they do not eventually marry, or people they plan to marry. Please keep this in mind. It is our culture's ideal situation but hardly practical. I will address my opponent's reasons for opposing pre-marital sex before presenting my own separate arguments.

RESPONSES
My opponent's reasons for believing abstinence until marriage is a good idea:

1. It will help your marriage because you won't be in the habit of having sex with multiple partners.

Response: A married couple may choose to have an open relationship with other sexual partners (which does happen). A person may have pre-marital sex with the person they choose to marry, voiding this argument entirely. I see no basis for the claim that there is anything habit-forming about having sex with someone different from your current partner, and reject this claim until my opponent provides reasoning or better yet, evidence.

2. Pregnancy can occur outside of marriage even with protection.

Response: Pregnancy can occur within marriage even with protection, marriage does not protect against pregnancy. The only advantage of marriage in regards to pregnancy is if it happens by accident, the couple has already agreed to stay together. However, if pregnancy occurs outside of marriage even with safe sex, abortion is a guaranteed option.

3. Disease can occur with pre-marital sex.

Response: Disease can occur within marriage if one or more of the partners cheat or if it is an open marriage. There is nothing preventing responsible unmarried couples from getting tested before sex. Similarly, if you have a couple made of two virgins considering pre-marital sex (which is my opponent's ideal situation), disease is also not an issue. There is nothing inherently disease-free about marriage, only about unsafe sex and multiple partners.

While not directly stated as points, I feel the need to address these statements:

4. "If your REALLY IN LOVE then both of you will be able to wait, because if you really love them you wouldn't want to mess up either of your lives with having sex... and receving the consequences (children) without being ready to get married muchless handle kids when you are one."

Response: I assert that if a couple really loves each other the stamp of marriage is unnecessary for sex. If they trust each other and are really ready for the risks of sex and the commitment, marriage is simply a formality and they will be fine without it. If they are afraid of the other partner running off because of a pregnancy or giving them a disease, that is a relationship problem that marriage will not fix.

5. "Why put your self through all the heart break and emotional stress of having had sex with the wrong one."

Response: 'Wrong one' presupposes that one, people only marry the 'right one' and that mistakes don't happen. Two, it assumes that love only happens once a lifetime. There is no reason to believe this is the case. Indeed, pressuring oneself to believe that this or that potential sexual partner is 'the right one' is common and I believe that this leads to heartbreak on its own. A more realistic approach to sexuality allows for trusting, affectionate and even loving sexual relationships without having to deem any partners "the one". Furthermore, heartbreak and emotional stress can and probably will be the result of a relationship locked into place between two people who have never had sex with each other...and turn out to be completely incompatible in bed. A couple's sex life is very much a part of how healthy their relationship is, and the real gamble is to bet a marriage on an unlikely thing.

MY CASE
1. Regular sex is a health benefit. It relieves stress, boosts the immune system, reduces heart disease, burns calories, reduces depression, as well as confers other minor benefits, all of which abstinence denies. [1] [2] I quote:

"Those who had intercourse had better responses to stress than those who engaged in other sexual behaviors or abstained." A good response to stress is necessary for a long-lasting relationship, as stress can easily kill one. The longer a couple waits to have sex the more they risk letting stress create fights and thus long-lasting emotional wounds.

"Having sex once or twice a week has been linked with higher levels of an antibody called immunoglobulin A or IgA, which can protect you from getting colds and other infections." Obviously a benefit to the individual, a benefit which is lost if one abstains from sex.

"The researchers also found that having sex twice or more a week reduced the risk of fatal heart attack by half for the men, compared with those who had sex less than once a month." Can you imagine when it's compared to sex zero times a month?

2. Couples having regular sex are better off in the long run. They will already know they are sexually compatible, have built up trust by remaining together without needing a marriage contract, and will not have to adjust to the nuances of sex at the same time as other stressful things.

"Having sex and orgasms increases levels of the hormone oxytocin, the so-called love hormone, which helps us bond and build trust." [1] The wedding ritual produces no such hormones. Even without such a hormone produced, sex requires incredible intimacy and trust, which a couple needs if they are going to survive in the long run. And as mentioned above, waiting until marriage to have sex runs a high risk of sealing a commitment with a person who may be completely incompatible with you in bed, causing more heart-break than "doing it with the wrong one".

3. Pre-marital sex prevents sexual exploration. This means a person is less likely to discover what they actually enjoy and more likely to base their sexuality and sexual knowledge off of what they think is the norm--which they are going to get from media, pornography and literature. Not only is this bad for the person who may not be able to experience what they really want out of their sex life, but it can result in them being unaware of how other human beings are. They may think, for example, that unsightly hair and wrinkles and shapes are not normal, that orgasms happen at the same time and without effort, etc. This harms their partner's self-esteem and destroys intimacy. Indeed, the more prior sexual exploration, the more each partner will be able to please "the one". If it's love, this should matter a great deal. Lack of variety does no one any good.

4. Focusing on abstinence can lead to being clueless in bed, which is more risky. For example, those who have had abstinence-only education have been found to engage in more sex earlier and without knowing how to be safe. [3] Safe sex is still an issue within marriage if pregnancy is to be prevented and if divorce or extramarital sex occurs. Individuals who abstain from sex and only engage in sex with other abstainers will also be less able to teach their kids about safe sex.

5. If abstinence until marriage is a cultural value for each person in the couple, you run the risk of marriage simply happening in order to have guilt-free sex (forgive the anecdote, but I actually know a couple who admits to doing this, both being very young socially conservative Christians). It makes far more sense to avoid any ulterior motives for marriage so that a commitment is more pure and honest. Indeed it is perfectly easy for one's virginity to be lied about to appeal to someone who views abstinence as a moral good.

CONCLUSION
My opponent's three arguments in favor of abstinence until marriage have little to do with pre-marital sex itself and instead rest on one unfounded claim and several situational problems which can occur regardless of abstinence.

Sex is a natural biological need. It is enjoyable, it promotes good health and intimacy, as well as trust and affection. Practiced safely, any situational risks are low and are vastly outweigh
michaelkeim

Con

I think the first matter I should adress is marraige. Why do people even get married to begin with, whats the importance of it and what does "marraige" actully mean. I think this is a very serious matter to address in todays socity with marrige with all time high devorce rates mainly due to Pre-marital sex I do believe.

Point 1: Family
First of all, let's be clear on one important point. In general, children and adults do better in homes headed by a married mother and father.On average. There are countless single men and women doing a wonderful job raising children, and their children do very well.What do you want your son or daughter to know about the benefits of marriage? Talking about the value of marriage now can help your son or daughter make good choices that will impact their future. Make sure you let them know what you want for their future. Marriage can be a positive part of your child's life. Research supports this!
LETS GO OVER DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS TO GET A BETTER ANGLE
Sex and Loveneed to face squarely the relationship of the physical act of sexual intercourse to the more intangible aspects of a meaningful relationship between two human beings.
Is having sex really making love? Modern case studies, psychological insights, church teachings, and biblical premises all seem to suggest not. As psychoanalyst Erich Fromm puts it, "To love a person productively implies to care and to feel responsible for his life, not only for his physical powers but for the growth and development of all his human powers."{1}
If sex is merely a physical thing, then masturbation or other forms of autoeroticism should provide true and complete sexual satisfaction. Such is not the case. Alternatives to normal sexual intercourse may satisfy physically, but not emotionally. Meaningful sexual activity involves the physical union of a man and a woman in a relationship of mutual caring and intimacy.

Every normal person has the physical desire for sexual activity accompanied with a desire to know and be known, to love and be loved. Both desires make up the real quest for intimacy in a relationship; sexual intercourse represents only one ingredient that allows us to experience true intimacy.

A maximum sexual relationship exists where mutual communication, understanding, affection, and trust have formed, and two people have lastingly committed themselves to each other in a permanent relationship. The more of these qualities that are present, the deeper the intimacy and the more meaningful the relationship. It becomes more valuable as time passes because it is one of a kind-- unique. To spread the intimacy around through a variety of sexual liaisons destroys the accumulated value of the previous relationship(s) and dilutes and scatters (in little doses to a number of people) what one has to give.

A real challenge faces young people today. Given the choice between hamburger at five o'clock or filet mignon at seven-thirty, are there any good reasons to forego the hamburger and wait for the filet? Why not both? Why not take the hamburger now and the filet later?

The latter attitude is precisely the rationale of those who encourage sexual activity outside of marriage. But it is not possible to have both without encountering problems later. Too many hamburgers ruin one's taste and appreciation for filet and tend to turn filet into hamburger as well!
-Contemporary Arguments for Premarital Sex
Now we will begin to consider the arguments that are presented to justify sexual activity before and outside of marriage. We will analyze the arguments briefly and explore the general implications of each rationale so that you can decide which will provide the best path for your future.
-Biological Argument
Perhaps the most common reason used to justify premarital sexual activity is that the sex drive is a basic biological one. The argument is as old as the Bible, where Paul states in 1 Corinthians 6:13, "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food." The Corinthians were using the biological argument to justify their immorality, but Paul explained that the analogy to the sex appetite was (and is) fallacious. Humans cannot live without food, air, or water. But we can live without sex.

Nature says several things on this point. First, God has built into the natural world a mechanism for sexual release: nocturnal emissions, or orgasmic release during dreams. Second, nature rejects human promiscuity, as the growing problem of sexually- transmitted diseases makes abundantly clear.

Couples who confine sex to their marriage partners face no such danger from disease. Further, we can safely conclude that abstinence does not impair one's health. Sociologist Robert Bell quips, "There appear to be no records of males hospitalized because girls refused to provide sexual outlets."{2}
While recognizing that human beings share many common characteristics with animals, we do not find comparable sexual behavioral patterns in the animal world. Human sexuality is unique in that it includes, but transcends, physical reproductive elements. It reaches an intimacy unknown among animals. Humans are different from animals.
-Statistical Argument
A second popular argument reasons that everyone is doing it. First, we must categorically emphasize that this is not a true statement. A recent study (1991) of college freshmen shows that "about two- thirds of men (66.3 percent) and slightly more than one-third of the women (37.9 percent) support the idea of sex between people who have known each other only for a short time." {3}As sobering as such statistics may be, they obviously indicate that not everyone is sexually active.

Further, statistics do not establish moral values. Is something right because it happens frequently or because many people believe it? A primitive tribe may have a 100 percent majority consensus that cannibalism is right! Does that make it right? A majority can be wrong. If a society sets the standards, those standards are subject to change with the whim and will of the majority. In one generation slavery may be right and abortion wrong, as in early nineteenth-century America; but in another generation, abortion is in and slavery is out, as today.

There are enough young people in any school or community who prefer to wait until marriage that the young person who wants to wait has plenty of company. Each person must decide where he or she wants to be in a given statistical analysis of current sexual mores and behavior.
-Proof of Love
A third argument suggests that sexual activity tests or provides proof of love. Supposedly, it symbolizes how much the other cares. One therefore exerts pressure on the more reluctant partner to demonstrate a certain level of care. Reluctant partners succumbing to this pressure often do so with an underlying hope that it will somehow cement the relationship and discourage the other partner from searching elsewhere for a less hesitant friend.

Any person who insists on making sex the ultimate proof of a genuine relationship isn't saying "I love you," but rather "I love it." True love concerns itself with the well-being of the other person and would not interpret sexual hesitation in such a selfish way. Furthermore, the person adopting this practice develops a pattern of demonstrating love by purely sexual responsiveness. Ultimately he or she enters marriage with something of a distortion as to what real intimacy means, to say nothing of having to deal with the memories of previous loves. Some behaviors are irreversible, and this process is like trying to unscramble an egg. Once it's done, it's done.

The broader perspective sees sex as an integral and important part of a meaningful relationship but not the totality of it.Remembering this will help any individual to make the right decision to refrain from sexual involvement if a potential partner puts on the pressure to make sex the test of a relationship.
Debate Round No. 2
Yvette

Pro

I thank my opponent for posting his argument. However, he has presented a series of unfounded assertions, straw man arguments, religious arguments, and what I think is a red herring. He has failed to even address my own arguments. I would like to reiterate something my opponent missed in my last argument. Consider the following scenario: A pair of virgins are in a monogamous, loving, sexual relationship, but are not married. With what in that does my opponent find fault?

RESPONSES
Family: While he presented this point under "why people get married", he presented arguments for sex after marriage--that children do better with married couples. Not only has my opponent failed to provide the research he claims exists, but he has also failed to give any reason why children have anything to do with pre-marital sex. Marriage does not mean children, and children before marriage does not mean single parent. As I pointed out in my last argument, couples can remain together without getting married.

Love: My opponent bases his assertion partly on Biblical and church teachings, both of which are irrelevant. He has not provided sources, either. Neither does his assertion really mean anything. None of his comments about sex and love exclude pre-marital sex. Sex does not suddenly contain love once a couple is legally bound. Furthermore my opponent admits masturbation isn't good enough--if you love someone, wouldn't you want them to be fulfilled sexually beyond simple masturbation? Why would you deprive someone you love?

"A maximum sexual relationship exists where mutual communication, understanding, affection, and trust have formed, and two people have lastingly committed themselves to each other in a permanent relationship. The more of these qualities that are present, the deeper the intimacy and the more meaningful the relationship. It becomes more valuable as time passes because it is one of a kind-- unique."

My opponent has provided no reasoning for why this cannot exist before marriage.

"To spread the intimacy around through a variety of sexual liaisons destroys the accumulated value of the previous relationship(s) and dilutes and scatters (in little doses to a number of people) what one has to give."

My opponent again provides no reasoning for his assertion. I have already asked in my last argument what reasoning exists for this belief, I can only assume none exists. Intimacy and sex are not finite resources.

"A real challenge faces young people today. Given the choice between hamburger at five o'clock or filet mignon at seven-thirty, are there any good reasons to forego the hamburger and wait for the filet?...Too many hamburgers ruin one's taste and appreciation for filet and tend to turn filet into hamburger as well!"

If we are going to use food metaphors, I'd like to point out that one has to taste a lot of wine to develop a taste for it. Similarly, you cannot have a good taste for or a good appreciation of something which you have never experienced.

Biological: Ignoring for a moment that my opponent continues to argue against straw men, the need for human interaction is biological (coming, as it does, from the brain) and there are in fact health problems which come from abstinence. This includes higher death rates among men, increased aggression and cruelty generally, and dyspareunia in women. Dyspareunia--that's painful sexual intercourse. Meaning, a woman who stays a virgin will find sexual intercourse generally more painful. This is distinct from simple "first-time" pain. The vaginal opening is narrowed and it is a medical condition. [1] [2]

Nature: "First, God has built into the natural world a mechanism for sexual release: nocturnal emissions, or orgasmic release during dreams." I reject my opponent's statement about what his god has done, they are unfounded and cannot be proven. My opponent below admits that masturbation is not as good as real sex. "Second, nature rejects human promiscuity, as the growing problem of sexually- transmitted diseases makes abundantly clear." This is ludicrous. First my opponent states his god is responsible, then he states it was nature. But nature is not an entity, either, it does not create anything. Sexually transmitted diseases are simply organisms which are existing just as anyone else, by getting energy and reproducing. They have evolved to do so by the best means, from traveling on snot particles to traveling on sperm particles. Projecting human moral judgments on micro-organisms makes as much sense as declaring what the trees think of our sexual activity. Nevermind that

Statistical: Another straw man argument.

Proof of love: Another straw man argument, but one with some merit. As I have pointed out above, sex has been proven to confer health benefits and relationship benefits, and it is superior to masturbation as my opponent admitted. Lack of sex also causes serious health problems. Why would you hurt someone you love and deny them health benefits and happiness? Finally, as mentioned before, if a couple trusts and loves each other enough for marriage, sex is not problematic.

My opponent provided no reasoning for why sex with someone you love would make sex reflexive.

Quote: Any person who insists on making sex the ultimate proof of a genuine relationship isn't saying "I love you," but rather "I love it."

Marriage is consummated by sex, is it not? Is that not a declaration of love and intimacy? Partners should not demand or insist on sex from their partners, I agree. But my opponent has no problem with this occurring once a legal document has been signed. In fact, marriage night consists of intense pressure to have sex, from the new spouse and the entire family.

"Ultimately he or she enters marriage with something of a distortion as to what real intimacy means, to say nothing of having to deal with the memories of previous loves."

My opponent provides no reasoning. And someone who has practiced abstinence enters marriage with NO idea what intimacy is, let alone real intimacy.

"The broader perspective sees sex as an integral and important part of a meaningful relationship but not the totality of it."

I agree completely. My opponent, however, for some reason believes that sex as an integral but not total part of a relationship can only exist once marriage has occurred. He has in this statement admitted that sex is part of but not all of a relationship yet has provided no reason for why this cannot occur outside of marriage. Furthermore, why should pre-marital relationships be denied the ability to be a real relationship by being denied sex? How can you decide on whether you want a lifelong, legal relationship with a person if you have not yet experienced a full, sexual one? Marriage is a legal contract that creates kinship, or family bonds. [3] Binding together families has little to do with love, and even the concept of marital love is not universal. Many of my opponent's arguments simply do not apply to much of the world.

CONCLUSION
My opponent presupposes that pre-marital sex is inherently different. Only legal and familial differences exist. I would like to reiterate my arguments in the last round, which are:

1. Sex provides health benefits.
2. Sex strengthens current relationships.
3. Sex improves sex in future relationships.
4. Cluelessness is risky and can weaken relationships.
5. A focus on abstinence encourages lying and marriage for sex.

My opponent has not addressed any of these points, and continues to act as if pre-marital sex equals promiscuity.

Sources:
1. http://www.forbes.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
michaelkeim

Con

I also thank my opponent for posting her rebutle. However, she said I " presented a series of unfounded assertions, straw man arguments, religious arguments, and what I think is a red herring. He has failed to even address my own arguments." However, the fact of the matter is all of my points are quite valid and to say that religion is quote "a red herring"or"irrelevant" is being quite ignorent considerring the majority of Americans (76%) identify themselves as Christians, mostly with Protestant denominations.[1] Non-Christian religions (including Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism), collectively make up about 4% to 5% of the adult population.[2]=85% of Americans are "religious."

[1]Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar (2009). "AMERICAN RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEY (ARIS) 2008" (PDF). Hartford, Connecticut, USA: Trinity College. http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu.... Retrieved 2009-04-01.
[2]Eck, Diana (2002). A New Religious America : the World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation. HarperOne. pp. 432. ISBN 978-0060621599.
So now that we have coverd that religion is deffinitly a HUGE aspect in "our" culture lets see what majority of "religion" has to say about pre-marital sex.
1)1 Corinthians 6:18-20 encourages us to "Run away from sexual sin. Every
other sin people do is outside their bodies, but those who sin sexually sin against their own bodies. You should know that your body is a temple for the Holy Spirit who is in you. You have received the Holy Spirit from God. So you do not belong to yourselves, because you were bought by God for a price. So honor God with your bodies." ...Obstain from fornication (pre-marital sex)----I think this says it all and it is pretty well know that "christians" don't believe in sex before marrige, so if you are a christian then you are holding a belife that pre-marital sex is wrong. (THATS 76% OF AMERICANS)
2)Judaism also believes in the same things via the ancesters of their religion wrote the books in the Bible.
3)Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism---Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are expected to refrain from all sexual activity,...The Hindu tradition of Brahmacharya places great emphasis on abstinence as a way of harnessing the energy of body and mind towards the goal of spiritual realization,...Islam also forbids intercourse outside of marriage.

Point 2 - You seem to be arguing the very point of marrige. Once again we find ourselves talking about a religous /tradition hence the Title of the debate(pre-MARITAL sex)
POINT 3) Since in our debate we are disscussing "pre-MARITAL sex" we are taking into count that the "person" having sex is going to get married so the issue of "MARRIGE" and what it is, is indeed very cruical. She talked about "Open Marriges" which are a propablitly but according to Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz (1983). American Couples: Money, Work, Sex, New York, NY: William Morrow and Company researchers have estimated that ONLY 1.7 percent so to base the other 98.3 % on these few marriges would be quite obserd.

POINT 4) The reason most people get married is to devote their love to only one person for the rest of their lives Hence the traditional VOW: Do you BRIDE'S/GOOMS NAME) take GROOM'S/BRIDES NAME to be your husband – to live together after God's ordinance – in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love him/her, comfort him/her, HONOR and KEEP him/her, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon him/her your heart's deepest devotion, forsaking all others, keep yourself ONLY unto him/her as long as you both shall live?

Ok so now with the "traditional vows" - Lets deal with the words "HONOR AND KEEP." How can you "honor" and "keep" someone by "Making love" to another? If your answer is no then how could EVER having sex before or after marrige help or be of ANY profit to a relationship once inside marrige? Answer= it couldn't. To really "honor" the one you are going to vow to "keep for better or worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon "their" your heart's DEEPEST devotion, FORSAKING ALL OTHERS...(let me say it again) FORSAKING ALL OTHERS" to help honor them you would save yourself for only them and keep yourself for only them. It also says "forsaking all others, keep yourself ONLY unto him/her as long as you both shall live?" IF your going to keep yourself all of sudden since your now married I think it would be better to have always kept yourself.

OK moving on back to the point on diseases:
Some venereal diseases have no symptoms and many couples discover many years later that they became infertile because of these diseases. Infertility experts estimate that 80% of today's infertility is due to venereal diseases contracted before they married.
The best and only method that guarantees 100% against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases is to wait for marriage to have sex and maintain fidelity in your marriage. UNAIDS estimates that 32.9 million people were living with HIV/AIDS worldwide as of the end of 2007, up from 29.5 million in 2001. The latest global HIV/AIDS estimates from UNAIDS/WHO reflect improved and expanded HIV surveillance, country data collection and methodologies, as well as an increased understanding of the natural course of the epidemic. As a result, there have been substantial revisions from previous estimates.

SOME FACTS ABOUT --ONLY--ONE SEXUALY TRANSMITTED DIEASE ===AIDS===
The Centers for Disease Control estimate that there have been over half a million AIDS deaths in the United States alone including over five thousand AIDS deaths of children under 15 years old.

AIDS is the leading cause of death for African Americans ages 25 to 44.

AIDS is the second leading cause of death for Latinos ages 25 to 44.

In 1999 women constituted 23% of all AIDS cases in the United States.

Women represent the fastest growing group of new HIV infections in the United States.

An estimated one in 13 people living with AIDS is over age fifty
and that over a quarter are unaware of their condition but can still spread the disease.

The Centers for Disease Control estimate that 15% of men infected with HIV were infected through heterosexual sex
including oral and vaginal sex.

In 2000 the Centers for Disease Control estimate that over 2.2 million people in the United States are HIV positive
and that 25% of those who are HIV positive are totally unaware of their condition but can still spread the disease.

========== AS FOR PREVENTION=========
The rate of condom failure has been rated at between 2% and 35%.

A Boston Globe article (June 23, 2003) put the rate of condom failure to prevent HIV infection at 10 %

Take into mind that you can only tell if you have aids after 6-8 years and even then you might not have ANY simptons!!

DON'T RUN THE RISK WAIT UNTILL YOUR MARRIED AND STAY LOYAL ONCE YOUR MARRIED.
-you will be safer, happier, and set a good example for future generations

VOTE CON!!!
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mia_Iris 4 years ago
Mia_Iris
Con's arguments were weak.
Posted by ravenwaen 4 years ago
ravenwaen
Con didn't address a single point made by Pro, and turned to religious justification when practicality failed.
What's with all the AIDS stats dude? That was reminiscent of my health teacher trying to scare us into abstinence.
Posted by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
I've looked and I've looked, and I don't think Pro ever did engage any of my arguments period, only responses to my responses.
Posted by Dorb 4 years ago
Dorb
I didn't feel like Con ever really addressed Pro's argument that pre-marital sex is a way of ensuring sexual compatibility, and it was probably because this was Con's strongest argument (imo). The problems that can result if a couple gets married and then finds out they aren't sexually compatible can be far more dangerous psychologically and physically than just having pre-marital sex in the first place.
Posted by michaelkeim 4 years ago
michaelkeim
OH and really wikipedia is not a good source to cite from. Its good for getting info but its not good to use as a citation.
Posted by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
I forgot, I had posted the sources for my round 1 in comments on the last debate. I'll repost them here.

Sources:
1. http://www.webmd.com......
2. http://www.forbes.com......
3. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org......
Posted by Freeman 4 years ago
Freeman
Pro's second round was flawless. Every important point was hit upon. And every argument from [Con] was thoroughly picked apart.
Posted by Freeman 4 years ago
Freeman
Pro's second round was flawless. Every important point was hit upon. And every argument from Pro was thoroughly picked apart.
Posted by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
For some reason it cut me off again, even though I checked that I wasn't going over the limit. Weird.

Here's the end:

Sex is a natural biological need. It is enjoyable, it promotes good health and intimacy, as well as trust and affection. Practiced safely, any situational risks are low and are vastly outweighed by the benefits.
Posted by michaelkeim 4 years ago
michaelkeim
Thank you for having this debate again. This time I will have enough time. Once again thanks.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Comrade_Ulyanov 4 years ago
Comrade_Ulyanov
YvettemichaelkeimTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 4 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
YvettemichaelkeimTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by chicarica89 4 years ago
chicarica89
YvettemichaelkeimTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Rhetorical-Disaster 4 years ago
Rhetorical-Disaster
YvettemichaelkeimTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by innomen 4 years ago
innomen
YvettemichaelkeimTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by LLAMA 4 years ago
LLAMA
YvettemichaelkeimTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
YvettemichaelkeimTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 4 years ago
ravenwaen
YvettemichaelkeimTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by lovelife 4 years ago
lovelife
YvettemichaelkeimTied
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 
Vote Placed by Dorb 4 years ago
Dorb
YvettemichaelkeimTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40