The Instigator
SPF
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Premarital Sex is immoral

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,744 times Debate No: 17548
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

SPF

Con

I would like to have a debate on the morality of premarital sex. First, the definitions.
premarital = before marriage.
sex = Sexual union between a male and female involving either insertion of the penis into the vagina or genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.
morality = right or wrong.

Now, although I don't believe there is anything moraly wrong with gay or lesbian sex, for the sake of argument this will be about straight sex. Furthermore this does not include extramarital sex, or incest.
I will be arguing that premarital sex is morally neutral; that it is neither good or bad.
I want this to be a good thorough debate, so please put every effort into proving your belief in the immorality of premarital sex correct. Even though I haven't, feel free to post your arguments in round 1 - because I want to start this debate ASAP.
jm_notguilty

Pro

Just for the record, homosexual intercourse falls under premarital if premarital is meant to be sexual intercourse engaged in by persons who are unmarried.

I will be basing my first arguments using Religion as my source. As a Catholic, I am fully aware that it teaches fornication as a carnal union between two persons who are unmarried, and it's opposite to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality. It's also worse when there is corruption of the young. The Christian church defines this as a sin, which is against God. In the old Testament, it's considered a property crime.

Next, is that it can lessen the danger to people. People in poverty, who cannot afford sexual education and contraception, like women who are most likely to have unwanted pregnancies. Then come abortions, that can be endanger the woman and the baby. If the woman has a mental problem and keeps giving birth to children after premarital sex can cause other problems, financial ones. It can also avoid having AIDS and other sex diseases (for people who don't use contraceptives) while having intercourse. It can also lessen the dangers teenagers, since teens who have premarital sex are likely to do drugs, break the law and commit more offenses to society as a result.

That's all for now, good luck to my opponent.



Debate Round No. 1
SPF

Con

First of all I would like to thank my opponent, jim_notguilty, for accepting my challenge to debate, and for posting his arguments quickly. Now, the next thing that I am going to do is to respond to his arguments.
"As a Catholic, I am fully aware that it teaches fornication as a carnal union between two persons who are unmarried..." You will notice that the debate is specifically about premarital sex. Many people consider premarital sex and fornication to allways be one and the same act. This is not allways the case. You see the word fornication comes form the latin word fornix, which translates "as a cellar used for prostitutes; a brothel." Furthermore, quoting the article,"the original Greek Scripture word for fornication is pronounced pornia, which is defined as "to have sexual intercourse delivering woman/wife to/upon man/husband during/under/for MONEY.[My caps lock.]" It means prostitution. http://www.the-goldenrule.name....
Now, what about two unmarried adults, consensually engaging in premarital sex? That isn't exactly the same thing as a guy and an exploited prostitute. I would concede that this is immoral because prostitutes don't really have a choice, they need the money, they are often being exploited. But even my opponent didn't mention sexual exploitation, he just misused the word fornicate. In his first round my opponent did not widen the grounds to prostitution, or sexual exploitation of any type. Therefore, I would argue, this debate is only about the immorality, or lack thereof, of consensual premarital sex.
He's going to have to use a different word than fornication in order prove that the bible prohibits all premarital sex.
"Next, is that it can lessen danger to people." What can lesson danger to people? My opponent needs to spell things out. Then he went into all the risks of engaging in premarital sex: STD's, AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, etc "(for people who don't use contraceptives)" his concession, not mine. And he's exactly right, I agree with him, those who don't wear condoms are at risk of having unwanted pregnancies, and catching bad diseases, and everything else. It is true that the spread of STD's and fatherless children, and all those things are ethical issues. But as he put it, these things happen to people who don't use contraceptives. So, as long as people remember to put on a little piece of rubber, these risks are mitigated. Now, it is true that these risks don't go away 100% of the time, but the risk fo pregnancy for example, is reduced to 2% if condoms are worn properly. http://www.babycenter.com...
So, if a condom is used properly, the risk goes down to 2%. That's tiny. Even if my opponent was going to go back and 'clarify,' his concession, (which he can't do), arguing the immorality of taking on such slim odds is silly. It would be like saying that it is immoral to risk the lives of your family when you take them on a car ride (and after they have taken the precaution of wearing seat belts.)
Now, as the oppostion, I don't have to prove that premarital sex is right, or moral, and I am arguing that consensual, premarital sex is morrally nuetral. Both religiously and practically speaking. The religious immorality has been proven wrong because the forbidden fruit if you will, fornication is really a word for using prostitutes. The practical immorality of risking certain bad consequences has been proven wrong, not in all cases, but in the vast majority of cases of safe sex. So the protected sexual act, between (for the sake of argument) a straight couple, that isn't brother and sister has not been proven immoral by my opponent. Let's see how he does with that in round 2.
Furthermore, while there is some health risk involved in safe sex, it is also something which is natural and which is, in many ways healthy. It relieves stress. It burns calories (it's obviously a workout...), and it even boosts the immune system. http://www.webmd.com...

I have to go soon, I've been rather busy, so I'll bring up more arguments in my next round. I'm Jewish, but I believe in evolution. I believe evolution was god's will, and we can have a debate about that some other time. But I do need to ask my opponent this. As a Catholic who believes in Creation, you believe God created man. Tell me this. If premarital sex is wrong, than why did god create us with sexual urges?Why did god make it fun for human's to have sex? Because God wanted to discourage it?
jm_notguilty

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response. First and foremost, I'd like to clarify that I accepted this debate not because I believe premarital sex is immoral, it's neutral I agree (off the record), I just like to debate on things, especially the ones I don't agree on. It really depends on the situation, I'll debate both sides if I have to. Yes, I'm Catholic, I believe in Creationism and Evolution, sounds crazy but it's true.

Now, my rebuttals:

"He's going to have to use a different word than fornication in order prove that the bible prohibits all premarital sex."

The definitions: Fornication is a term that typically refers to consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other, as Premarital sex is sexual intercourse engaged in by persons who are unmarried. Pretty close to me, that definition of Fornication is modern English, not your ancient meaning referring it to prostitution. But I'm not going to argue further semantics on this one unless my opponent wants to. Now, according to tCatechesis in the Catholic Church, premarital sex is prohibited, I quote: (1)
"Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young."
I would like to point out that prostitution can be consensual depending on the prostitute. And yes, prostitution immoral, thanks for pointing it out, religiously speaking. My opponent asked what can lessen the danger to people, I have already stated some examples, which is typed eventually, the illness people can get without contraceptives in premarital sex. As slim odds as it is, it's still admissable to this debate. My opponent definitely needs to clarify his argument that he doesn't have to prove anyt religiously or practically.



This is one of my first debates in DDO, just wanna point out. Good luck to my opponent.

(1)- http://www.usccb.org...
Debate Round No. 2
SPF

Con

SPF forfeited this round.
jm_notguilty

Pro

Since my opponent has forfeited the round, I still stand by my arguments that Religion makes premarital sex immoral, and that of a slim argument of mine that premarital sex without a condom can cause bad things.

Good luck again to my opponent for R3 for his rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3
SPF

Con

SPF forfeited this round.
jm_notguilty

Pro

Unfornunately, my opponent has forfeited the last two rounds, he has failed to refute some of my arguments as I said in R2, he made some comments in his arguments, he states that premarital sex neutral, but did not give more evidence to prove it. He states that religiously speaking, it is wrong due to a word that he falsely defined, which is insufficient.

So, I urge the voters vote pro, thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by freedomsquared 5 years ago
freedomsquared
I like how you worded things better this time.
Posted by Pacey5714 5 years ago
Pacey5714
I would have accepted until I realized you had taken the Con position..
Posted by freedomsquared 5 years ago
freedomsquared
Do you assume that there is only one type of morality?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
SPFjm_notguiltyTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
ApostateAbe
SPFjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit