The Instigator
Jillianl
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Cliff.Stamp
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

Premarital sex CAN be engaged in and not have any negative consequences

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 2/24/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,394 times Debate No: 14915
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

Jillianl

Pro

While I understand that in many cases premarital sex can lead to some additional problems within a relationship, I contend that it CAN have either no negative affect on the relationship or even a positive affect on the relationship.

To make blanket statements that premarital sex is "bad" in all cases is ignorant of the reality that many people DO have permarital sex and go on to have happy successful relationships regardless. Yet, the official position of many churches is that premarital sex is patently bad in all cases and some are denied marriage into the church if it is known that they had premarital sex. I challenge this position as ignorant.

Anyone up for debate?
Cliff.Stamp

Con

"Premarital sex CAN be engaged in and not have any negative consequences"

To clarify, a few definitions :

Can : Used to indicate possibility or probability[1]

Risk : The possibility of suffering harm or loss [2]

I would therefore make two arguments to negate the resolution :

1) For Pro to affirm the resolution that it is possible to engage in premarital sex without negative consequences Pro must prove that no God exists which condemns such an act as punishable with a negative consequence. As if such a God does exist, the resolution is obviously negated as it is then impossible to have premarital sex without negative consequences.

2) Using the above two definitions the resolution argues that one could engage in premarital sec without risk, this obviously impossible as there will always be risks no matter how many precautions are taken as risks can never be eliminated. [3,4,5]

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[3]http://www.womenshealthmatters.ca...

[4] http://www.4parents.gov...

[5] http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
Jillianl

Pro

" Pro must prove that no God exists which condemns such an act as punishable with a negative consequence."

The bible admonishes people to be sexually pure and to abstain from sexual immorality, which some translations define as premarital sex, but the consequences are not described for such actions. I think the only consequence that they really had knowledge of back then was the possibility of pregnancy and that is not a guarantee. In today's world, with the help of contraception, this consequence is easily avoided and the social stigma attached to premarital sex is not so prevalent today either, so both possible consequences for premarital sex in the Bible are not consequences experienced today (except for occasionally). Since I'm arguing that permarital sex can be done without any real consequences, this is a moot argument.

There is one other place that talks about a situation of premarital sex.
Exodus 22:16-17 ESV / 2 helpful votes
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.

In this text, the consequence is once again, possible pregnancy and also the "ruining" of a virgin, considered as a loss of goods for the father of the virgin. Clearly, women are no longer property, so there is no "loss of value" when a woman loses her virginity. In Bible times, the consequence for deflowering a virgin was that the male was to marry her, save her from "disgrace" and pay her father for her hand in marriage. No longer do we impose such regulations on men who deflower women. Women are no longer disgraced by such an act and now have full choice about whether they want to continue a relationship with their sexual partner of choice or not. So once again, the consequences described in the Bible no longer apply today so that Bible is not a good judge of whether or not permarital sex has and must always have negative consequences.

"2) Using the above two definitions the resolution argues that one could engage in premarital sec without risk, this obviously impossible as there will always be risks no matter how many precautions are taken as risks can never be eliminated. [3,4,5]"

My argument does not address whether or not there is risk. I would agree though and say that there is risk, because almost anything we do (if not everything) has some sort of risk. But, this was not my argument. My argument was that premarital sex (despite risk) does not result in any negative consequences every time.

My thinking is that if premarital sex is intentional, between consenting adults and with the necessary precautions, will have much less chances of negative consequences, if not being able to avoid any. If it was in a committed and loving relationship, then even less consequences are usually experienced.

I realize my argument is not very flexible and actually a little facetious, but I have no need to deny risk or to deny the existence of God in order to show that premarital sex can be engaged in without negative consequences.
Cliff.Stamp

Con

"Since I'm arguing that permarital sex can be done without any real consequences, this is a moot argument."

While the argument is appreciated this is not the statement of the resolution and "real consequences" begs the question as it implies an assumption that theism which forbids premarital sex is false. As both Pro and the Instigator, the burden of proof is on you to provide an argument for the assertion, it can not simply be assumed false that consequences which are dependent on theism to be "not real".

Note in addition it is not sufficient (though this itself is not trivial) to prove that either the Christian God does not exist, or does not hold premarital sex to be a sin. In order to support the resolution it has to be shown that no God exists who takes a negative view of premarital sex and there are various Gods who hold a more radical view of sex outside of marriage than the Christian God such as the Muslim diety. Again, if these Gods exist, it is not possible to have such sexual relations without negative consequences.

"So once again, the consequences described in the Bible no longer apply today so that Bible is not a good judge of whether or not permarital sex has and must always have negative consequences."

Note there is a significant contention, even among religious scholors as to the relevance of testament law and the interpretation of scripture, but again the resolution does not assert that the Christian Religion has an out dated view of premarital sex or that it should be interpreted as a positive or neutral view of premarital sex, which could be contested, but that is not the issue at hand.

"My argument does not address whether or not there is risk."

It clearly does using the definitions noted in the above and the wording of the resulution, by definition, as noted, risk is the possibility of a negative consequence, and can by definition is the possibility of.
Debate Round No. 2
Jillianl

Pro

I had no wish to bring in Theism, you did. You pulled religion into this, so I responded in kind.

My resolution in NO way actually addresses the issue of premarital sex being a sin. It is irrelevant. The real issue is whether the act has negative consequences regardless of circumstance or if the act can be engaged in without negative consequences. I have no idea why you brought God into this.

Since you did not engage any of my arguments but instead nitpicked on semantics, I refuse to further address the issue of God in this debate. I did not intend to address God and I have no idea why you insist that we must prove or disprove God for the purposes of this debate.

"Again, if these Gods exist, it is not possible to have such sexual relations without negative consequences." Unless of course, you don't give a damn about which God condemns or doesn't condemn premarital sex and would rather address the logicity of the effects of sex without involving a supernatural being somewhere.

""My argument does not address whether or not there is risk."
It clearly does using the definitions noted in the above and the wording of the resulution, by definition, as noted, risk is the possibility of a negative consequence, and can by definition is the possibility of."

May I remind you that YOU provided the definition of risk, yet neglected to explain how "risk" was even relevant to the resolution/statement. You cannot assert that "risk" is relevant because you yourself says so. Of course risk is the possibility of a negative consequence, but I have no interest in debating the POSSIBILITY of consequences. I'm interested in the ACTUAL RESULTING consequences. Isn't that more important anyway?

This debate is quickly spirally into random directions.

Conclusion:

My opponent has not actually identified ANY negative consequences that are inherent in premarital sex that cannot be avoided in at least some situations. Therefore, the original statement stands.

I have known many who have engaged in premarital sex without experiencing any negative consequences (emotional damage, pregnancy, causing a rift in the relationships, relationship ends, etc.) and who have even experienced positive consequences (increased intimacy, more open and honest relationship, etc.). Many people assert that premarital sex always has negative consequences and then neglect to show how. I have still yet to see anyone show how . . .

Premarital sex CAN be engaged in and not have any negative consequences
Cliff.Stamp

Con

"I had no wish to bring in Theism, you did. You pulled religion into this, so I responded in kind."

Pro, in the opening post noted "Yet, the official position of many churches ..." now yet appears to forget the opening, and proceed to complain about an argument for no other reason than it can not be refuted.

"My resolution in NO way actually addresses the issue of premarital sex being a sin. It is irrelevant. The real issue is whether the act has negative consequences regardless of circumstance or if the act can be engaged in without negative consequences. I have no idea why you brought God into this."

To repeat, if a God exists which judges premarital sex to be sin, and further prescribes a punishment - then this obviously fits any definition of negative consequence. Hence Pro has the burden of proof to show no such God exists, Pro made no attempt even to achieve said goal - the resolution is negated.

"Unless of course, you don't give a damn about which God condemns or doesn't condemn premarital sex and would rather address the logicity of the effects of sex without involving a supernatural being somewhere."

The the resolution should have been worded as such and Pro should never have introduced Religion into the argument.

"I have no interest in debating the POSSIBILITY of consequences."

The resolution clearly states, using the definition of can and risk, as noted clearly in the above - if there is any risk then the resolution fails. In the opening Pro never provided any definitions, not objected to the definitions which are straight from a dictionary - and using such definitions the resolution is negated as noted.

"I have known many who have engaged in premarital sex ..."

This is an assertion with no warrant, does Pro really claim to full know the influence of said act on the individuals and those around them with 100% confidence that there was no possibility (definition of can) of negative consequence both in the present and in the future. That is a bold statement, and further this is to be accepted simply because of what exactly - it is the opinion of Pro?

Pro has made no argument to support the resolution, has introduced an argument (Religion), then forgot it was introduced and complained when Con addressed it, further Pro could not refute either objection and ended with an assertion without warrant. The resolution is negated.

This debate is dedicated to the divine croco-duck (peace be upon him), prophet of the great raptor Jesus, may the most blessed scaly one deliver us all from temptation, in the name of our father, his son and Casper the friendly Ghost.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by InsertFakeNameHere 3 years ago
InsertFakeNameHere
You'd have to ask every single person who ever had premarital sex this question to find the answer! If everything done during the course of the sexual encounter were positively beneficial in every way to each individual, maybe. But even then you can't predict possible future regret. The more people you have sex with, the less capable you are of bonding with a partner because of the oxytocin factor. These kind of questions are ridiculous.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"It seems almost abusive as he does not fully clarify it until later on in the debate."

It seemed fairly clear to me, but then again I wrote it so it should be, commentary appreciated.

You posted that you wanted clarification on a RFD on one of your debates, can you post the link so I can review it. I would have send you a PM or wall message but you have that option turned off.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
I have to would vote for Cliff here, Pro had good arguments and he even covered Con's attacks, but I feel as though his defenses miss the Point Con is actually trying to make. That you cannot prove that premarital can have no negative consequences, because God would have to come into play and cannot prove God either true or false.

As for the Con, my main critique would be his first argument in his constructive. It seems almost abusive as he does not fully clarify it until later on in the debate.

(also I would vote, but I'm not registered)
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Clearly, the majority realize that premarital sex itself is not inherently evil . . ."

The vast majority are Muslim and Christian, so they obviously do not.
Posted by Jillianl 6 years ago
Jillianl
My topic mainly addresses those who are stauchly religious who make blanket statements that I hear all the time that permarital sex is wrong in any case and then go on to try and say how it hurts or damages somebody.

It isn't semantically correct, but there are those who would try anyway, I think. Clearly, the majority realize that premarital sex itself is not inherently evil . . .
Posted by Suitecake 6 years ago
Suitecake
Yeah. If you do find an opponent for this, it will be a cakewalk. Logical possibility is perhaps the weakest claim.

It's like William Lane Craig's arguments that a loving God and an eternal hell CAN co-exist; that it is possible; that the two concepts are not a direct logical contradiction. Not very impressive, all things considered.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
The word "CAN" pretty much eliminates exception arguments. One would have to present a general case, and I can't think of one.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
although, not many people are going to take a debate against a "CAN," since all you need to do is show one single hypothetical situation where it does no harm, even if 99.99999% of cases do harm and you win.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
oh, I want to semantic the sh!t out of this.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
JillianlCliff.StampTied
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 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: I have no idea why there are not clear votes for Con. A religious reprisal from a God is indeed a negative consequence, whether perceived real or not by any participating member of the union. Cliff Got it in one. I have given 7 points to counter the previous vote bomb, but either way Cliff earned everyone of them.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
JillianlCliff.StampTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con stuck to the position that pro needed to disprove every fairy tale that man has come up with, when it was in fact con who suggested that there could be a god who disapproves. It was therefore up to con to prove there was a god.
Vote Placed by reddj2 5 years ago
reddj2
JillianlCliff.StampTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: " contend that it CAN have either no negative affect on the relationship or even a positive affect on the relationship."-con didnt disprove it because the relationship is over when you DIE, "Till death do you part"
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
JillianlCliff.StampTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm a bit disappointed at Con here; I feel like there's a lot more they could have done with this case. I feel they didn't hit on the right areas; did they really actually debate the topic quite right. the resolution asks if it's possible, whereas the Con argues that it won't always have a desirable outcome.
Vote Placed by Robikan 5 years ago
Robikan
JillianlCliff.StampTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side provided very solid arguments or sources, but Pro at least stayed on topic and presented their argument more clearly.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
JillianlCliff.StampTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: We take risks every single day. AS long as both people consent to that risk, and it doesn't infringe on another rights, then it should be left to the parties involved. Both debaters made great arguments, However I'm not so sure the god argument went anywhere and found it irrelevant. Both debaters were stuctured well, though.