The Instigator
Guaranteed
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Yvette
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points

Premarital sex

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,715 times Debate No: 12434
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (66)
Votes (9)

 

Guaranteed

Con

This is my first proposed debate and I respectfully ask that you would be gracious to me as I lay down what I believe to be a sound argument.

I would like to make an argument against premarital sex. However, because secular research in the main does not assess the benefits of morality I will be forced to use other tools such as philosophical reasoning and also religious arguments to back up my premise, but not excluding other material.

I hope that you will respect that regardless of belief we need common ground and agreement. I hope you will accept the premise that a religious argument is at least equally as valid as a secular humanistic premise and can be debated on an equal footing, at the very least from a reference point.

I also consider that testimony is also a valid research tool, together with historic references. The legal system also values and accepts these forms of information. Human personality in the sense of emotions, psychology, health and reasoning is also a valid in the debate about sex as it is a central part of the sex itself.

I hope you will agree to these parameters in order to have a worthwhile debate.

As I have just now discovered that the burden of proof is upon me I will attempt to show evidence and present my argument as to why premarital sex causes harm in the long run.

Sex - In human beings is unlike sexual activity between animals. It is more than biology, it is more than hormones, it is more than pleasure, it is more than instinct. Whilst many studies have been done comparing the sexual activities of animals with people in order to undermine moral standing, such as homosexuality, cannibalism, prostitution and promiscuity as in;

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I hope to show that the differences between animals and humans are paramount to highlight the dangers of premarital sex and/or promiscuity.

Animals do not usually kill themselves due to failed relationships/promiscuity. But there is evidence that teenage girls who have premarital sex are twice more likely to commit suicide than girls who practice abstinence - "Point of View" Dec 10, 2004

Teenage boys who have sex are seven times more likely to commit suicide than boys who are sexually abstinent - ibid

A frequent result of promiscuity or premarital sex is abortion. Girls who have abortions are six times more likely to commit suicide compared to those who do not have an abortion.

The National Post 2007 reports 25% of girls 15-25 years of age have venereal warts (HPV). Transmission is not prevented by condoms. It is also a pre-cursor to cervical cancer. HPV is incurable. Studies have shown that the increase of cervical cancer is linked to multiple sexual partners and additionally increases depending on the age of the girl/woman. The younger the girl/woman the higher the risk.

As we can see although people who promote promiscuity say that sex increases health, often research has been used inappropriately. Many untrained people have not taken into consideration the spiritual and emotional difficulties that arise from premarital sex. The definition of health is considered to be holistic and covers spiritual, emotional, relational, social and psychological aspects of a person. Several research papers have indicated that people live longer, are happier and maintain health more appropriately in marriage rather than multiple partners, citation below.

Studies show that women are have the following benefits because of healthy marriage:
More satisfying relationship
Emotionally healthier
Wealthier
Less likely to be victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or other violent crimes
Less likely to attempt or commit suicide
Decrease risk of drug and alcohol abuse
Less likely to contract STD's
Less likely to remain or end up in poverty
Have better relationships with their children
Physically healthier

Studies show that men have the following benefits because of a healthy marriage:
Live longer
Physically healthier
Wealthier
Increase in the stability of employment
Higher wages
Emotionally healthier
Decrease risk of drug and alcohol abuse
Have better relationships with their children
More satisfying sexual relationship
Less likely to commit violent crimes
Less likely to contract STD's
Less likely to attempt or commit suicide

http://www.familydynamics.net...

Whilst the benefits of a healthy marriage do not directly oppose premarital sex. There is evidence to show that premarital sex reduces the chance of a successful marriage compared to abstinence. Even long term co-habiting does not have the same benefits as in marriage, such as longer life, more sex and better family relations. Premarital sex harms those who wish to get married later, and increases the chance of divorce.

http://www.psychpage.com...
http://www.laughyourway.com...
Yvette

Pro

INTRODUCTION
My opponent's resolution: pre-marital sex causes harm in the long run. We must stick to harm caused to the individuals performing pre-marital sex, as harm can be extended infinitely.

My opponent argues against promiscuity, which can occur regardless of whether a marriage contract has been signed. I ask CON: a pair of adult virgins are in a monogamous, loving, sexual relationship, are infertile, but are not married. With what in that does my opponent find fault? Unless he can find some long-term harm here, he cannot even begin to prove his argument. Situational claims don't apply. This is like saying A + B is bad, therefor A is bad.

PREMISES
I hold my opponent to standards of reasonable debate.

Research looks at evidence and gives us the information we need to make choices, if it comes with a moral judgment then it is biased research. I fail to see how my opponent is ‘forced' to use philosophy and religious arguments, except if there is no other reasoning which supports his cause. He admits he can use other material to make his case. I expect him to do so.

I accept REASONING so long as it is not abstract and shows it is not simply immoral but causes harm to those performing pre-marital sex. I will NOT accept religious arguments, for these reasons: They are handed-down morals from a being of which there is no evidence, the reasoning for these morals never provided. Whether the action is immoral does not prove long-term harm to the couple. Scripture is subject to interpretation and does not apply to people who do not accept it. "I am right because the Bible says I am" is not a logical argument. Finally, the vast majority of people are NOT Christian. [2] Four and a half billion people are not Christian, compared to two billion people who are. Many have no religion at all, many others simply ignore their scripture.

Testimony: So long as it is trustworthy, non-anecdotal, unbiased testimony I see no reason to automatically write it off. It must be evidence of a larger problem with pre-marital sex and NOT simply one situation. Expert testimony is one expert telling the court what the evidence says about the problem at large. Witness testimony only applies to one situation and so for the purposes of a debate about more than one situation is useless.

My opponent uses law as a standard for what should be accepted as evidence, as will I. American law does not accept Biblical or philosophical arguments.

PRO'S SOURCES
None of my CON's sources are valid: http://goo.gl...

RESPONSES
Re: Human sex: Sex is consensual, face-to-face, and used for both pleasure and social bonding in bonobo chimps, our closest relative.[1]

"Whilst many studies have been done comparing the sexual activities of animals with people in order to undermine moral standing...I hope to show that the differences between animals and humans are paramount to highlight the dangers of premarital sex and/or promiscuity."

It's silly to think that research is there just to undermine a moral system. I look forward to my opponent's attempt, and suggest he keep to our closest relatives, primates, as any other contrasts would be difficult to take seriously.

Teen sex: My opponent provides questionable statistics regarding TEEN SEX only. Why should a situational problem should be applied to pre-marital sex as a whole? Again, A + B is bad does not make A bad.

"A frequent result of promiscuity or premarital sex is abortion." It is a result of promiscuity, not pre-marital sex. Pre-marital sex is not automatically promiscuous.

DISEASE
Sex is only risky IF there is promiscuity AND unsafe sex, BOTH of which can happen while a couple is married. My opponent says a condom is not enough protection from STDs, a legal document is even worse protection!

Marriage may be more of a risk. It creates a false sense of security, as evident in my last opponent who could not get it into his head that marriage is not a condom. Cheating occurs in 30 to 60 percent of American marriages alone. In most cases it is not discovered.[3]

Now, combine such high rates of infidelity, extramarital promiscuity, and the lack of condom use in married couples. Married couples will assume they don't need safe sex, which puts the innocent party at risk. Marriage does NOT protect you from STDs. No matter how many times my opponent shows STDs to be a real problem, this fact will not go away. My opponent needs to prove that safe sex is more effective within a marriage.

MY ARGUMENT
This debate is a response to my earlier debate. Having spent space debunking CON's sources, I will link to my earlier argument (sources are in the comments) and summarize it.[7]

1. Health benefits.
2. Strengthens current relationships.
3. Improves sex in future relationships.
4. Cluelessness is risky and can weaken relationships.
5. A focus on abstinence encourages lying and marriage for sex.
6. Abstinence causes health problems.

SOURCES: See Comments.
Debate Round No. 1
Guaranteed

Con

I disagree with my opponent's refusal to accept my sources because an organisation has a political stance or religious affiliation. In research it is important to establish self-interest of organisations or groups that would carry out studies as the data collected is not considered as reliable as independent studies. However, there are some cases where this does not apply. It is clear that the subject we are dealing with effects the whole of humanity, especially those who do or plan to engage in sexual activity within their lifetime. So I would argue that all parties and sources of information would always have some kind of bias regardless of how impartial they attempted to be. Although I understand and agree to a point, I consider that all sources are biased and we should still examine information provided.
Research indicating a moral judgement is not automatically biased. Science is by nature investigative. The word science had become a word that people and society assume means accuracy and truth. Now, whilst science is supposed to be the pursuit of accuracy and truth, there are many aspects of science that is developing which means mistakes, and various opinions which mean error. Ideally science should be impartial but in practice it is heavily influenced by politics, multi-national organisations, diverse agendas and bias. Science itself is generally based on theoretical assumptions which are then tested. Science is not always exact, and itself includes philosophy usually assumptions made by scientists or research teams in pursuit of evidence.
Morality is not merely what is right or wrong but an attempt to protect self and society from harm. Morality is also about preventing corruption of self and society, not merely spiritually but also relationally, physically, emotionally and psychologically. Morality is not exclusive to Christianity and morality plays a huge part in societies around the world.
Teenage sex issues are valid in discussing pre-marital sex. Whilst I agree with my opponent that pre-marital sex is not technically the same as promiscuity, usually promiscuity is pre-martial unless this is done within marriage and then it becomes adultery.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
As expressed earlier I do not agree that pre-marital sex has health benefits based on WHO definition. Neither does it strengthen relationship but rather leads to expectations of commitment and a desire of the deepening of relationships in the majority of cases. I believe this can only safely be achieved within a healthy marriage. Sex is not merely about pleasure but about bonding and a spiritual connection, personality is shared along with memories. These memories effect future relationships and can have a negative result when deeper intimacy is developing. Abstinence can be extremely beneficial. This can be seen in the tradition of certain sports like boxing, martial arts and soccer where abstinence improves performance and effectiveness. Abstinence can also increase concentration and stamina and is used frequently today throughout the world. But I do agree that forced abstinence can cause health problems, dishonesty and should only be a personal choice.
Sunday Times (2004) suggests that sexual promiscuity amongst young men could be the cause of prostate cancer later on in life. Earlier reports had made a similar conclusion in regards to the sexual activity of young women. Some would argue that promiscuity is different to pre-marital sex but although there are the relatively rare occasions where couples have exclusively monogamous pre-marital sex, the vast majority are promiscuous and therefore these two factors can frequently be linked. In a separate study on a different continent it was also concluded that promiscuity could have played an important role in vastly increasing the chances of STD's and cancer, Medical News Today (2004), The News Today (2009).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
http://www.thenewstoday.info...
It is also clear that pre-marital sex, especially with multiple partners have an effect of the psychological well-being of individuals in later life, Suite 101 (2010). Nine out of ten Americans admit to pre-marital sex, Suite 101 (2008), which has a devastating effect on the success of marriage, Counselling Solutions (2009). People who argue against marriage often forget that pre-marital sex can devastate newly formed marriages and increase the chance of later problems such as in-ability to relate, guilt, dissatisfaction, adultery, emotional and psychological damage and even the breakup of marriage.
http://dating-advice.suite101.com...
http://teen-sexuality.suite101.com...
http://www.competent...
Yvette

Pro

INTRO
My opponent again mistakes promiscuity for pre-marital sex, provides a series of worthless sources which are all biased and anecdotal and offer no actual or relevant statistics, claims many things without providing any evidence at all, AND has not refuted my arguments in favor of pre-marital sex.

Again: A pair of adult virgins enter into a monogamous, loving, sexual relationship, but are not married. With what in that does my opponent find fault? Where is the long-term harm caused to the couple?

PRO'S SOURCES
Some bias is inevitable, but over-arching, previous bias in a source tied to a group, philosophy, and worldview AND is attempting to promote that group, philosophy and worldview is unacceptable in reasoned debate.

TEEN SEX
Teen sex is often inherently pre-marital because teens are too young to get married, but this does not make pre-marital sex a teen sex issue. Again: A + B may be bad, but that does not make A bad!

PROMISCUITY
"Usually promiscuity is pre-martial unless this is done within marriage and then it becomes adultery." It becomes adultery + promiscuity as opposed to changing from promiscuity to adultery. I see no reason to believe that promiscuity is usually pre-marital let alone inherently pre-marital. I refer you to my statistics on extramarital sex.

RESPONSES
"I do not agree that pre-marital sex has health benefits based on WHO definition. Neither does it strengthen relationship but rather leads to expectations of commitment and a desire of the deepening of relationships in the majority of cases. I believe this can only safely be achieved within a healthy marriage."

Evidence?

"Sex is not merely about pleasure but about bonding and a spiritual connection, personality is shared along with memories."

Bonding, yes, as I have shown it creates bonding. Spiritual connection? Prove the existence of a spiritual aspect.

"These memories effect future relationships and can have a negative result when deeper intimacy is developing."

Evidence? Again, this is a promiscuity issue. The same problem can arise, even more so, in after-marriage promiscuity.

"Abstinence can be extremely beneficial. This can be seen in the tradition of certain sports like boxing, martial arts and soccer where abstinence improves performance and effectiveness."

Evidence? This abstinence also applies to MARITAL sex. Benefits possibly derived from abstinence apply to a very tiny amount of the population, and even if they applied to the population at large that does NOT make pre-marital sex HARMFUL, only possibly less beneficial.

"But I do agree that forced abstinence can cause health problems, dishonesty and should only be a personal choice."

Which makes avoiding pre-marital sex harmful.

"Promiscuity amongst young men could be the cause of prostate cancer later on in life. Earlier reports had made a similar conclusion in regards to the sexual activity of young women...In a separate study on a different continent it was also concluded that promiscuity could have played an important role in vastly increasing the chances of STD's and cancer..."

Pre-marital sex is not promiscuity.

"Although there are the relatively rare occasions where couples have exclusively monogamous pre-marital sex, the vast majority are promiscuous and therefore these two factors can frequently be linked."

Evidence?

Promiscuous means: "characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis." [1] It is not having one partner for a year and another partner for another year, that is monogamy. Monogamy is NOT having one partner your entire life.

"Pre-marital sex, especially with multiple partners have an effect of the psychological well-being of individuals in later life, Suite 101 (2010)."

The source itself is, one, not authoritative, and is written by a social conservative. [2] The article is about teen sex only and its later implications, and is a collection of anecdotes. Even it's sources are anecdotal and very biased. [3] [4]

"[Pre-marital sex] has a devastating effect on the success of marriage, Counselling Solutions (2009)." Counselling Solutions is a Christian counseling organization. Now let's look at the article, which required some searching (the link didn't work, but there was only one 2009 article on the subject): http://goo.gl...

The article is fully anecdotal, religious, and doesn't give ANY evidence for its claims. My opponent makes a serious claim based on a source which just tells a story.

"People who argue against marriage often forget that pre-marital sex can devastate newly formed marriages and increase the chance of later problems such as in-ability to relate, guilt, dissatisfaction, adultery, emotional and psychological damage and even the breakup of marriage."

Evidence please!

SOURCES: See Comments.
Debate Round No. 2
Guaranteed

Con

Before I start, I would like to thank Yvette for her understanding as I come to grips with "debates.com"

From an academic perspective at University level within the UK, citing sources from political, religious or other information sources is acceptable. Whether this is different between countries is debatable. Although different fields of expertise prefer to utilise sources familiar to the specific professional base, research community and the like when issues have not been studied adequately then providing information from outside and even contaminated sources although not ideal is often used to start a trend of study.

There have been numerous studies by religious organisations which have studied the effect of pre-marital sex, promiscuity and various other issues. Secular humanistic organisations have also conducted studies in these area's of study. The problem that we have is that definitions are not agreed upon, information is not accepted and it even appears at times that there is open hostility towards each party. I believe this hostility is based around issues such as the existence of God, lifestyle choice and morality and not merely on the facts presented.

I wanted to debate about pre-martial sex and why I thought it was unhealthy, destructive and contributed to emotional issues in future partnership. Pre-martial sex can be defined as sexual intercourse between two people of the opposite sex outside of marriage, Articles Base (2010). Sexual promiscuity is often although not exclusively outside of marriage and therefore can be linked, but this has been disregarded by my opponent. I therefore used research that included teenage pre-marital sex and promiscuity, the problems it causes, the increase emotional damage and even the increased suicide risk because of this lifestyle, but these have been disregarded as being irrelevant by opponent as well. It was argued by "Pro" that teenage sexuality cannot be included because they are too young to get married but the studies mostly included ages up to 25 years even though it was dubbed "Teenage", so the counter argument is flawed.

Studies have shown that pre-martial sexual activity is 35 times more likely in an individual if they have been abused. But if an individual has a good relationship with their parents then the emergence of early sexual activity is is delayed, Pubmed (2009). Arguments that pre-marital sex is beneficial as it improves sexual relationship within marriage has not been established but studies by Pubmed (2009a), show that premarital counselling is of great benefit and increases sexual satisfaction. It should be noted that studies dramatically show that those who engage in pre-martial sex are 60 percent more likely to divorce than those who do not have pre-martial sex, guilt and emotional issues are evident and even the "wrong person" can be married through the confusion of sexual closeness compared to relational compatibility, Boundless (1998).

Couples who live together are also within the category of premarital sex. Those who live together reduce their changes of having a happy marriage later on if they are inappropriately prepared and not counselled before hand, Game Theory (2002).

In regards to the spiritual element of sex, my opponent wanted proof of spirituality, so I have included a example link to the World Health Organisation which shows not only do they acknowledge spirituality but also attempt to incorporate it within healthcare, WHO (2010). This is a worldwide practice and not limited to a particular continent. It is also clear that religion and spirituality play a huge part in sexual activity, Pubmed (2009b) and female pre-marital sexual activity is reduced. The discussion asking whether religious rhetoric is beneficial in protecting individuals or causes harm is not covered within this debate, Grace Notes (2010).

I would have liked to go more in depth and give a better overview of the dangers of pre-marital sex. For those who have engaged in it there is hope. Being informed, prepared and aware that not only multiple sexual partners but even one sexual partner effects emotions then there is awareness, Real Sex Facts (2010). This awareness can benefit so that issues and difficulties can be dealt with before they cause harm.

The debate against pre-marital sex is not primarily about sex at all but about improving relationships and holistic well-being of society.

http://www.articlesbase.com...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

http://www.boundless.org...

http://www.gametheory.net...

http://www.who.int...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

http://www.realtime.net...

http://www.realsexedfacts.com...
Yvette

Pro

INTRODUCTION
Con has not met even a weak burden of proof. He continues to be unable to answer my key question, has not addressed my own argument, and still cannot offer even ONE source that is relevant, not purely anecdotal and not incredibly biased. One of his sources falsified the information he relied on and he misrepresented even that. Don't believe me? Read all his sources yourself. Con continues to argue against promiscuity and teen sex, not pre-marital sex.

PRO'S SOURCES
Con forces me to spend another round debunking his sources as well as reiterating the multiple problems with his last round's sources: http://goo.gl...

RESPONSES
My opponent mistakes custom for what is reasonable. Simply because it is customary to rely on biased sources in his country does not make it a good idea. Political and religious groups interested in promoting one point of view are not good sources.

Con continues to misunderstand why promiscuity and teen sex are not inherent in pre-marital sex, while continuing to not my key question. I hate to have to repeat: teen sex and promiscuity are not inherent in pre-marital sex. Pre-marital sex is more likely to happen in teen-sex, promiscuity equally likely as I have shown with cheating statistics. My opponent's insistence on not considering extramarital sex "promiscuity" and adultery instead is ridiculous. To put this issue to rest, I've drawn a little Venn Diagram: http://goo.gl...

"Arguments that pre-marital sex is beneficial as it improves sexual relationship within marriage has not been established"

Yes it has. Let me link to, again, my original unbiased source showing that it does, as well as showing that sex has significant health benefits and that abstinence causes health problems: http://goo.gl...

"...studies by Pubmed (2009a), show that premarital counselling is of great benefit and increases sexual satisfaction"

And this is an argument against pre-marital sex how? At best it shows it's not as necessary for post-marital sexual satisfaction. Sex still gives health benefits, releases relationship-strengthening hormones, relieves stress, and ensures compatibility. It is not evidence against pre-marital sex but for pre-marital counselling.

"Studies dramatically show that those who engage in pre-martial sex are 60 percent more likely to divorce than those who do not have pre-martial sex..."

See PRO'S SOURCES link above for the long version of: statistic is pure bull, it was falsified by pulling together two unrelated facts, with an assumptive explanation added on. CON's claim of "studies" showing this is misleading, one study was sourced and it's information was misrepresented. He exaggerates his own source's claim!

"Couples who live together are also within the category of premarital sex. Those who live together reduce their changes of having a happy marriage later on if they are inappropriately prepared and not counselled before hand, Game Theory (2002)."

Couples who live together can also not have pre-marital sex, or can be vegetarian, this makes neither abstinence nor vegetarianism bad. Do I need to add cohabitation to my Venn Diagram?

"I have included a example link to the World Health Organisation which shows not only do they acknowledge spirituality but also attempt to incorporate it within healthcare, WHO (2010)."

This does not prove spirituality, only acceptance of the idea. Argument ad populum. I note as well that different cultures have different spiritual beliefs about sex.

" It is also clear that religion and spirituality play a huge part in sexual activity, Pubmed (2009b) and female pre-marital sexual activity is reduced."

This proves pre-marital sex causes long term harm how exactly?

"I would have liked to go more in depth and give a better overview of the dangers of pre-marital sex."

You failed to show any dangers of pre-marital sex, only promiscuity, teen sex, and pre-marital cohabitation. The only information that could have shown long-term harm was falsified.

"The debate against pre-marital sex is not primarily about sex at all but about improving relationships and holistic well-being of society."

If you'd ever addressed my argument and my unbiased evidence supporting my argument, you'd note that sex strengthens relationships, reduces stress, and improves health.

CONCLUSION
My opponent is forced to rely on misinformation, biased sources, and unrelated issues to make ANY case against pre-marital sex, let alone that pre-marital sex causes long-term harm, indicates how weak the position is. If pre-marital sex caused harm, my opponent could have met his burden of proof by showing that without other factors that are harmful on their own it causes harm. As it is, my opponent has just as good shown that oxygen causes long-lasting harm because it can be found when bad things take place. He has not met his burden of proof; because of this I urge you to vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Guaranteed 4 years ago
Guaranteed
I gave well established information to support my arguments. These arguments are not considered to be taken from poor research from the field in which I work and your arguments are more philosophical than practical.

A formula can never replace the practical results of sexual promiscuity and or sex outside of marriage. Because there are real and tangible effects which are often negative. Now although you do not like grouping promiscuity and sex outside of marriage together. It is a fact of life that in the main this sexual grouping happens more frequently than not. Whilst you may have fine sounding argument the facts are there a so many counsellors and organsiations set up to help people with emotional problems and sexual addiction because they did not believe that sex outside of marriage harms them before it was too late.

Do you really believe that all these organisations could exist if there wasn't a problem?
Posted by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
"We are going around in circles as you are not acknowledging any of my points."

I could say the same.

"I also used dictionary definitions, and I think I was the first to do so."

...And as I pointed out, the dictionary definition agreed with me. The definition you linked!

"Please stop bringing Christianity it this, you may have personal issues about it but it is nothing to do with the debate."

Was that a counter-argument? Did you actually read it? The atheist definition used to be applied to Christians, how is that not relevant?

"About culture, you are right culture does change things, even words, but a sub-culture which is based on a minority usually does not change words, mere adds slang or if used often enough and effects the wider culture becomes an alternative meaning to the word."

Except the dictionary agrees with me.

"It is also a valid point that Americanism ruins the meanings of Anglicized words and some of those meanings are rejected over here. So culture is also a valid argument."

You just said culture wasn't a valid argument.

"Just because something is on a forum here and some do not claim what I am claiming does not make what I say wrong, merely it has not been discussed in the same way."

No, it does not, but it lends weight to my side and not yours, that atheists on this very site believe what I am saying atheists believe. Again: ask us what we think instead of assuming. You want to assume not even based on the dictionary definition but on the historical one. Don't.

I'm really not sure what else there is to discuss. Either you can acknowledge that self-identified atheists do not believe what you are saying they believe or we really have nothing to talk about.
Posted by Guaranteed 4 years ago
Guaranteed
We are going around in circles as you are not acknowledging any of my points. You are even using my argument about changing the meaning of words, which I earlier said you had done. I also used dictionary definitions, and I think I was the first to do so.

Please stop bringing Christianity it this, you may have personal issues about it but it is nothing to do with the debate. Also you said that an atheist was a non Christian, whilst this is true in the send of a Christian is believing in, or having God it also applies to every other religion or spiritual condition that acknowledges or believes in God, even if it a non personal God.

I disagree about the linguist argument, period.

About culture, you are right culture does change things, even words, but a sub-culture which is based on a minority usually does not change words, mere adds slang or if used often enough and effects the wider culture becomes an alternative meaning to the word.

It is also a valid point that Americanism ruins the meanings of Anglicized words and some of those meanings are rejected over here. So culture is also a valid argument.

Just because something is on a forum here and some do not claim what I am claiming does not make what I say wrong, merely it has not been discussed in the same way.
Posted by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
Guaranteed, my definitions are valid because most dictionaries agree with me. You cannot simply change the meaning of a word to suit your whims, correct, however once again I point you to words whose meanings have changed drastically from their historical meanings. You continue to ignore this and instead created a straw man of my argument in your second paragraph. If you would instead actually argue against what I said instead of an analogy of my argument maybe we could get somewhere. You instead wrote it off by saying it's cultural, well what do you expect? Meaning is fluid and changes culturally. This is only more evidence against you that for you to stick so terribly close to the historical definition (which, by the way, used to be applied to any non-Christians, and before that, to any non-Pagans! I suppose you're an atheist then?) makes little sense, no anthropological linguist would agree with you. If atheist means one thing in one country and another in a next, that is fine, but you *cannot* make broad claims about atheists if you acknowledge that.

In a recent thread on the forum here, the discussion of atheism and agnosticism has come up, and multiple times have people said that atheists are generally "de-facto atheist". Not even the theists are claiming what you are claiming, because it simply isn't true.
Posted by Guaranteed 4 years ago
Guaranteed
I want you to know I wasn't being rude and you assume far too much, I was merely trying to be humourous. I suppose you will have to agree to differ on this point because you insist what I am saying is invalid. It isn't invalid. If however, you are debating a personal issue then I understand why you say what you do, and feel authority to say it because who can define you. However, I am not saying these things to be personal and if you decide to ignore historic meaning of words to define your own belief, orlack of it, or abide within a group of individuals that have chosen to redefine the term then that is your choice. But it will increasingly be difficult to debate liquid and moving precepts.

I accept that you think and some others that your definitions are valid but I do not think it is a sound argument. I am not convinced. If a dog wanted to call itself a cat, it would have a choice to do so. If the cat's friends decided to call the cat a dog too then it would be normal for the cat and its friends. But when the other dogs or cats who had never heard of such a thing came along they only not disagree with them but it would be confusing towards the ridiculous for the whole of the cat and dog population. I think this is a simple analogy of your argument.

You are not right about "dork" or "gay" not having the current meaning because of course they do, obviously in most places the orginal meanings are not implied in majority of the cases as much. Here in the UK most educated people understand that the word "gay" means happy and not just homosexual and it would be used differently in the appropriate circumstances. Maybe in America the orginal meaning is not as well know, I do not know. It should be noted that America is not the world although it has a huge influence.

Some of the expressions that you use about whales etc, I simply do not understand, cultural I guess.

It would be nice if you gave me the benefit of the doubt as I do to you in every discourse
Posted by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
You continue to willfully miss my point. You're not stupid, I've spelled it out several times. You simply insist on semantics when the discussion is entirely over whether or not atheists have a set of beliefs replacing their non-belief in a god.

You don't care what the definition is because you are refusing to abide by it, instead you are seeking the history of the word. If you care about the definition, go by it.

"In regards to whales I am sure that you would be terrified of an aroused Whale. I understand what you are getting at and thought you were better at debating than talking about penises"

You continue to miss my point in addition to being plain rude. The history of the words "dork" and "gay" do not define the current meaning.
Posted by Guaranteed 4 years ago
Guaranteed
Yvette, It is all about defintions...and I am not trying to label anyone....I have said that a number of times, but common sense tells us that language needs proper defintions that are accurate otherwise no-one could communicate or translate into other languages.

In regards to whales I am sure that you would be terrified of an aroused Whale. I understand what you are getting at and thought you were better at debating than talking about penises
Posted by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
I'm...sure you know better than a dictionary what a word means?

Right.

Never mind that the history of the word, that you just put forward, doesn't show the definition to be wrong.

"I do not agree with your definition of your philosophical bent"

I'm pretty sure I'm the only person who can define what I believe and don't believe.

You're ignoring the point and focusing on semantics. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the definition, most atheists will tell you that they simply do not believe in a god, versus believing there is no god. Even those who believe there is no god will agree that that is "strong" atheism and not what the majority of atheists think.

There is no set of replacement beliefs simply caused by the rejection of one claim.

You are trying to push atheists into a hole and defining their beliefs based solely on the history of the label applied to them. Such an attempt is utterly ridiculous, I refer you once again to whale penises and happiness.
Posted by Guaranteed 4 years ago
Guaranteed
Yvette, I am not labelling you merely defining words. I do not agree with your defintion or your philosophical bent, and neither do I Pucks.

You quote me as if I am contradicting myself, I am not, you merely do not understand what I am saying.

In regards to Etymology, many people use the lexicon approach and feel they can with authority define words accurately through mere translation but this is a flawed approach because history and the context need to be included to truly define the word.

1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist." This clearly means, "without a god", and "godless". The other interpretations are not valid and merely modern philosophical additions.

http://www.etymonline.com...
Posted by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
Guaranteed, even the dictionary links say the same thing I did. One is disbelief, the other is "it is unknowable". Just like I said.

"These do change over time, but you cannot merely change the meaning of a word because you do not like the defintion."

Well that's the pot calling the kettle black.

"To have an indifference about whether God exists or not is nothing to do with the word at all."

It's not indifference. It's a lack of belief one way or another. I have my opinions about what I want to be true, and what might be more probable, and which among the thousands of scenarios ignored by theists and atheists alike might be possible, but it's not indifference. And even indifference can be atheism.

"I think it is unhelpful when people use a historic defintion and change the meanings, or add on, or use a type of spectrum as in your diagram."

You...just...said...

"We must remember that words are derived from usually Greek, Latin, or other language to define the root of the word. These do change over time, but you cannot merely change the meaning of a word because you do not like the defintion."

I suppose the fact that people today identify as the word meaning "happy" or call each other "whale penis" has nothing to do with the matter. If you're so stuck on etymology, let's get down to the basics, a- "without", -theist "god", to simplify matters. We could just as well call ourselves non-theists but what would be the point? You're just bickering over word labels and meanings and it's utterly pointless. You choose not to ask us what we believe and use a label to define us. You may as well think anyone called a "dork" is truly a whale penis.

Guranteed, I don't care what you call me. Pick any label you like, I don't believe in your god and a label isn't going to change the fact that atheists don't have a set of beliefs, we just don't believe in yours.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
GuaranteedYvetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The instigator, Con, wrote the resolution, which was about premarital sex. Then he argued against promiscuity rather than against premarital sex. Pro kept pointing out that Con's arguments were off topic, but Con never corrected his aim.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 4 years ago
SuperRobotWars
GuaranteedYvetteTied
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 
Vote Placed by RazaMobizo 4 years ago
RazaMobizo
GuaranteedYvetteTied
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 
Vote Placed by paulexcoff 4 years ago
paulexcoff
GuaranteedYvetteTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 4 years ago
Anacharsis
GuaranteedYvetteTied
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 Atheism 4 years ago
Atheism
GuaranteedYvetteTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by gbpacker 4 years ago
gbpacker
GuaranteedYvetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 4 years ago
ravenwaen
GuaranteedYvetteTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
GuaranteedYvetteTied
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