The Instigator
C.Artificavitch
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
bjmaster
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Pre-marital sex ought not remain a sin from the Christian standpoint.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
C.Artificavitch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,369 times Debate No: 11354
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

C.Artificavitch

Con

I hope this topic brings interesting new ideas to everyone. Please enjoy.

I affirm, Resolved: Pre-marital sex ought not remain a sin from the Christian standpoint. To better clarify this debate I offer the following definitions. Pre-marital- Before marriage. Sex- Intercourse, penetration. Ought- Moral obligation or duty. Sin- an offense against religion. Standpoint- point of view

The best value for today's round will be MORALITY because of the word "ought" in the resolution. The resolution is implying which is more moral, or which do we have a mral obligation to first. The best standard to uphold this value is FREE WILL. As stated in the bible, God gave us free will so that we may use it as we want. That does not mean there are no consequences, just that we have the right to those consequences.

Contention 1- Pre-marital sex isn't as bad as we think

SPA-Pre-marital sex matures you

When I say that pre-marital matures you, thats exactly it. By having that intercourse, you learn, you care, you love, you hurt, you get emotionally attached. All these things spur maturity. So If you will be voting Negative today for any reasn, vote because it sex matures people. A mature person is less likely to commit a crime, having thought it out first. Thus not only is pre marital sex moral, reducing crime rates is extra moral.

SPB- Free choice

Plain and simple, God gave us free choice, and for him to condemn us for using that gift is hypocritical. Without free choce, humans are slave to a higher power, defeating the purpose of life.

SPC- Sex makes people happy; More likely to be christian

Not only does the feeling of sex make people happy which in turn promotes world happiness, it also promotes christianity by making it more appealing.

SPD- No reason pre marital sex is a sin

There isn't any sufficient reason in the bible that shows why pre marital sex is bad.

So, with these reasons we can concur that sex is a good thing. A moral thing. A thing achieved through free will. Vote Affirmative
bjmaster

Pro

Today, as a member of a negative side, I stand here in expactance to have a reasonable dispute with my fellow colleague. I intend to present series of arguements that will ultimately convince everyone who intend to be involved in this debate in any manner, that this resolution must and shall fall.

Primarily, I would like to begin my stand, by pointing that the some of the ways my opponent has defined the resoultion to be is absoutely obsolete:
Firstly, my opponent has desribed the term "ought" to be moral obligation or duty, as he neglected to acknowledge the fact that the term is not neccessarily depended on a base of religion. Yes, the resoultion is directly related to the religion of Christianity, nevertheless, defining nationally and internationally used term, soley dedicated to a single point of view is indeed biased and unacceptable.
Secondly, my opponent defined the term "sin" as an offense against a religion. This definition is simply bogus, since it is leaned, once again, only to the shade of relgious ideology. Sin still applies to those who have no part in any relgion, atheists, and the judgement of sin would be determined by the morality of one's personal standards, not neccessarily of in specific religion's.

Despite these unjustified terms, I shall resume with my disagreement of this debate.

Firstly, I would like to begin my refuting some of my opponent's arguements.

My opponent has claimed that pre-marital sex matures oneself, as it gives them the bold idea of emotions and human relationships. This point is short-reached as my fellow opponent has failed to propose the natural outcome of sex: pregnancy. Yes, learning about caring,loving and being hurt emotionally is significant in maturing as a spritual developed adult, but when these lessons come with a price tag of unwanted pregnancy, pre-martial sex can give one far more amount of devastation, compared to the benefits that my opponent has propose.

My opponent has given the example of free choice in attempt of proving pre-marital sex to be acceptable, however he has neglected the fact that free choice can only exist when one acknowledges the importance of the choice of others. As mentioned, pre-marital sex can cause unwanted pregnancy, which can naturally lead to abortion,adoption and many other unfortunate outcomes. By risking of having unwanted pregnancy through having pre-marital sex, one would be ignoring the the choice of potential life's desire to be born in a enfant-wanted/expected family.

My opponent has also stated that sex makes people happy, thus Chrisitans should allow it before marriage in order to promote the religion. My opponent seems to be misguided that religion is a form of a privatized coporaton, which is in favour of making itself popular among consumers. However, this conception is false. Religion is formed to gather those who have similar perspective towards life-long authority, and is built on sharing the same idea of managing one's life in a specific way, not in intention to make their ideology popular. Stating that sex should be promoted to make the religion mkore popular, is absolutely impractiical, as the orignial motive of religions, do not allow it.

Followed by this refutation, I would like to state my arguements.

First of all, sex is known to be one of the most holy gifts presented by God. God has given human beings with a life long gift, that is only to be unwrapped in the most significant event. In order to keep this word, it is important for one to acknowledge sex is to be dedicated to one person. If the gift plays an important role in one's life, it would be logical to assume that it should be presented to one single most person, only.

Secondly, keeping chastity is the leading example of tempation-proof lesson that Christiantiy desires to teach. Christian religion finds the idea of being able to hold back oneself from temptation to be the hardest and most important rule to live by. Holding oneself from enjoying instant gratification of pre-marital sex would be a good practice of such rule.

Lastly, not having pre-marital sex prevents loss of potential life. It is proven that over 25% of the condoms used in sexual intercourse does not succeed. This tells us that out of 4 pre-marital sex, 1 would lead to an unwanted pregnancy. Christians assume the exsitence of a life in the moment of conception, thus, giving unwanted baby for adoption, or abortion would disrepsect the lives that are just as important.

It is for these stated reasons, and refuted arguements that this resoultion must and will fall.
Debate Round No. 1
C.Artificavitch

Con

Thanks for accepting. Just to satisfy your objections, I apologize for the "bogus" terms. But you haven't provided an alternative set of definitions for the debate, so we have to use mine.

For a brief roadmap, AC-NC

My SPA-

"My opponent has claimed that pre-marital sex matures oneself, as it gives them the bold idea of emotions and human relationships. This point is short-reached as my fellow opponent has failed to propose the natural outcome of sex: pregnancy. Yes, learning about caring,loving and being hurt emotionally is significant in maturing as a spritual developed adult, but when these lessons come with a price tag of unwanted pregnancy, pre-martial sex can give one far more amount of devastation, compared to the benefits that my opponent has propose."

Yes, pregnancy is a natural outcome of sex, but there are things such as condoms, birth control, and bisectimies. So don't be fooled into thinking that eveytime you have sex, a baby will be born. Nevertheless, my opponent does make an interesting argument even if an improbable satistic. Even with an unwanted pregancy, you mature from it. You learn that life can be hard, but you learn how to cope. And for all we know it wasn't unwanted. So even with the unprobable chance, the benfits outweight the harms. So extend that sex is a maturing act.

My SPB-

"My opponent has given the example of free choice in attempt of proving pre-marital sex to be acceptable, however he has neglected the fact that free choice can only exist when one acknowledges the importance of the choice of others. As mentioned, pre-marital sex can cause unwanted pregnancy, which can naturally lead to abortion,adoption and many other unfortunate outcomes. By risking of having unwanted pregnancy through having pre-marital sex, one would be ignoring the the choice of potential life's desire to be born in a enfant-wanted/expected family."

Really? Free choice can only exist when you adknowledge other's free choice? I disagree. I had the free choice to start this debate, whether or not I knew if you wanted to accept, or if your mom made you accept. I had no idea if you had a choice, yet I still had a choice to start the debate. Also, once again, he uses the improbable example of unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion, adoption, and "many other unfortunate outcomes". Well, he gives no reason those are harmful, but I'll tell you why they are beneficial to the child. Adoption could take the child out of a potentially harmful homelife. But for the sake of the Negative, it could also put it in a potentially harmful homelife. So when weighed, there's no impact in adoption in this debate. Abortion not only helps stop an over populated Earth, it can stop the child from living a bad life. Christians do say that life starts at conception, but just because I debate this topic doesn't make me Christian. That idea has no backing, so lets look at the scientificly proven, that life starts after conception. When doesn't matter because abortion would be aborting before life has started. So extend that we have free choice, and that it would be hypocrital of God to tell us its wrong to excercise that right.

My SPC-

"My opponent has also stated that sex makes people happy, thus Chrisitans should allow it before marriage in order to promote the religion. My opponent seems to be misguided that religion is a form of a privatized coporaton, which is in favour of making itself popular among consumers. However, this conception is false. Religion is formed to gather those who have similar perspective towards life-long authority, and is built on sharing the same idea of managing one's life in a specific way, not in intention to make their ideology popular. Stating that sex should be promoted to make the religion mkore popular, is absolutely impractiical, as the orignial motive of religions, do not allow it."

Lol, yeah my opponent is right. I don't know what I was smoking when I wrote that argument. (I wrote this case a month ago). So lets drop my SPC.

NC

1)

"First of all, sex is known to be one of the most holy gifts presented by God. God has given human beings with a life long gift, that is only to be unwrapped in the most significant event. In order to keep this word, it is important for one to acknowledge sex is to be dedicated to one person. If the gift plays an important role in one's life, it would be logical to assume that it should be presented to one single most person, only."

So God is a picky gift giver? He gives us a gift when we are born, and we can only unwrap it with one person, at his time of choosing? Hmmm....how anti-free choice. Almost dictator like. But heres the thing....we know that right now its a sin "in the christian standpont". The Negative's job is to show why is should stay that way. Not to state what already is. So I'm going to disregard this point seeing how it takes on the truth of the resolution, never proves it.

2)

"Secondly, keeping chastity is the leading example of tempation-proof lesson that Christiantiy desires to teach. Christian religion finds the idea of being able to hold back oneself from temptation to be the hardest and most important rule to live by. Holding oneself from enjoying instant gratification of pre-marital sex would be a good practice of such rule."

Well I haven't eaten in 5 days. That hotdog next to me looks really good. Tempting one could say. But God wouldn't like that, would he? He wouldn't want me to give in to temptation. The point of this is that not all temptation is bad. Once again my opponent assumes his side of the resolution, never proves it. So until my opponent proves pre-marital sex a bad temptation, this argument falls.

3)

"Lastly, not having pre-marital sex prevents loss of potential life. It is proven that over 25% of the condoms used in sexual intercourse does not succeed. This tells us that out of 4 pre-marital sex, 1 would lead to an unwanted pregnancy. Christians assume the exsitence of a life in the moment of conception, thus, giving unwanted baby for adoption, or abortion would disrepsect the lives that are just as important."

Cross apply with my earlier argument about conception not at birth. Also, take into account that the majority of Christians would still only have sex with their spouse even if it pre marital sex was not a sin. On top of that condoms+birth control+bisectimies=unwanted pregnancies a very unprobable scenario.

=). Thanks for the response and I look forward to your next.
bjmaster

Pro

Firstly I would like to prove my oppoents to be worng in his attempt to refute my arguements.

"Yes, pregnancy is a natural outcome of sex, but there are things such as condoms, birth control, and bisectimies. So don't be fooled into thinking that eveytime you have sex, a baby will be born. Nevertheless, my opponent does make an interesting argument even if an improbable satistic. Even with an unwanted pregancy, you mature from it. You learn that life can be hard, but you learn how to cope. And for all we know it wasn't unwanted. So even with the unprobable chance, the benfits outweight the harms. So extend that sex is a maturing act."

In this refutation, my opponent seems to be misinformed that having a potential life is not a serious event. My opponent has stated, and I quote "you learn that life can be hard, but you learn how to cope," as he is simply concluding that pre-marital sex only affects the sexual partners, themselves. But little did my opponent know what we are genuinely debating at this day and age is the fact that we can not risk and disrespect the lives of our future generation. Surely, sexual partners may learn that sex can give you unwanted lives, but what would happen to those young lives?

"
Really? Free choice can only exist when you adknowledge other's free choice? I disagree. I had the free choice to start this debate, whether or not I knew if you wanted to accept, or if your mom made you accept. I had no idea if you had a choice, yet I still had a choice to start the debate. Also, once again, he uses the improbable example of unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion, adoption, and "many other unfortunate outcomes". Well, he gives no reason those are harmful, but I'll tell you why they are beneficial to the child. Adoption could take the child out of a potentially harmful homelife. But for the sake of the Negative, it could also put it in a potentially harmful homelife. So when weighed, there's no impact in adoption in this debate. Abortion not only helps stop an over populated Earth, it can stop the child from living a bad life. Christians do say that life starts at conception, but just because I debate this topic doesn't make me Christian. That idea has no backing, so lets look at the scientificly proven, that life starts after conception. When doesn't matter because abortion would be aborting before life has started. So extend that we have free choice, and that it would be hypocrital of God to tell us its wrong to excercise that right."

In this attempt of refutation, my opponent seems to be greatly illogical in choosing a right example at the right times. Starting this debate was, yes, based on my opponent's free will, but did this decision relate to life or death matter? The answer is no. My opponent has also tried to heckle in this dispute as he intended to digress and critize about the debater's personal family relationship. My opponent is skipping numerous steps in arguing, as he is now talking about the "benefits" of adoptions while what we are aiming at is the issue of accepting pre-marital sex in Christianity. Instead of giving a child 2nd or 3rd option in living, why not give them the best choice in having a normal life, by primarily preventing any cases that include these other choices ? My opponent would not dare to state that not having unwanted child in the first place is worse than putting themunder lower level conditions.

"So God is a picky gift giver? He gives us a gift when we are born, and we can only unwrap it with one person, at his time of choosing? Hmmm....how anti-free choice. Almost dictator like. But heres the thing....we know that right now its a sin "in the christian standpont". The Negative's job is to show why is should stay that way. Not to state what already is. So I'm going to disregard this point seeing how it takes on the truth of the resolution, never proves it."

In this attempted refutation my opponent seems to believe that God is a "picky gift giver" and that "dictator" who chooses the suitable person for the gift. However, this is not true. Yes, God would have some say in choosing the right and only sexual partner, but the choice is up to the first person, oneself to decide to have sex before marriage or not. If the person decides not to follow this motto, it would simply go against the law, and if the person decides the follow it, he/she would be in favour of being more Christ-llike in God's eye.

"Well I haven't eaten in 5 days. That hotdog next to me looks really good. Tempting one could say. But God wouldn't like that, would he? He wouldn't want me to give in to temptation. The point of this is that not all temptation is bad. Once again my opponent assumes his side of the resolution, never proves it. So until my opponent proves pre-marital sex a bad temptation, this argument falls."

I would like to quesetion my opponent's knowledge. How, in any form, being hungry realted to sexual temptation? In regards to the example of being hungry and being tempted of eating a hot dog, this is not a form of temptation, because being hungry is human nature, and the desire to eat in order of keeping oneself alive can only be viewed as a way of surviving, not temptating. It would only be a tempation, if, say the hot dog belonged to some else, or the hot dog was promsied to not to be eaten.
Why is sexual temptation bad? It is so because it shows very little dignity of oneself, and of the sexual partners. If one was to accept the sexual temptation as my opponent describes it to be a "lesson", would this mean one could sleep around with prostitutes, cheating wives, or any other temptors? This would be disrespecting those who would marry these figures in future, by dirtying their body, and taking away God's gift from the right person.

"Cross apply with my earlier argument about conception not at birth. Also, take into account that the majority of Christians would still only have sex with their spouse even if it pre marital sex was not a sin. On top of that condoms+birth control+bisectimies=unwanted pregnancies a very unprobable scenario."

"Conception not at birth". This is theory is wrong as scientists define living things to be any form of life that has nucelus, and actiive major organ in it. Thus, proving that it is by law, when conception happens and when sperm and an egg is mixed nucelus is formed, therefore conception is a form of birth. Christians would still only have sex with theif spouse even if pre marital sex was not a sin? How would this be so? Chritians would be entitled to only have sexual intercourse with one's spouse within in the marriage, but who could gaurantee the beforemath of the marriage? My opponent has no proof or valid reason to prove this.

Lastly, I have not decided to redefine the terms as it is the affrimative's role to set the defnitions, and the negative side redefining it would naturally mean the avoidance of debate. In conclusion, I demand the affirmative to redefine the terms in the mot suitable and neutral manner.
Debate Round No. 2
C.Artificavitch

Con

SPA-

"In this refutation, my opponent seems to be misinformed that having a potential life is not a serious event. My opponent has stated, and I quote "you learn that life can be hard, but you learn how to cope," as he is simply concluding that pre-marital sex only affects the sexual partners, themselves. But little did my opponent know what we are genuinely debating at this day and age is the fact that we can not risk and disrespect the lives of our future generation. Surely, sexual partners may learn that sex can give you unwanted lives, but what would happen to those young lives?"

Even though it may "seem" that way, it's not. The affirmative world fully understands the seriousness of a potential life. But what the Negative world fails to understand is 1) In the Affirmative world there is a very low chance of unwanted birth, and an even lower chance of that unwanted baby living a disasterous life. 2) The seriouness presented in the Negative world is very "over dramatisized". I highly doubt that the future generation of lives will be "disrespected".

SPB-

"In this attempt of refutation, my opponent seems to be greatly illogical in choosing a right example at the right times. Starting this debate was, yes, based on my opponent's free will, but did this decision relate to life or death matter? The answer is no. My opponent has also tried to heckle in this dispute as he intended to digress and critize about the debater's personal family relationship. My opponent is skipping numerous steps in arguing, as he is now talking about the "benefits" of adoptions while what we are aiming at is the issue of accepting pre-marital sex in Christianity. Instead of giving a child 2nd or 3rd option in living, why not give them the best choice in having a normal life, by primarily preventing any cases that include these other choices ? My opponent would not dare to state that not having unwanted child in the first place is worse than putting themunder lower level conditions."

You say toe-may-toe, I say ta-ma-ta. You say illogical, I say logical. It doesn't matter what we say, it matter's what has evidence and what the voters buy. That example shows that no matter what the situation, life or death, free choice does not depend on the recognition of other's free choice. Also, I don't mean to critisize, sorry if you took it that way. I'm skipping numerous steps? Those would be....? I'm doing the same thing your doing, arguing a point. Yes I'm arguing the benefits of adoption. You brought it into the debate. It's called an impact turn. Now your argument works in my favor. Oh, and I do dare. I think that it's better to live in harsh conditions than to have no life at all. But that's irrelevant seeing as its your argument, and you haven't provided evidence to say they go into harsh conditions.

NC

1) "In this attempted refutation my opponent seems to believe that God is a "picky gift giver" and that "dictator" who chooses the suitable person for the gift. However, this is not true. Yes, God would have some say in choosing the right and only sexual partner, but the choice is up to the first person, oneself to decide to have sex before marriage or not. If the person decides not to follow this motto, it would simply go against the law, and if the person decides the follow it, he/she would be in favour of being more Christ-llike in God's eye."

I'm not going to touch this seeing as it has as much standing as my opponent saying that dolphins can fly. If my opponent backs it up with scripture or evidence, then I will attack.

2) "I would like to quesetion my opponent's knowledge. How, in any form, being hungry realted to sexual temptation? In regards to the example of being hungry and being tempted of eating a hot dog, this is not a form of temptation, because being hungry is human nature, and the desire to eat in order of keeping oneself alive can only be viewed as a way of surviving, not temptating. It would only be a tempation, if, say the hot dog belonged to some else, or the hot dog was promsied to not to be eaten. Why is sexual temptation bad? It is so because it shows very little dignity of oneself, and of the sexual partners. If one was to accept the sexual temptation as my opponent describes it to be a "lesson", would this mean one could sleep around with prostitutes, cheating wives, or any other temptors? This would be disrespecting those who would marry these figures in future, by dirtying their body, and taking away God's gift from the right person."

No need to get insulting. I never questioned your intellect. Also, it has utmost relevancy to temptation. Sexual temptation, not so much. But now your changing your words. You first said temptation, so let's go with that. Also, maybe having sex with someone you love but won't marry has nothing to do with dignity. Once again, show some evidence. Once again, to extend the point, god gave us the gift, lets use how e see fit.

3) "Conception not at birth". This is theory is wrong as scientists define living things to be any form of life that has nucelus, and actiive major organ in it. Thus, proving that it is by law, when conception happens and when sperm and an egg is mixed nucelus is formed, therefore conception is a form of birth. Christians would still only have sex with theif spouse even if pre marital sex was not a sin? How would this be so? Chritians would be entitled to only have sexual intercourse with one's spouse within in the marriage, but who could gaurantee the beforemath of the marriage? My opponent has no proof or valid reason to prove this."

http://www.fallibleblogma.com.... Read that. Also, you don't have any evidence yourself, so your side is just as invalid.

"Lastly, I have not decided to redefine the terms as it is the affrimative's role to set the defnitions, and the negative side redefining it would naturally mean the avoidance of debate. In conclusion, I demand the affirmative to redefine the terms in the mot suitable and neutral manner."

Noooooo, if you think my definitions are abusive, you say so and offer an alternetive set of definitions. But seeing as its so late in the debate, plus you have made no arguments on the definitions, it doesn't matter.

AC

Just look to my arguments. Also, I have won the Value and Criterion debate. He drops that and never brings it up. also having no value or criterion of his own.

1) Please, Negative, use the numbering and format (SPA,SPB,SPC), it makes it easier for me and voters to navigate.
2) Since this is traditional LD, you can't bring up new arguments past the 2nd round.
bjmaster

Pro

bjmaster forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
C.Artificavitch

Con

Well, seeing as my opponent forfeited, all of his arguments and defenses are dropped. Thats usually seen as conceding. Extend my case and all the crucial points, my value, criterion and voters. drop his case, arguments, attacks, and keep in my his lack of value or criterion. Hopefully he'll pot the next round. Well just have to see. I'll summarize in the last round. Thank you
bjmaster

Pro

bjmaster forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
C.Artificavitch

Con

Well, at first I thought that my opponent had some rare disease with symptons such as not being able to log on and post his debate, but I think now he has forgotten about it. Or just doesn't care. Maybe feels unable to win? Whatever his motives, the vote is now clearly Affiramative. Extend all points. On the miracle he replys to the last post, don't let him bring up any arguments. That would be EXTREMELY abusive. Thank you for your time. =)
bjmaster

Pro

bjmaster forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by C.Artificavitch 6 years ago
C.Artificavitch
Sorry bout the "ought not" in the topic. I had originally been negative and it was just "ought", but since I wanted to follow traditional LD format, I changed it to where my advocacy is now Affirmative. So for anyone who is confused by the topic, just think of it as "Pre-Marital sex should not be a sin in Christianity.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by C.Artificavitch 6 years ago
C.Artificavitch
C.ArtificavitchbjmasterTied
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:70