The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Sex before is marriage is okay.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
RyanShakiba has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 453 times Debate No: 102792
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I believe that sex before marriage is not okay. The bible tells us that such acts are not appropriate to engage in. Sex is a very important act. It is the creator of life. If we act like it some normal everyday activity, it will fall out of control. In the United States, how many teens would get pregnant if sex before marriage never happened? Maybe 1% of how many get pregnant now. Also, abstinence until marriage would result in very little abortions and unwanted pregnancies. Like to see what others think on this.


My case:

Claim 1- Sex helps someone keep their immune system up.

"People who have sex have higher levels of what defends your body against germs, viruses, and other intruders. Researchers at Wilkes University in Pennsylvania found that college students who had sex once or twice a week had higher levels of the a certain antibody compared to students who had sex less often" (1)

This matters since health should be something all humans value for the sake of well being.

Claim 2: Stress reliever

"Sex and intimacy can boost your self-esteem and happiness, too, Ambardar says. It"s not only a prescription for a healthy life, but a happy one." (2)

Sex is not only good for health, but for the quality of your life. People who have sex, have higher self-esteem. People are happier when they have sex.


"The bible tells us that such acts are not appropriate to engage in." This presupposes that everyone believes in the bible as truth. People don't however, thus not a valid source without going into a bible debate which would be not on topic. Therefore disregard the statement.

Now let's point out a inconsistency. My opponent says "Sex is a very important act. It is the creator of life", as if creating life and being pregnant is a good thing, but then later on states "how many teens would get pregnant if sex before marriage never happened? Maybe 1% of how many get pregnant now.", therefore implying that it would be better if less people were pregnant. My opponent needs to clarify which one he wants.

"Also, abstinence until marriage would result in very little abortions and unwanted pregnancies" Where's the studies or statistics? There's no evidence cited, just conjecture. Disregard this statement on the basis that it's unwarranted.

Debate Round No. 1


Hello, and I would like to thank you for taking your time to respond to my debate.

I will admit one thing that you did point out: religion, in this case, is not a very valid argument, since not all people believe in Christianity. I know something you don't, but that's for 2018.

Here is one of my points: Sex comes with risks. That is not debatable, it is simply fact. The issue is here, sometimes married couple are better prepared for risks than unmarried ones are not. For example, pregnancy. It is estimated that each year, 750,000 teenagers get pregnant in the U.S.A. alone. Of those, 89% are outside of marriage. The number would be more like 80,000 is only marriage couples engaged in sexual activities. You may be thinking, "Okay, so what? Get an abortion." However, abortions are always available, and there are often (rightfully so) ethic reasons not to pursue abortion (for another debate). Think about the babies that are born to these mothers. Those statistics only include, however, teenagers. The number of other unwanted pregnancies is much higher. Also, the risk for contracting a STD or STI. While this risk more applies to everyone, it can be more dangerous to younger people. (

Also, sex before marriage treats sex like someone everyday activity, while it is not. It is a very special activity that creates life. To treat it like any everyday activity makes it seem like it isn't important at all. Also, sex outside of marriage just shows how desperate people are for pleasure. They don't care about the risks that come with it, or how powerful that activity truly is. Therefore, in order to treat sex with respect for how important it is, it should only happen within a stable marriage. (

Rebuttals: You claim that sex helps someone keep there immune system up. If that indeed true, it is a good point. But, when you look at the argument being presented here, it doesn't really fit in. Okay, but that is not something specific to couples who are engaging in premarital sex. Also, not engaging in sex won't damage your health- it may make you have slightly less antibodies than someone who does. You need to also take into account how someone is at risk of catching sexually transmitted diseases. Also, there are many other ways to help your health- vaccines, social distancing form sick people, vitamins. Sex is definitely not required.

Also, you claim how sex is "stress reliever." Okay, that is true in the sense that sex can bring pleasure to someone's life. But, when there is a rapist who rapes people, it brings pleasure to his life through sex. If there is a murderer who kills people, he gets his pleasure through rape. Just because it brings someone pleasure, does not mean that it is okay. To add on to this, sex is not the only way to get pleasure at all. There are plenty of ways to be happy without having sex. To put it simply, you don't need sex to get pleasure. Also, how could sex possibly increase self esteem? Maybe in a way to think, "If someone loves me, I must be a good person," but that is just poor thinking.

I would like to clarify, since you pointed this out: I am for sex in a stable marriage. Sex is a sacred act that creates life, making it good, but if it falls out of control (out of marriage), it is not.



In response to my opponent's first point, I have 4 responses.

1) The contention basically states that there are risks with sex, and the older someone is the more capable they're of handling it. This is not true. I would concede that generally the older someone is, the more responsible, but that number opposed to how many young people are responsible is negligible. Let me clarify. I would contend that there is not a big gap between how many young people are responsible, and how many old people are. We see that everyday adults act irresponsibly as opposed to adolescents. Therefore we can mitigate this point to not having much weight in the round.

2) This argument is completely fallacious in reasoning by saying married couples are better equipped in handling these problems than unmarried couples. My opponent uses the example of how many young people are unmarried to show how irresponsible unmarried couples can be, but this doesn't speak to the essence of unmarried couples. Someone can be young and unmarried or be young and married. Both sides would have irresponsible people. Thus making this argument not unique to just my side. This calls for disregarding the argument.

3) While yes abortion being ethical would be less topic to this debate, I'm willing to go there. My opponent seems to assume many commonplaces with the audience such as the Bible, and believing abortion is unethical. The abortion argument, of course, presupposes many things, and if necessary we can go there. However, for now, I disagree with the abortion point, thus only leaving us with the risk of std. This I would agree is probably more damaging to younger people, but I contend that this negligible due to there being young marriages as well.

4) Being that the only argument in my opponent's first contention is about std, we can further mitigate this in saying that not all std are a big deal. HPV, people don't really care about that. Therefore the voters should take note that my opponent doesn't give us a demographic of the std being contracted, and they could be as harmless as HPV.

Onto my opponent's second point. My opponent repeats the part about it should only occur within stable relationships but brings a new argument to the table which is that sex isn't an everyday thing. My argument, in essence, is, why not?

2 responses.

1) Sex doesn't have to be special, this type of thinking may be due to some religion I assume. Sex can be for fun while being careful. There is zero reason for making sex special. If someone doesn't want something to be special, there is no reason for them having to make it. This is similar to me saying that you have treat coffee as god's blessing. It's just not true and unwarranted. Disregard the argument completely.

2) This is not unique to marriages because people who have sex out of wedlock can have those "special" sex times.

My case and defense from attacks:

Against my sex build immune contention-

"it doesn't really fit in" Doesn't really need to follow a theme here.

"that is not something specific to couples who are engaging in premarital sex" We are comparing a world with premarital sex, and world without one. It's net beneficial if we have more people having sex because that means more immunity. This is a unique to my side.

"not engaging in sex won't damage your health" It doesn't matter if not having damages, it matters if having it is better.

"You need to also take into account how someone is at risk of catching sexually transmitted diseases" Refer to my arguments above.

"there are many other ways to help your health" That doesn't refute the fact that sex is one of them.

"Sex is definitely not required." I agree it's not required, but we are arguing whether if when done, it's okay.

Against my stress reliever contention-

My opponent's argument is in a nutshell, yes it makes you feel good, but not everything that makes you feel good is okay. Because of its absurdity, I have 6 responses.

1) Isn't what makes murder and rape bad that it damages society? It makes the relatives and friends of the victim and the victim themselves feel horrible.

2) Then what's your criteria for judging something is okay or not if it's not how it makes society feel?

3) The argument for pleasure is comparing pleasure to no pleasure, one prefers pleasure. But obviously, if there are other things to consider, such as the well-being of others, then some things may outweigh. It's not as if pleasure always wins.

4) Toys are okay because it brings pleasure to kids. This is a general statement, there are obviously times when toys can be hazardous to kids.

5) This is a reductio ad absurdum. My opponent tries to exacerbate my argument to the extreme when my statement was solely a general statement.

6) And finally, there are many ways to feel pleasurable, but that doesn't negate the fact that sex does.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.