The Instigator
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
gavin.ogden
Pro (for)
Winning
97 Points

Sex before marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+11
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: 1/10/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 21,769 times Debate No: 14352
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (93)
Votes (25)

 

vardas0antras

Con

This debate is about the positives and negatives of sex before marriage. My stance is that the negatives outweigh the positives.
::Definitions::
Sex: Short for sexual intercourse.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Note: I am not talking about homosexual or lesbian sex but I am talking about heterosexuals.
Before: I think that's simple enough.
Marriage: "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)"
Note: In this debate religion will not be included i.e. I can't say that its wrong because Yahweh said so nor can you say its right because Yahweh does not exist.

::Exceptions::
1.No peculiar cases ! Obviously, if someone is holding a gun near your head and he'll shoot if you don't have sex, you should have sex before marriage. We are talking about average people in average situations. In other words were talking about groups and not individuals.
1.1. There are exceptions, an exception isn't what this debate is about. We are debating the cons and pros of sex before marriage. I could produce peculiar cases for your position, too ! So please don't go toward this road because I'll simply quote this and the debate will be over.

::Opponent::
He may post his argument in round 2 ; my opponent may use round 1 in any way except by providing his arguments.

::Rules::
You must accept the rules, notes and definitions or you will by default loose on all 7 points.

::Final words::
Thank you for accepting the debate in advance and I wish you good luck.
gavin.ogden

Pro


I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate this very important topic. I will be arguing that sex between two unmarried people can be very beneficial for the individuals, and to help strengthen their relationship. Moreover, I will argue that pre marital sex is a completely personal decision, and that the positives can far outweigh the negatives when done in a responsible manner.

Again, thanks to VardasOantras and the readers for your time. I look forward to an interesting and thought provoking debate. With that, I will pass the debate to my opponent for his first round of arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
vardas0antras

Con

I am grateful for Pro's wonderful conduct but what do you mean by "when done in a responsible manner"?. Is it your way of agreeing with me that we're not talking about individuals but groups ? Also, don't bother with "pre marital sex is a completely personal decision" because I agree with you though I don't think that this is a wise choice.

::Happiness::
It is proven that people who don't have sex before marriage are happier:
"What's more, couples who delay sex until their wedding night have more stable and happier marriages than couples who have premarital sex, according to the study, which appears in the Journal of Family Psychology."
http://www.medicinenet.com...

This is further elaborated and supported by these links:
o http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
"But the researchers say their findings are clear, that "the longer a couple waited to become sexually involved, the better that sexual quality, relationship communication, relationship satisfaction and perceived relationship stability was in marriage ..." "
“Regardless of religiosity, waiting helps the relationships form better communication processes, and these help improve long-term stability and relationship satisfaction,” said Busby.
http://www.thaindian.com...

::Love::
1. If X loves Y, then X would want the best for Y.
2. X has a (very) high sex drive:
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...
3. It's no secret that a big factor for cheating and divorce for other X's is sex:
http://www.askmen.com...
4. X despite number 2 and 3 decides to only have sex with his wife, in this case Y.
5. Y got what most X's wouldn't dear to do.

::Tires::
There is this saying:
"Everybody kicks the tires before they buy a car"
Now, as a parent do you want your girl to be one of those tires, someone who is left when a prettier girl comes around ? I believe no. Why ? Because sex is very personal and no matter how you look at it, treating a woman like an object (despite what the media conveys) is disrespectful.

::Talk::

"Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place"
Billy Crystal



It is true that marriage will always be a bit like gambling. Nevertheless, what is the best way to know that you love this person and when is the best time to celebrate your love ?

::Final Comments::
In some arguments I acted like men don't love women and in others vice versa. This is due to the fact that both instances are realities. I await my opponents response and I hope we can discuss your arguments too !


gavin.ogden

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for a quick response, and will begin with my opening arguments, followed by my refutations of my opponent's arguments.

First, to answer my opponent's question, when I talk about responsible sex, I am referring to standard safe sex practices. I would have thought that this was obvious, but since there is no room for assumptions, I don't mind explaining. Simple things can be the difference between acting responsibly, and throwing caution to the wind. Just some of these things include: Condoms (male and female), birth control pills(shots and others), diaphragms, spermacides, etc. I'm not sure what my opponent is talking about, when he differentiates between individuals and groups, and his opinion on whether pre marital sex is a wise decision, is fortunately moot.

My first arguments for the benefits of sex are purely physical. Sex releases dopamine and serotonin, which are two of the chemicals produced by the brain, which stimulate pleasure. These same substances are released after eating, and are automatic functions which tell humans that a specific activity is positive. In other words, they are the natural reward for people to continue their survival. Marriage, on the other hand, is simply a ceremonious coupling of two people. It is not required for any reason, and if people choose to have sexual intercourse to satisfy a natural urge, there is no reason why they should not have that right. Furthermore, sex is a great calorie burner, stress reliever, and helps boost the immune system. Also, sex improves cardio vascular health, and decreases the chance of prostate cancer in men. Why on earth should unmarried people not get the same benefits from sex, as married ones? Of course, there cannot possibly be a logical answer to that.
http://www.webmd.com...
http://www.beatcfsandfms.org...

Emotionally, sex can be very beneficial to people. It improves self esteem, and as my opponent already pointed out, also increases the intimacy of a relationship, married or otherwise. Of course there are two main factors when sex can bring about negatives. They are STD's and unwanted pregnancy, and as I already explained, these factors can be almost completely mitigated through responsible sexual practices.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now, on to my opponent's arguments. I would like to make it clear that 5 of my opponent's sources are citing the same survey at BYU of 2000 people regarding, "happiness." This is completely subjective, and carries no weight as far as being a reliable "study." I quote my opponent's first source: "Most research on the topic is focused on individuals' experiences and not the timing within a relationship." Basically, this says that results vary, and cannot be conclusive in relationship to marriage. Also, my opponent states, "Regardless of religiosity, waiting helps the relationships form better communication processes, and these help improve long-term stability and relationship satisfaction." Marriage is in no way implied by this statement, and I even might agree with this sentiment. However, it does nothing to strengthen my opponent's argument regarding sex and marriage. It simply means that waiting awhile to have sex could help the relationship.
http://www.medicinenet.com...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Etc.

The most confusing part of my opponent's first round was this:

::Love::
1. If X loves Y, then X would want the best for Y.
2. X has a (very) high sex drive:
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk......
3. It's no secret that a big factor for cheating and divorce for other X's is sex:
http://www.askmen.com......
4. X despite number 2 and 3 decides to only have sex with his wife, in this case Y.
5. Y got what most X's wouldn't dear to do.

This strange love equation has nothing to do with pre marital sex, and certainly falls into the category of "peculiar cases", which were strictly prohibited by my opponent's very own rules. This is not conduct becoming of formal debate, and has no place in this one.

Finally, my opponent makes another stretch, which as far as I can tell, also has nothing to do with the resolution at hand. It is as follows…

::Tires::
There is this saying:
"Everybody kicks the tires before they buy a car"
Now, as a parent do you want your girl to be one of those tires, someone who is left when a prettier girl comes around ? I believe no. Why ? Because sex is very personal and no matter how you look at it, treating a woman like an object (despite what the media conveys) is disrespectful.

So, is this debate only directed at men? What about women who enjoy sex just as much as men? Also, what does my daughter have to do with pre marital sex. Non sequitor, and again, a completely invalid argument for the resolution. It would better fit in a debate on age of consent.

I think it is fairly clear that pre marital sex is completely alright, as long as those partaking act responsibly. If they do not, they must deal with the consequences, but in no way does that give anyone the right to tell people how to live their personal life. There is plenty more to argue for, but I still have two rounds, and I feel that my opponent should have an opportunity to respond to this round before I continue. Thanks to all for your time, and I hope it has been entertaining thus far.

With that, I will pass...
Debate Round No. 2
vardas0antras

Con

::Before I begin::
A. I was accused of breaking my own rules, I need my opponent to provide an example.
B."but in no way does that give anyone the right to tell people how to live their personal life." This is a straw man argument. As I have said in the comment section "Please give me an example of when I said something similar. I recall calling sex before marriage an unwise choice but that's all" I am still waiting for a proper response.

::Love::
"This strange love equation has nothing to do with pre marital sex, and certainly falls into the category of "peculiar cases", which were strictly prohibited by my opponent's very own rules."
A: Half of it has to do with sex, the first proposition has to do with love and the fourth one mentions a wife. Wherefore, this equation has to do with sex before marriage.
B: This is not a peculiar case unless you consider sex before marriage a peculiar case. Moreover, for this equation to work love doesn't have to be the only motivation nor does it have to be always there. As long as love is involved this equation works.
Few things to point out:
1. This creates strong intimacy. "5. Y got what most X's wouldn't dear to do." (The equation from ::Love:: section in round 2).
2. Marriage has a lot to do with waiting and endurance and its the perfect occasion to end the waiting. This is because marriage is a celebration which has to do with the love of two people ; other celebrations don't have this focus on two people.

::Tires::
" Also, what does my daughter have to do with pre marital sex."
I was talking to the reader (which granted does include you) nor did I know that you have a daughter (nor was I making a reference but rather an example).
" What about women who enjoy sex just as much as men? "
Good point, lets look at different scenarios:
A: A boy or a girl uses the other person for one reason or another = my conclusion.
B: Both do it but one person leaves the relationship (we're assuming they like each other), hence, the aspect of connection disappears.
C: Both are cold-blooded (I don't think this is common enough to be considered).

::Talk::
I asked this "Nevertheless, what is the best way to know that you love this person and when is the best time to celebrate your love ?". Since my opponent didn't provide an answer, Ill answer it. The best way to know that you love somebody is to give up something you really like, it may be food or video games but let's be honest, the biggest thing most guys want is sex. If you can love a person without sex and you can go through hard time without it too, then you're officially in love. Equation:
1. We love someone if we love them for who they are.
2. It is also natural to love what they have for example looks, charisma, money, and etcetera.
3. When we remove sex, we remove a huge part of what they have.
4. Therefore, we are more concentrated on the person.
5. The end result is greater assurance and greater love.

::Benefits of sex::
I have no problem with this, I simply believe that they're best used in marriage.

"One should satisfy their natural urges"
Tell this to someone who feels like killing:
http://www.answerbag.com...

"Marriage, on the other hand, is simply a ceremonious coupling of two people"
Electricity was also created, is this unwise? Animals kill animals, should we follow them? Furthermore, marriage is a result of emotion.

Sex and self-esteem:
I don't know from where my opponent got this information. I would also like to know how my opponent made the connection between self-esteem and sex.

Intimacy in relationships:
I reference this in the "Love" section.

My study:
While I do now realize the flaws of the study, I still have to disagree with you, particularly on waiting. " Marriage is in no way implied by this statement".
While marriage isn't necessary for this statement, it is rather obvious that marriage equals waiting. I elaborate in the "Love section".

Well, its my opponents turn !
gavin.ogden

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent again for instigating this debate, and will continue with several more arguments and refutations.

First of all, my opponent has convoluted this debate with his idea of "love." This has no place in this debate, because there are many couples who love each other, and have no intention of marriage. Moreover, it is not necessary to love someone, in order to have sex with them. So you see, the quality of love is completely subjective, thus further negating my opponent's strange and convoluted OPINION relating sex and marriage. There is not much left of my opponent's argument, except a couple of false assumptions that I will put to rest right away.

My opponent claims that electricity is man made. Not only is this completely false, but utterly ridiculous, and if my opponent truly believes electricity is man made, then pre marital sex should be the last thing on his mind. After all, this would be to say that man created lightning, and that when I rub my feet on the carpet and shock my dog, I am making magic. I implore my opponent to look up electricity on Wikipedia. Also, if my opponent questions whether sex boosts self esteem, it is fairly clear that he has never had sex. Also, if he would simply refer to the sources I have already cited, he wouldn't have to ask for them again in his rebuttal.

Frankly, my opponent has yet to make a case for his argument. I have shown many positive aspects of sexual intercourse, and how marriage is certainly not required to benefit from these things in everyday life. My opponent has resorted to several convoluted and irrelevant scenarios where pre marital sex MIGHT not be good, but has laid down no foundation for what could be considered a plausible argument.

I would like to point out that my opponent has once again broken his own rules by using a "peculiar case", by using an example of someone who likes to kill. This is NOT the norm, so it can not be used in this debate per my opponent's own rules. Also, my opponent is directly comparing murder and sex with this argument, which is laughable at best. Apparently, I am the only one restricted by these rules. I must say, my opponent's conduct has been some of the worst that I have encountered, and his arguments fall far short of what I expected in this debate. I question whether I should bring more arguments, or simply let my opponent defend himself in the final round.

With that, I will continue with more positive arguments to uphold the pro. Sex is great for cardio vascular endurance, weight loss, relieves depression, decreasing risk of breast cancer in women, bladder health, and even helps to extend life. Again, these are health benefits that everyone has access to, if they choose to engage in sexual intercourse. My opponent may choose to hold off on these health benefits until marriage, but for the majority, we choose to take advantage of all the healthy and positive aspects of sex, regardless of marriage. http://webecoist.com...

I could continue, but it seems my opponent has much work to do in the final round, so with that, I thank the readers, and urge a pro vote.
Debate Round No. 3
vardas0antras

Con

::Responding to my opponent::

"This has no place in this debate, because there are many couples who love each other, and have no intention of marriage. Moreover, it is not necessary to love someone, in order to have sex with them."

This completely avoids my argument. I never said a couple must marry to love each other nor did I ever say that marriage is the only expression of love ; in short my opponent provided a straw man argument.

"So you see, the quality of love is completely subjective, thus further negating my opponent's strange and convoluted OPINION relating sex and marriage."
I don't see how the "quality of love" changes anything. You may find that person irritating but if you love him then your wish for the best for that person still remains.

::Benefits of Sex::

I said " 'Marriage, on the other hand, is simply a ceremonious coupling of two people'
Electricity was also created, is this unwise? Animals kill animals, should we follow them? Furthermore, marriage is a result of emotion."

Here, I show to my opponent that this point of his is irrelevant. Now, when I said "Electricity was also created" I was obviously referring to the usages of electricity that have been invented. Bad wording ? Yes. Is it easy to understand what I was trying to convey ? Absolutely but even if it wasn't, my point remains. Nevertheless, my opponent feels the need to waste a fifth of his entire round ridiculing this one modicum mistake.

"Also, if my opponent questions whether sex boosts self esteem, it is fairly clear that he has never had sex"
1) This is not an argument.
Explanation:
This is an assertion:
It is fairly clear that my opponent has never had sex because multiple sex partners lead to depression.
This is an argument:
Multiple sex partners lead to depression because of X, moreover, the contrary evidence only deals with short term.

As you can see, my opponent, made no argument there.

"My opponent has resorted to several convoluted and irrelevant scenarios"
Not scenarios but arguments which are explained by scenarios.

"using an example of someone who likes to kill. This is NOT the norm, so it can not be used in this debate per my opponent's own rules."
I wasn't providing an example rather an error. The error was that you've never considered the negative emotions and wishes we have. I didn't claim to be right because some guy wishes to kill others but rather I claimed to be right because some guy shouldn't act upon his murderous emotions.

::Votes::

Arguments:
1. ::Love::
Frankly, this wasn't challenged properly. He wastes his second round by telling us that this is irrelevant and now he provides straw man arguments.

2. ::Tires::
Not addressed. My opponent has conceded this point and if not, it's too late to post an argument.

3. ::Talk::
Not addressed. My opponent has conceded this point and if not, it's too late to post an argument.

4. ::Benefits of sex::
I have no problem with the benefits of sex, my reasons lay on the above three arguments. Granted, at the begining I did try to make an argument but now I find it unnecessary. Despite the previous comment, I must point out:
" My study:
While I do now realize the flaws of the study, I still have to disagree with you, particularly on waiting. ' Marriage is in no way implied by this statement'.
While marriage isn't necessary for this statement, it is rather obvious that marriage equals waiting. I elaborate in the 'Love section'."

Conduct:
An entire paragraph made just to ridicule my bad wording of one sentence is revealing.

Grammar:
Yes, I did mess up that one sentence but my opponent got lazy i.e. he gave no titles to his paragraphs (this creates confusion) and so forth.

Thank You,
Vote Con
gavin.ogden

Pro

At the very least, I would like to thank my opponent for his time, and I would also like to add that While we may have very differing views, I would always respect someone who wishes to abstain until marriage. With that said, I will sum up my reasons to affirm a pro ballot.

"This debate is about the positives and negatives of sex before marriage. My stance is that the negatives outweigh the positives."-Con

This was the opening statement, and the burden of proof necessary to win this debate. Well, my opponent clearly did not meet his burden, which was to present the negatives of sex before marriage. In fact, the more I read the entire debate, I see not a single solid argument for the Con. I will give examples momentarily, but first I would like make one point very clear. My opponent's conduct was unacceptable in this debate. He laid down the rules, which I followed, and in return, he decided to use peculiar case after peculiar case to make his arguments. His rules were:

"1.No peculiar cases ! Obviously, if someone is holding a gun near your head and he'll shoot if you don't have sex, you should have sex before marriage. We are talking about average people in average situations. In other words were talking about groups and not individuals.
1.1. There are exceptions, an exception isn't what this debate is about. We are debating the cons and pros of sex before marriage. I could produce peculiar cases for your position, too ! So please don't go toward this road because I'll simply quote this and the debate will be over."

Well, it turns out that I am quoting this, instead of the instigator. I already gave examples of this with his strange love equation with some over sexed male, and his chauvinistic argument of kicking the tires. Also, he compared the natural urge of sex with some urge to kill. If this isn't peculiar, then I don't know what is, because to say this is to say that we want to kill each other as much as we want to have sexual intercourse. I don't believe that I am peculiar in the fact that I do not desire to kill anyone, but I have natural desires for sex. Also, I could easily outweigh the negatives of murder, where my opponent has obviously had a difficult time arguing the negatives of sex before marriage. Also, he then makes an ad hominem against me:"It is fairly clear that my opponent has never had sex because multiple sex partners lead to depression.
This is an argument:
Multiple sex partners lead to depression because of X, moreover, the contrary evidence only deals with short term."-Con

When did we start debating multiple sex partners? As far as know, we are debating sex before marriage, and I never once made any claims for or against sex with multiple partners. Also, if my opponent questions the fact that sex boosts self esteem, it is fairly clear to me that he has never had sex, which he would freely admit. He has ZERO frame of reference here, and seemed desperate for content after only a couple rounds.

I have refuted all his arguments on the grounds that they were either non sequitur, irrelevant, or simply outlandish claims that violated the rules of this debate. All that aside, let's look at my arguments:

I gave close to a dozen physical and psychological benefits that sexual intercourse provides for our species, with legitimate sources to back them up. I showed how two people may be in love and have sexual intercourse, but may have no desire to marry. There is nothing peculiar about this, and furthermore, I demonstrated that everyone has(and should have) every right to take advantage of these benefits, regardless of marriage.

In summation, sex is just as common and important, in human life, as eating, drinking, sleeping, and sheltering ourselves. People may choose to marry, or they may choose not to, just as they may choose to have sex or not. My point is that one does not necessarily have anything to with the other. Also, my opponent may want to do a little research on marriage, because he seems to think it is simply an expression of love, which it is not. It is also legally binding and involves tax deductions and monetary obligations. The good news is that sex does not require anything except a man and a woman(and hopefully a condom). The positives clearly outweigh the negatives in this particular debate, and I urge a pro vote based on superior arguments and conduct. I would like to thank the readers for your time and support of our debate, and I would like to give credit to my opponent for instigating an important topic for modern human society. I hope it was enjoyable and somewhat thought provoking for everyone.
Debate Round No. 4
93 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Funkymonkey 5 years ago
Funkymonkey
Interesting
Posted by tigg13 5 years ago
tigg13
@ILoveJesus

"1. There would be no more "child" pregnancies, except for teens who are married."

Since when has prohibiting teenagers from having sex kept teenagers from having sex? And even if it did, wouldn't this just lead to more teen marriages which would lead to just as many child pregnancies? If you had read the debate you'd realize that one of the initial points that Pro made was that unsafe or irresponsible sex is a bad idea whether you're married or not.

2. The amount of sexually transmitted diseases caught would drop by a significant number. If no one got divorced, they would disappear almost completely in a couple of generations.(A waste of time to argue the contrary)

Now you're assuming that married people never cheat on their spouses. Again, the best way to prevent an STD is to practice safe sex and this is true whether you're married or not.

3. Better decisions would be made in preparing to have children, leading to less children born in poverty which would lower the crime rate.(Unwanted children play a significant part with crime all throughout the world)

Have you any idea how may children who have been mistreated and abused have come from two parent families or from marriages that have ended in divorce? There are lots of poor, neglected and unwanted children out there, trying to blame them all on single parent situations is just being ignorant. And once again safe sex is a much better solution than no sex at all.

In fact, given the benefits of sex that Pro pointed out in this debate, it could be argued that abortion could be seen as a better solution than no sex at all.
Posted by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
gavin.ogden
@simon

nice story...
Posted by SimonZocker 5 years ago
SimonZocker
i agree with vardas
Posted by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
gavin.ogden
@ILoveJesus
God actually murders, condones rape in some cases, hates certain people, and shows jealousy(there shall be no ther gods before him). God apparently hates his very own existence, according to you.
Posted by ILoveJesus 5 years ago
ILoveJesus
I didn't read the debate, but then again I don't need to say what I have to say. To say the negatives of sex before marriage outweigh the positive is fact, not opinion, fact.

What would happen if people only had sex after marriage.

1. There would be no more "child" pregnancies, except for teens who are married.
2. The amount of sexually transmitted diseases caught would drop by a significant number. If no one got divorced, they would disappear almost completely in a couple of generations.(A waste of time to argue the contrary)
3. Better decisions would be made in preparing to have children, leading to less children born in poverty which would lower the crime rate.(Unwanted children play a significant part with crime all throughout the world)

Everything that God hates leads to problems when it is acted out. If you made a list of the actions in this world that make this world a horrible place(murder, rape, hatred, jealousy, lieing, stealing etc.), fornication must be on that list.
Posted by brittany_paige0018 5 years ago
brittany_paige0018
It would have been a better debate if Vardas was a female, as we tend to view sex, in general, from a different stand point than males. We also don't function sexually or mentally as a male would so this argument would have been more broadened and definitely better argued.

Having been on the "before marriage" side of the fence, I will say that I have not benefited from having sex before marriage. In fact, I have lost more than I have ever gained. With that said, I am for waiting until marriage. I am also married by the way.

After reading this, I am rather disappointed by the "con". It seems as though he completely misrepresented the whole case. I seen more finger pointing than debating. He really didn't elaborate on marriage. I also seen only a couple of points made in regards to importance of waiting or marriage, when there is more than enough to develop a decent argument. I seen no elaboration of consequences for the "con" side. If I knew nothing of marriage or sex and was going strictly by this, I wouldn't think twice about waiting for marriage. Bottom line, poorly argued on "cons" side. Just a tip: While I have never read any of your other arguments, judging from this one, you spend more time trying to prove the other guy wrong and put forth no effort into building a solid case that can possible pursue public opinion. This was more like a chicken fight then a debate.
Posted by mecap 5 years ago
mecap
See? Not vote-bombed, MANY people left explanations for why they voted as they did.
Posted by mecap 5 years ago
mecap
Just to show verdas that this was not vote-bombing:
Agreed before: Pro
Agreed after: Pro
Conduct: Tie
Spelling & Grammar: Tie
Convincing Arguments: Pro
Reliable Sources: Tie

Here are some comments:
"It is proven that people who don't have sex before marriage are happier..."
-- Just because Con has found some articles which claim that people who abstain from sex are happier does NOT mean that it is PROVEN. That's a pretty big error!

The Love Equation:
-- That was confusing and made very little sense!

Key arguments (benefits of sex):
Pro stated: "sex is a great calorie burner, stress reliever, and helps boost the immune system. Also, sex improves cardio vascular health, and decreases the chance of prostate cancer in men."
Con stated: "I have no problem with this, I simply believe that they're best used in marriage."
-- The entire argument seemed to hinge on that point: sex CLEARLY has many benefits to the human body and Con agrees... I didn't see an argument from Con that demonstrates there are negatives of sex before marriage that trump the benefits.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
RFD - I found Con's arguments hard to follow and in many cases, was unable to see how the backed his case. I also found a few spelling mistakes (dear instead of dare). As far as sources go, I felt that both used links to back up what they were saying quite well, so I left that neutral.
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
vardas0antrasgavin.ogdenTied
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 
Vote Placed by Funkymonkey 5 years ago
Funkymonkey
vardas0antrasgavin.ogdenTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nihilist 5 years ago
Nihilist
vardas0antrasgavin.ogdenTied
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 gabeXcore 5 years ago
gabeXcore
vardas0antrasgavin.ogdenTied
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 
Vote Placed by anglcks20 5 years ago
anglcks20
vardas0antrasgavin.ogdenTied
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 
Vote Placed by BradyM 5 years ago
BradyM
vardas0antrasgavin.ogdenTied
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 
Vote Placed by Amethist17 5 years ago
Amethist17
vardas0antrasgavin.ogdenTied
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 prballar 5 years ago
prballar
vardas0antrasgavin.ogdenTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 5 years ago
kingofslash5
vardas0antrasgavin.ogdenTied
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 mecap 5 years ago
mecap
vardas0antrasgavin.ogdenTied
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