Sex in Public Should Be Legalised
Debate Rounds (4)
It is simple. Sex is beautiful. It is a way of life. Why should we not present it in public, where the world can see how we feel about love and passion. Why should we be denied our desires simply because we're in a shopping mall, or a park?
Sex in public doesn't have to be awkward, or uncomfortable. Hey, we pee in public toilets, right? This is the opportunity we need, to have public sex legalised and release our real desires!
Once again, thank you to PRO for this opportunity!
Sex should be allowed in public. No one should need to hide when they want to release themselves. Someone prove me wrong.
Thank you to the PRO side for their opening statement and substantives. In this round, I'll be talking about how a law that permits public sex is undemocratic to the public, but first, allow me to conduct a few rebuttals.
R1) "Sex is beautiful. It is a way of life."
PRO has made no correlation between something being a "way of life" and something that is fit for public exhibition. When we say that a certain act or behaviour is a way of life, we are only implying that said behaviour or act is one that is practiced by many people for various reasons or is recognised as an essentiality in our quotidian lifestyles. By no means does "way of life" mean that it can be or should be performed in the company of others.
R2) "Sex is a natural desire"
Once again, there exists no explanation in part of PRO to bridge the gap between a natural desire and the decency of said desire to be exercised in public or to be legalised. It is also a natural desire for homophobes to punch homosexuals and for the desperately poor to rob a bank, but does that give grounds for public display or legalisation?
R3) "Hey, we pee in public toilets, right?"
PRO's attempt at drawing a parallel with the analogy of peeing in public has failed in a number of ways. Urination, similar to eating and sleeping, is a bodily need and a necessity that cannot be denied or ignored. This is recognised by the general public and thus urinating in facilities such as public toilets is accepted. By contrast, sex, as PRO describes it him/herself, is a "desire" rather than something that has to be done. Thus, there exists no sexual equivalent for the public toilet, and no reason to legalise public sex either. PRO must also not forget that public toilets are very much regulated environments, with features such as cubicles and barriers between urinals, which contradicts PRO's own utopian scenario where sex in public is truly unrestricted, uncensored and done out in the open.
I shall now proceed to my deliver the first substantive of my case.
P1) Sex is stigmatised
Sex is pleasurable, but it is undeniably a guilty pleasure. The stigma attached to sex dictates that it is indecent and foul on various levels, such as talking about sex and engaging in intercourse before marriage. Said stigma is aptly represented by the controversiality of pornography, prostitution and sex education. Existing laws that act against public sex deem it illegal on the grounds of gross indecency, indecent exposure, and public lewdness among other titles , a good reflection of what gives rise to the stigma surrounding sex and pertaining topics. Sex is also a touchy subject in private environments, evidenced by parents' unwillingness to speak to their children about "the birds and the bees", and the overall 'awkward' nature as PRO mentions, among other examples.
If sex is something that is sensitive to handle even in a private environment, how well received will a law that allows public sex be by the public? Laws are drafted and enforced by the government, and principally speaking, it is upon the government to act in the interest of the public. Why is it, then, justified for the government to implement a law that goes against the perceptions and conscience of many on the topic of sex? Doing so will only create yet another source of public dissatisfaction towards the government, and brings no new benefits sufficient enough to outweigh the backlashes (that is, unless PRO justifies benefits brought about by this law further down the bench).
Please note that this substantive, nor this debate in broader terms, does not concern the legitimacy of public sex and whether it is moral to conduct sex in public by nature. This substantive/debate concerns the plausibiliy of legalising public sex which is why I have incorporated public opinion on sex. What is generally regarded to be moral may not necessarily be genuinely righteous, but the law has to cater to what the public thinks instead of what is "truly correct".
To conclude, I have addressed all claims made by PRO uphold the legal validity of public sex, and have proven that such a law plays no role in changing the public's view on sex (i.e. making it less awkward) as PRO wants to see happen, but will instead undermine public interest. Thank you and I look forward to PRO's response.
masterdrave forfeited this round.
cathaystewie forfeited this round.
masterdrave forfeited this round.
Please extend my previous arguments and rebuttals and vote CON.
On a side note, I forgot to post the source that I referenced in Round 2 under the  citation, here it is:
Thank you to my opponent and all audience members for your time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: This is a clear Con win. Pro put forward a few arguments at the beginning, but failed to substantiate them to a degree that would convince the reader of the merits of legalising sex in public. He failed to show that sex being a beauty and a way of life correlates with the necessity of presenting it in public. These were duly pointed out by Con. That the public lavatory analogy is false was also made clear by Con, leaving no arguments by Pro unrefuted. By contrast, Pro presented a strong case against legalisation, namely the social stigma that sex carries and the far-reaching repercussions of such an act, which Pro unfortunately did not make an attempt to rebut. Thus Con wins.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to present any proper arguments except restating the resolution, and then forfeiting. Con refuted Pro's public restroom analogy by showing that it's a necessity, rather than a desire. Con says Pro fails to establish a link between sex being "beautiful" resulting in it being legalized publically. Con also showed that stigmatization of sex would result in legalization of public sex being a net detriment. Pro fails to respond to this because of their forfeiture. Ergo. I vote Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.