Debate Rounds (5)
Also we are talking about a consensual environment, not cases involving abuse.
Alright. I'll take a shot at this.
Just to clarify, you are against the notion that pre-marital sex is wrong, correct?
I will be defending that premarital sex among large populations is wrong.
Five rounds, so the first is for acceptance I take it. Well I accept obvoiusly :P
Firstly, I will acknowledge that pre-marital sex has been considered taboo or sinful by many different cultures for a long time. Sex used to necessarily mean the possibility of conception, which adds layers of complication for a woman before and during the mid 20th century. But as technology developed means were invented of eliminating this possibility if one so chose. Thus sex now does not inherently carry with it the responsibility of possible conception and so we see the blossoming of female sexuality.
So now the issue is solely about the 'sharing' of one's sex with another. Without getting in depth, in a theological sense sex is considered extremely precious and a mystery which is only properly experienced in a marriage context. If it is pre-marital it is considered a violation of one's body or a prostitution of one's self.
In this debate, I will argue that there is no moral evidence for this point of view and that it should not be dictated as a moral fact.
1. Sex can be equally as important or 'precious' outside of a marriage contract.
2. It is the right of the person to experience sex with another consensual partner how so ever they choose, dictating to another the 'proper' way to express themselves is not embracing and respecting of others values and perspectives.
3. There is no evidence to suggest that one's body is 'violated' by pre-marital sex any more than sex in marriage. Emotionally there may be the same feelings involved during and after as a couple in a marriage situation.
4. Prostituting oneself is an emotive phrase attributing low self respect and low self esteem to, in particular, a woman participating in pre-marital sex. It is an acutely derogative term and insults self-respecting women's free choice to have sex.
Thank you to my opponent for his initial arguments!
My opponent's resolution appears to be that "Premarital-Sex is not morally wrong"
Wrong - An unjust, dishonest, or immoral action. http://www.google.com...;
Also, marraige will be refered to as any permenant, long term monogamous relationship that ends in death.
What is morality
This is a big question in today's society: What is morality? The common libertarian definition of morality follows along these lines: Do whatever you want so as long as nobody gets hurt as a result of it. This definition is obviously flawed.
First off, this would mean it is morally wrong for two people to consentually box eachother, or participate in any sort of physical, hands-on sport. It also doesn't deal with the realm of potentially harmful. For instance, surrounding pre-marital sex obviously lies the possibilities of emotional trauma, STD's, and unwanted pregnancies. But using this definition while still maintaining the notion that pre-marital sex is not morally wrong, it would have to be morally right to play Russian Roullette, considering the game is only dealing with potential harm.
Another possible definition is: Whatever has benefits that outweighs the losses, possible or not, can be considered morally acceptable. (With the taking of a life as the most extreme loss) I like this definition, and will support it in this debate.
So for my opponent to show that premarital sex is not morally wrong, he will need to do one of the following:
Show how my definition of morality is flawwed.
Show how premarital sex (No arguments that could be used in substitute for marital sex would work) benefits more than it would potentially lose.
One of the many risks of premarital-sex is the risk of unwanted pregnancies. This is a big deal in our society, with over 40% of children being born to mothers outside of wed-lock. (1) Surely, on a universal scale, this risk outweighs the possible benefits of pre-marital sex.
If morality is defined by a benefit to risk ratio, pre-marital sex is morally wrong. I now hand over to my opponent.
My opponent's definition of morality as "benefits outweighing the losses" does not argue against pre-marital sex, it just says that its wrong to engage in it irresponsibly. An example of this would be to bring a baby into an unstable and unprepared environment due to unprotected sex. I am not debating this, neither am I debating that acting irresponsibly and engaging in unprotected sex doesn't incur a risk of becoming infected with sexually transmitted diseases.
So the cons of sex are quite easily negated to almost nil when the participants act responsibly. And irresponsible behaviour is another debate topic all together.
If you add to this that sex can be a very pleasurable and gratifying experience along with various beneficial health effects, the resulting conclusion is that it is not morally wrong.
Therefore, according to my opponent's definition, It is reasonable to conclude that if two consenting adults act responsibly by practising safe sex (if a baby is undesired and/or unprepared for and to prevent STI's) they are not acting morally objectionably.
It is not justified to attribute the potential risks to the act of pre-marital sex, but rather, to irresponsible sexual activity.
To engage your other point on emotional trauma, I would like to remind you that we are referring to consentual and non-abusive sex.
My opponents Round 3 mostly consisted of claim dropping. I will do my best to rebute most, if not all of them.
His first claim was that out of wed-lock births were mostly just people preparing to get married and decided to have children before. This sounds nice (although really unbelievable), but in the source I gave there was stated to be around 11.6 million parents in the U.S. are the single parents of one or more children. (See comments). Now, this can obviously be seen as a negative thing, as children raised by single parents often experience emotional problems and make up a majority of the 'guests' at juvenile detention centers. This is obviously a bad thing.
Next, my opponent said that we are debating sex with no risk involved, and completely responsible. Actually, the only way to remove risk is to have a woman's tubes tied or a man to get a vasectomy. But that is beside the point. All in all, it is safe to say objective morality does not exist outside the realms of religion. What I am defending is the notion that if the risk outweighs the possible benefits, then we should simply consider the action morally wrong. Morals apply to society. Society is as strong as it's weakest members. Those members will be irresponsible when dealing with matters of sex. They account for 40% of out of wed-lock births. This is an obvious negative effect, and does sufficiently attribute more risk than possible gain.
If my opponent really wants to debate what is alright when variables are controlled, he will find that he can justify doing pretty much anything. For instance, government prisoner executions can be considered morally justified. Of course the taking of a specific persons life is never a good thing, but the benefits outweigh the risks in this case. The same could be said about sterile sex; I'm sure the possible benefits of feeling good about yourself and exercising that muscle on your lower end are good benefits when there are no risks. However, risks exist for non-sterile people, and they greatly outweigh those benefits.
But here arises an interesting question, "What measures the risks in comparison to the benefits?" But the answer is really simple. Just imagine your life without sex outside of marriage. Is it really that bad? If you really can't help yourself; get married! Then imagine a life with a child you are either going to abandon of be forced to take care of. The imagine sex again. Now you simply ask yourself was it worth the 2-45 minutes of pleasure? For me, the answer is obvious.
But there is another problem here; the same could be said about driving a car. Every time you get into a car, you risk dying. Then you would end up asking yourself was driving the car worth it? Of course not. So we need to incorporate risk factors here. In driving, that risk is pretty insignifigant. In sex, however, the risk is experienced by 11.6 million out of wed-lock single parents in the US.
Blah, I'm done. I turn over.
Premise 2: these members will be irresponsible when dealing with matters of sex
I will correct my opponent's confusingly worded and highly derogatory conclusion:They (weakest members of society; Couples giving birth out of wed-lock) account for 40% of births.
I will try to put things into perspective. 69% of unplanned pregnancies occur to unmarried women while 31% of unintended pregnancies occur to married women. As there were 3 million unintended pregnancies in 2001, which was the most recent year in which adequate information was available , this means there were almost a million unplanned pregnancies to married women. Now according to my opponents risk to benefits scenario, this would mean that sex during marriage is also unacceptable if the couple is not planning to have a baby.
Now another misleading statistic produced by my opponent. He says there are 11.6 million out of wed-lock single parents in the U.S. This infers that all these single parents are the result of pre-marital sex. whereas if you take into account that 1 in 2 children will see their parents divorce and half of these kids will also see the break up of a parent's second marriage, we see things now a little clearer. It is not just that single parents are the result of pre-marital conception, but also the failure of a marriage and consequential divorce.
So now we see that marriages can also produce the negative child-rearing circumstances that my opponent has portrayed, along with the emotional trauma of a divorce.
To use my opponent's suggestion that society is only as strong as its (morally) weakest members; (and) these members will be irresponsible when dealing with matters of sex, the necessary conclusion is that sex is wrong during marriage as well, unless they are planning to have a child from the act of sex and they are 100% committed to the relationship during the course of raising a child. But my opponent's premise that society is only as strong as its (morally) weakest members interferes with my conclusion as they may not be trusted to remain together for the entire time of the raising of the child. Therefore, I re-conclude that sex, according to my opponent's premises, may be wrong full stop.
And to correct my opponent's assumption made earlier, I did not say that pre-marital births were from couples preparing to get married, I said "An out of wed-lock couple may still have desired and been fully prepared for the arrival of a child."
My conclusion from this round of my argument is that irresponsibility lies not only in the pre-marital scene but also in marriage. Therefore nullifying the argument that pre-marital sex is wrong due to irresponsibility because, as my opponent argues that marriage is the only right context for sex as married couples contain only sexually responsible people and I have proved that sexual irresponsibility exists quite thoroughly in the marriage context as well, it thus follows that his argument contradicts itself and holds little weight.
shift4101 forfeited this round.
unfortunate forfeited this round.
shift4101 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by logicrules 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Found arguments specious. No reasonable definitions.