The Instigator
mall
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kvng_8
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Present arguments that show what's wrong with cohabitation

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Kvng_8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 961 times Debate No: 119138
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

mall

Pro

"Pro" position means that I will be questioning your arguments for why a man(boyfriend) living with a woman(girlfriend) together in a sexual relationship is wrong. We'll go over one argument at a time.
Kvng_8

Con

Greetings.

One question before we begin our debate.

1. Cohabitation is the definition as follows: The state of living together and having a sexual relationship without being married. You didn't add "without getting married" part. Was it your intention to not add that, Or do you in fact mean "without getting married"?

I don't want to make too many assumptions or go off the wrong foot or deep end until you answer question above so I'll keep my first response brief in a simple sentence - I don't see anything wrong with it, They are in a relationship as long as they are happy and they respect each other.

After you respond back, It will be easier for me and I will get more in depth.
Debate Round No. 1
mall

Pro

Yes I made it clear in the opening that the context of this discussion is, Why a man(boyfriend) living with a woman(girlfriend)together in a sexual relationship is WRONG. So there's no mention of marriage whatsoever in that context. The only titles mentioned are "boyfriend" and "girlfriend". So being that your position is not seeing anything wrong with cohabitation, You can either play devil's advocate or reconsider accepting the challenge.
Kvng_8

Con

"Pro" position means that I will be questioning your arguments for why a man(boyfriend) living with a woman(girlfriend) together in a sexual relationship is wrong. " - No, Pro presents why it ISN'T wrong in their opinion.

"You provide arguments for why cohabitation is wrong or whatever harm it does. " - That's your job. You are against it, Not me. Even though I accepted and I am "Con", I'm actually not against it, But it's clear that you're against it.

"I have to choose a side by default of the website. " - No you don't. When you create a debate, You have the option to choose Pro or Con. It doesn't give you one by default. For proof, I did some research and you did a similar debate like this before: https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Cohabitation-Living-together-before-marriage-will-most-likely-result-in-divorce. /1/

And you chose Con (against it) which you should have done on here. I'm aware of what the discussion format is, You just seem to have a few things mixed up which confused me.

"So there's no mention of marriage whatsoever in that context. " According to the definition of Cohabitation, It in fact includes "two people who are not married that live together". Even in that link above, You said "The term is commonly used regarding unmarried couples who choose to live together without officially getting married. " in your Round 1. Please explain that.

"So being that your position is not seeing anything wrong with cohabitation. " - Yet in your opening statement and your comment, You make it clear that my role is to say my argument on why cohabitation is wrong though. You are contradicting.

You are Pro, I am Con (should be switched around) you can't give me the option to be devil's advocate or whatever the case, Therefore the debate won't be proper.

You should have changed the title of the debate, Changed your opening statement on Round 1, And made yourself "Con" so it wouldn't be any confusion.

In this debate it, From your Round 1, It shows that you are for cohabitation and that you're not a against it, But actually you are. Proof is even in the link I sent. So this debate should have been me being Pro and you being Con.

I will now be "Pro" and you will be "Con"
I'll go ahead and state my argument again - They are in a relationship as long as they are happy and they respect each other. They are eventually going to get married. I honestly don't see the big deal. I mean, Sex before marriage is a sin. Not everything is going to go by the book. Convince me otherwise.
Debate Round No. 2
mall

Pro

Well this discussion is hereby cancelled. No sense in going any further trying to be contentious about it. Thank you.
Kvng_8

Con

I'm not being contentious, Just had to call you out and I even attempted to have a debate about this but thanks for cancelling it, I lost interest anyways. Hopefully you learn something and you won't make the same mistake twice. :)

- Debate over.
Debate Round No. 3
mall

Pro

No, No, This discussion is hereby cancelled. No sense in going any further trying to be contentious about it. Thank you.
Kvng_8

Con

Debate over
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
How about you learn how to properly draw out your terms and learn how to have a debate. This is a debate not an interview. You're not gonna be questioning me one sided, Plus you aren't saying the actual definition cohabitation
Posted by mall 3 years ago
mall
The judgment on the code of conduct is not valid. This debate never went into effect. Conduct is irrelevant. The one that accepted the challenge without fully accepting the terms and the way their actions were could be considered poor conduct.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
sorry said that 3 times didnt mean to
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
lol fine
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
lol fine
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
lol fine
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Kvng_8

Don't make him offend you.

Instead aim higher.

Using stupid or crap does not get your point across.

Some people don't learn don't let them drag you down.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
By the way omar, This stupid individual makes another debate identical to this one thinking it's going to change anything. They were also subliminally talking cr*p about me. Big mistake.

https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Present-arguments-that-show-whats-wrong-with-cohabitation/2/comments/

The other debate
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
So you don't want to see what I type?

Guess I'll vote then.
Posted by mall 3 years ago
mall
Omar2345, You are now blocked. "Can't block me from posting comments. " Your comments are blocked from my profile. They're clearly setup to catalyze contention and to antagonize. It was repetitive behavior that had to cease
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
mallKvng_8Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Questioning opponent's arguments is not enough for Against to go on. A debate has two sides with different positions. If his position is to question that is not a position Against can work with. I advise if Pro wanted to do this simply add an opinion poll or add it to a forum because Pro did not give opposing arguments. A debate requires both sides to give opposing arguments.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.