X despite number 2 and 3 decides to only have sex with his wife, in this case Y. 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…:: There is this saying: 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 I was accused of breaking my own rules, I need my opponent to provide an example. 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. 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. 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: This creates strong intimacy. 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.
Both do it but one person leaves the relationship we're assuming they like each other , hence, the aspect of connection disappears. Both are cold-blooded I don't think this is common enough to be considered.
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. We love someone if we love them for who they are.
It is also natural to love what they have for example looks, charisma, money, and etcetera. When we remove sex, we remove a huge part of what they have. Therefore, we are more concentrated on the person. The end result is greater assurance and greater love.
I have no problem with this, I simply believe that they're best used in marriage. Animals kill animals, should we follow them? Furthermore, marriage is a result of emotion. 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. I reference this in the "Love" section.
While I do now realize the flaws of the study, I still have to disagree with you, particularly on waiting. 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! Report this Argument 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.
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.
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. Responding to my opponent:: 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.
You may find that person irritating but if you love him then your wish for the best for that person still remains. I said " 'Marriage, on the other hand, is simply a ceremonious coupling of two people' Electricity was also created, is this unwise? Now, when I said "Electricity was also created" I was obviously referring to the usages of electricity that have been invented. 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. 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.
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.
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. My opponent has conceded this point and if not, it's too late to post an argument. 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: I elaborate in the 'Love section'. An entire paragraph made just to ridicule my bad wording of one sentence is revealing.