Premarital sex

INTRODUCTION My opponent's resolution: pre-marital sex causes harm in the long run. We must stick to harm caused to the individuals performing pre-marital sex, as harm can be extended infinitely. My opponent argues against promiscuity, which can occur regardless of whether a marriage contract has been signed. I ask CON: a pair of adult virgins are in a monogamous, loving, sexual relationship, are infertile, but are not married. With what in that does my opponent find fault? Unless he can find some long-term harm here, he cannot even begin to prove his argument. Situational claims don't apply. This is like saying A + B is bad, therefor A is bad. PREMISES I hold my opponent to standards of reasonable debate. Research looks at evidence and gives us the information we need to make choices, if it comes with a moral judgment then it is biased research. I fail to see how my opponent is ‘forced' to use philosophy and religious arguments, except if there is no other reasoning which supports his cause. He admits he can use other material to make his case. I expect him to do so. I accept REASONING so long as it is not abstract and shows it is not simply immoral but causes harm to those performing pre-marital sex. I will NOT accept religious arguments, for these reasons: They are handed-down morals from a being of which there is no evidence, the reasoning for these morals never provided. Whether the action is immoral does not prove long-term harm to the couple. Scripture is subject to interpretation and does not apply to people who do not accept it. "I am right because the Bible says I am" is not a logical argument. Finally, the vast majority of people are NOT Christian. [2] Four and a half billion people are not Christian, compared to two billion people who are. Many have no religion at all, many others simply ignore their scripture. Testimony: So long as it is trustworthy, non-anecdotal, unbiased testimony I see no reason to automatically write it off. It must be evidence of a larger problem with pre-marital sex and NOT simply one situation. Expert testimony is one expert telling the court what the evidence says about the problem at large. Witness testimony only applies to one situation and so for the purposes of a debate about more than one situation is useless. My opponent uses law as a standard for what should be accepted as evidence, as will I. American law does not accept Biblical or philosophical arguments. PRO'S SOURCES None of my CON's sources are valid: http://goo.gl... RESPONSES Re: Human sex: Sex is consensual, face-to-face, and used for both pleasure and social bonding in bonobo chimps, our closest relative.[1] "Whilst many studies have been done comparing the sexual activities of animals with people in order to undermine moral standing...I hope to show that the differences between animals and humans are paramount to highlight the dangers of premarital sex and/or promiscuity." It's silly to think that research is there just to undermine a moral system. I look forward to my opponent's attempt, and suggest he keep to our closest relatives, primates, as any other contrasts would be difficult to take seriously. Teen sex: My opponent provides questionable statistics regarding TEEN SEX only. Why should a situational problem should be applied to pre-marital sex as a whole? Again, A + B is bad does not make A bad. "A frequent result of promiscuity or premarital sex is abortion." It is a result of promiscuity, not pre-marital sex. Pre-marital sex is not automatically promiscuous. DISEASE Sex is only risky IF there is promiscuity AND unsafe sex, BOTH of which can happen while a couple is married. My opponent says a condom is not enough protection from STDs, a legal document is even worse protection! Marriage may be more of a risk. It creates a false sense of security, as evident in my last opponent who could not get it into his head that marriage is not a condom. Cheating occurs in 30 to 60 percent of American marriages alone. In most cases it is not discovered.[3] Now, combine such high rates of infidelity, extramarital promiscuity, and the lack of condom use in married couples. Married couples will assume they don't need safe sex, which puts the innocent party at risk. Marriage does NOT protect you from STDs. No matter how many times my opponent shows STDs to be a real problem, this fact will not go away. My opponent needs to prove that safe sex is more effective within a marriage. MY ARGUMENT This debate is a response to my earlier debate. Having spent space debunking CON's sources, I will link to my earlier argument (sources are in the comments) and summarize it.[7] 1. Health benefits. 2. Strengthens current relationships. 3. Improves sex in future relationships. 4. Cluelessness is risky and can weaken relationships. 5. A focus on abstinence encourages lying and marriage for sex. 6. Abstinence causes health problems. SOURCES: See Comments.