Pre-Marital Sex

My opponent throughout this debate has more than once told me how "outrageous" my statements have been so in honor of this I would like to state that the only thing that is "outrageous" in this whole debate is my opponents lack of debating skills. My opponent does not offer anything but opinions throughout this debate, but he attacks what he considers my opinions. The only difference between me and my opponents statement is that I have facts to back mine up where my opponent does not. My opponent has not been able to argue my points so to make up for this he uses all kinds of 25 Cent words but yet he still fails to use the correctly in some cases. Also my opponent does not have any way to argue my points so he decides to get off subject. I hate to even start to argue these next points my opponent offers because I know it will fall on on def ears and irrational, illogical, and delusional thinking. Basically where my opponents reasoning is coming from is, he is simply trying to justify the mistakes he has made. But here I go. "One of the things DDO has taught me is that it's not necessary to chase down all of the red herrings you come across in other people's arguments." The only reason my opponent mentions this is because he has nothing to state against my argument which is supported with facts, common sense, and the truth. "In fact, I feel so confident that my position is virtually unassailable at this point that I am going to be very brief in this round." this is just another example of my opponents delusional thinking and also obviously shows that the reason my opponent is keeping it brief is because he has nothing to state that will help his argument. "People that have sex outside of the bounds of marriage are not guaranteed to have sex with multiple partners." this is the one part of my opponents argument that is PARTIALLY true. They are not guaranteed to but it is more likely. "My opponent's contention is an appeal to fear [2], and it is based on faulty statistics. Condoms don't fail 31 percent of the time; this assertion is ridiculous. Condoms are both effective at preventing the spread of aids [3], and they are effective at preventing pregnancies. Depending on whether or not condoms are used correctly, they can help prevent pregnancies 97 percent of the time. [4]" Firstly, the statistics I used are not faulty they are 100% true condoms fail 31% of the time when trying to stop the spread of aids this is because the AIDS Virus is smaller than the holes in the condoms. If my opponent had looked at my sites he would have saw this. Secondly, If you wait to have sex you do not have to worry about getting aids so obviously abstinence is the best way to go. n my opponents site it does say that condoms work 97% of the time at preventing pregnancy. But this is only counting if it used correctly which is not always the case. My opponent is trying to bend the facts. Once again abstinence is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. "None of your business; how's that for an answer. If two people are in love and they don't want to get married for whatever reason, then that is their choice. Arguing that they should avoid having sex because of this is simply outrageous." Obviously I have struck a nerve here so I will not comment on this statement. "Contention 3: Sex and Pregnancies This argument is dead and meaningless. Contention 4: Single Parent Households This argument is dead and meaningless. Contention 5: Single Parent Households [part 2] Like contentions 3 and 4, this argument is also dead and meaningless. My opponent's arguments only become more exposed for their weakness as this debate has continued forward." This is a very poor attempt on my opponents part THE ONLY REASON THESE POINTS ARE "DEAD AND MEANINGLESS" IS BECAUSE MY OPPONENT CAN NOTCOME UP WITH ANYTHING TO SAY TO THEM MY STATEMENTS ARE SO STRONG THAT MY OPPONENT HAS NO WAY TO ATTAK THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have clearly out debated my opponent and this is the perfect example. ""Explain to me how sex is not a moral activity because if this were true, there would be no laws against prohibiting any sexual act (i.e. rape, sodomy, prostitution, pedophilia, etc.)" Like I said before, sex is a morally neutral activity. Whether or not sex is immoral depends on the context it takes place it in. There is nothing prima facie wrong with engaging in consensual sexual activity." his is not what my opponent had stated before I burned him on this statement so he is running back on his words this is hat my opponent had stated previously. "Contention 1: Sex, in and of itself, is a non-moral activity." My opponent said that it was a "non-moral activity" not that it was "morally neutral" or that it was "immoral" (which it is) this is another example at my opponents debate falling apart. "Moreover, even if I granted the primary claims of my opponent's arguments" which you should because they are correct and obviously my opponent can tell that they are, or he would have not made this statement. "his resolution would still fail. Under the current resolution, committed couples that aren't married shouldn't have sex. And couples should also avoid having sex the night before their wedding. Like I've pointed out earlier, this is a ridiculous consequence of my antagonist's views." My resolution is essay to prove and that is what I have done. WAITING TO HAVE SEX TILL AFTER YOU ARE MARRIED IS HEALTHIER FOR THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL PARTS OF THE BODY. If you had sex the night before your wedding in theory you could have sex with someone that is not your spouse. "I really don't know what more I can say. I've completely crippled all of my opponent's arguments. Consequently, Witty11 has decided to engage in quite a bit of fear mongering about sex, abortions, and contraception. None of these tactics should be persuasive to anyone." I really don't know what I can say. Well I guess I could start off by saying that my opponent tactics re quite sad, also I could say the I have proved that I have superior debating skills and, that my opponents argument "may look convincing at surface value. Nevertheless, they are ultimately built upon nothing but logical fallacies and irrational" statements he has clearly been defeated. I WOULD HOP THAT YOU WOULD VOTE FOR ME EVEN IF YOU PREVIOUS LIFE CHOICES DO NOT MATCH WAT I HAVE STATED THAT YOU WILL STILL VOTE CON, I FEEL THAT I HAVE OUT DEBATED MY OPPONENT. SO EVEN THOUGH MY OPPONENTS ARGUMENT LOOKS STRONG WITH ALL OF IT'S 25 CENT WORDS AND TWISTING OF INFORMATION I HOPE THAT YOU CAN SEE MY POINT AND ALSO SEE THAT I HAVE PROVEN MY STATEMENTS CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. THANK YOU Even though I do not agree with my opponent by any means I thank him for excepting this debate.