Pre-Marital Abstinence

Thanks, Con, for the response. Back to the debate! :) 1. Once again, Con keeps relying on the fact that purity balls do not represent the values of girls who choose to participate in them. He says, "But a purity ball doesn't neccesarilly represent the girl's choice, persay, but the influence of her father and the subsequent faith of her family." I already responded to this entire contention under Point 1 in the last round. I said that Purity Balls represent what a young woman willingly chooses to value due to those influences (family, friends and faith). In other words, those values would exist with or without the Purity Ball because one's values typically derive from those 3 sources of influence. Con acknowledges this reality, yet does not refute my argument at all whatsoever. Again, he just repeats the same exact argument from R2 which I have already refuted in the last round. Please extend my arguments from there. In short, Con argues, "abstinence is detrimental because it has been imposed on them by the 'family and faith' around them" though my point was that there is no way around this reality! Every single person is influenced by their friends, family, faith and the media including Con himself. Therefore there is no way to avoid one's values influencing another. Furthermore, Con asserts that "Abstinence has been proven not to work in any sense whatsoever." This is once again 100% FALSE. Some people do indeed practice abstinence, therefore saying that it doesn't work in any way whatsoever is nothing more than a blatant lie. This cannot be backed up with facts or evidence (quite the opposite actually!) and Con's link to the Washington Post article was broken to boot. However even if it wasn't, at best it would say that abstinence PLEDGES were likely to fail (key word: likely - not definitely) though the act of abstinence itself is not impossible to achieve. Additionally, Con says that not going through with an abstinence pledge affects one's failure on an intellectual level. Uh, how? Con questions, "Pro says that teens are CAPABLE of having their own values, but I ask this: where in this lovely scenario is there an example of free thought?" This is a loaded question if I've ever seen one. The answer is that there is NO SUCH THING as "free thought." All thoughts, actions, values, etc. are derived from others and previous thoughts, actions, values, etc. 2. Con continues with his false assertions when he insists that birth control methods are as just as effective as abstinence. Once again, this is a BLATANT LIE. Abstinence is the *ONLY* method of birth control that is 100% effective. Any other form of birth control runs the risk of not working. Con asks (and this is quite ridiculous), "why doesn't someone get an STD or become a parent every time they use a condom?" First off, about 2% of condoms break in general. Further, "Studies also indicate that condoms slip off the penis in about 1-5% of acts of vaginal intercourse and slip down about 3-13% of the time" [1]. The point here is that condoms are indeed VERY effective; however, they are not 100% foul-proof -- abstinence is the ONLY FOUL PROOF METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL (and contracting STDs). I have said this repeatedly and even cited and linked sources saying the same thing [2], [3], etc. so you have no reason to accept Con's flat-out lie. Overall, this entire contention fails so please extend all of my arguments on Point 1 from previous rounds. 3. Extend my argument (Con completely ignored it) that I am pro-abstinence in cases where it's the right choice for the individual, though I am against abstinence-only sex education. 4. Con's faulty reasoning becomes crystal clear in his response to my fourth contention. He writes, "SINCE hormones supercede everything esle, and since abstinence pledgers tend to be absent of knowledge on birth control, those hormones overpower thier weak pledges and yes, do sometimes lead them to have sex, which TENDS to be unprotected because of abstinence. Therefore, it is detrimental to them because they are now at risk for STDs and pregnacy BECUASE OF ABSTINENCE." Clearly he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about; the arguments just don't follow. Yes, I agree that sometimes hormones override rationality. And yes, I agree that it's important to know about sex. So, when Con writes that people who take abstinence pledges don't know enough about sex, he makes TWO MAJOR MISTAKES. First and foremost, I've already explained how I think sex education is important to EVERYONE - even those who take abstinence pledges - so that point alone completely negates his entire contention. Second, Con mistakenly accuses abstinence itself of being "wrong" however what's really wrong is the lack of knowledge and not abstinence (the lack of sex) itself!!! 5. Con has completely ignored my fifth contention which talked about alternatives to sex, and abstinence pledges applying not only to religious individuals. Please extend all of my arguments. 6. Con writes, "Now, in my opponent's sixth contention, she admits the fact that teens who choose abstinence are uninformed." This is completely UNTRUE. I really think it's abusive for Con to keep manipulating Pro's arguments. I have never said that. I agree that many people who make abstinence pledges wrongly choose not to learn about sex in general. However, I've pointed out throughout this entire debate how some INFORMED and EDUCATED teens make the choice not to have sex (abstain) until they are ready. That is the choice that I made and one I know a lot of teens willingly choose. So, right here Con's assertion that anyone who chooses abstinence is uninformed is again a manipulation of the truth and cannot be backed up. This logic does not apply to ALL people who choose abstinence. Con also completely manipulated my argument and once again ignored all of the facts and statistics I presented in my favor. He writes, "And never, ever is [abstinence] the 'right choice' because, again, it simply doesn't work. Therefore it is entirely, truely, wrong." This argument, honestly, is full of LOL. Con absolutely 100% can NOT prove that abstinence "does not work." First, he keeps confusing the act of abstinence with the pledge of abstinence. Second, many people choose abstinence and are happy with their decision. These declarations without a shred of truth to them are getting annoying. 7. Con completely ignored my 7th point; please extend it. 8. In the last round I wrote, "Con again states that many people take their abstinence pledges back and then don't know how to properly protect themselves from the risks of sex. He repeats this point over and over but I have already said I AM AGAINST ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX ED. Also, abstinence is 100% reliable for those who practice it!" Con's response was, "And being against sex ed doesn't negate the fact that the pledgers are uninformed, misguided, and are ultimately being forced into a mistake that could potentially (and most likel) eill ruin their life if they have no outside input besides their controlling, useless pledges." As you can see, his response was ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to my point (just as all of his others were). First, he said "being against sex ed..." but nowhere did I ever, ever say that I was against sex-ed. I have been all for it. Second, he talks about how those who pledge abstinence are misguided and pledging abstinence sometimes means choosing to be uninformed about sex, which can have detrimental effects. Well, obviously those detrimental effects can ONLY OCCUR if... the people have sex! In other words, if they actually practiced abstinence (no sex!) then none of those risks would apply meaning my point is actually upheld. Thank you. [1] http://www.avert.org... [2] http://www.greattowait.com... [3] http://www.boston.com...