Sex before marriage

With that said, I will sum up my reasons to affirm a pro ballot. "This debate is about the positives and negatives of sex before marriage. My stance is that the negatives outweigh the positives. "-Con This was the opening statement, and the burden of proof necessary to win this debate. Well, my opponent clearly did not meet his burden, which was to present the negatives of sex before marriage. In fact, the more I read the entire debate, I see not a single solid argument for the Con. I will give examples momentarily, but first I would like make one point very clear. My opponent's conduct was unacceptable in this debate. He laid down the rules, which I followed, and in return, he decided to use peculiar case after peculiar case to make his arguments. His rules were: "1. No peculiar cases ! Obviously, if someone is holding a gun near your head and he'll shoot if you don't have sex, you should have sex before marriage. We are talking about average people in average situations. In other words were talking about groups and not individuals. 1.1. There are exceptions, an exception isn't what this debate is about. We are debating the cons and pros of sex before marriage. I could produce peculiar cases for your position, too ! So please don't go toward this road because I'll simply quote this and the debate will be over. " Well, it turns out that I am quoting this, instead of the instigator. I already gave examples of this with his strange love equation with some over sexed male, and his chauvinistic argument of kicking the tires. Also, he compared the natural urge of sex with some urge to kill. If this isn't peculiar, then I don't know what is, because to say this is to say that we want to kill each other as much as we want to have sexual intercourse. I don't believe that I am peculiar in the fact that I do not desire to kill anyone, but I have natural desires for sex. Also, I could easily outweigh the negatives of murder, where my opponent has obviously had a difficult time arguing the negatives of sex before marriage. Also, he then makes an ad hominem against me:"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. "-Con When did we start debating multiple sex partners? As far as know, we are debating sex before marriage, and I never once made any claims for or against sex with multiple partners. Also, if my opponent questions the fact that sex boosts self esteem, it is fairly clear to me that he has never had sex, which he would freely admit. He has ZERO frame of reference here, and seemed desperate for content after only a couple rounds. I have refuted all his arguments on the grounds that they were either non sequitur, irrelevant, or simply outlandish claims that violated the rules of this debate. All that aside, let's look at my arguments: I gave close to a dozen physical and psychological benefits that sexual intercourse provides for our species, with legitimate sources to back them up. I showed how two people may be in love and have sexual intercourse, but may have no desire to marry. There is nothing peculiar about this, and furthermore, I demonstrated that everyone has(and should have) every right to take advantage of these benefits, regardless of marriage. In summation, sex is just as common and important, in human life, as eating, drinking, sleeping, and sheltering ourselves. People may choose to marry, or they may choose not to, just as they may choose to have sex or not. My point is that one does not necessarily have anything to with the other. Also, my opponent may want to do a little research on marriage, because he seems to think it is simply an expression of love, which it is not. It is also legally binding and involves tax deductions and monetary obligations. The good news is that sex does not require anything except a man and a woman(and hopefully a condom). The positives clearly outweigh the negatives in this particular debate, and I urge a pro vote based on superior arguments and conduct. I would like to thank the readers for your time and support of our debate, and I would like to give credit to my opponent for instigating an important topic for modern human society. I hope it was enjoyable and somewhat thought provoking for everyone.