Resolved: Pre-marital sex ought not remain a sin from the Christian standpoint.

Firstly I would like to prove my oppoents to be worng in his attempt to refute my arguements. "Yes, pregnancy is a natural outcome of sex, but there are things such as condoms, birth control, and bisectimies. So don't be fooled into thinking that eveytime you have sex, a baby will be born. Nevertheless, my opponent does make an interesting argument even if an improbable satistic. Even with an unwanted pregancy, you mature from it. You learn that life can be hard, but you learn how to cope. And for all we know it wasn't unwanted. So even with the unprobable chance, the benfits outweight the harms. So extend that sex is a maturing act." In this refutation, my opponent seems to be misinformed that having a potential life is not a serious event. My opponent has stated, and I quote "you learn that life can be hard, but you learn how to cope," as he is simply concluding that pre-marital sex only affects the sexual partners, themselves. But little did my opponent know what we are genuinely debating at this day and age is the fact that we can not risk and disrespect the lives of our future generation. Surely, sexual partners may learn that sex can give you unwanted lives, but what would happen to those young lives? " Really? Free choice can only exist when you adknowledge other's free choice? I disagree. I had the free choice to start this debate, whether or not I knew if you wanted to accept, or if your mom made you accept. I had no idea if you had a choice, yet I still had a choice to start the debate. Also, once again, he uses the improbable example of unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion, adoption, and "many other unfortunate outcomes". Well, he gives no reason those are harmful, but I'll tell you why they are beneficial to the child. Adoption could take the child out of a potentially harmful homelife. But for the sake of the Negative, it could also put it in a potentially harmful homelife. So when weighed, there's no impact in adoption in this debate. Abortion not only helps stop an over populated Earth, it can stop the child from living a bad life. Christians do say that life starts at conception, but just because I debate this topic doesn't make me Christian. That idea has no backing, so lets look at the scientificly proven, that life starts after conception. When doesn't matter because abortion would be aborting before life has started. So extend that we have free choice, and that it would be hypocrital of God to tell us its wrong to excercise that right." In this attempt of refutation, my opponent seems to be greatly illogical in choosing a right example at the right times. Starting this debate was, yes, based on my opponent's free will, but did this decision relate to life or death matter? The answer is no. My opponent has also tried to heckle in this dispute as he intended to digress and critize about the debater's personal family relationship. My opponent is skipping numerous steps in arguing, as he is now talking about the "benefits" of adoptions while what we are aiming at is the issue of accepting pre-marital sex in Christianity. Instead of giving a child 2nd or 3rd option in living, why not give them the best choice in having a normal life, by primarily preventing any cases that include these other choices ? My opponent would not dare to state that not having unwanted child in the first place is worse than putting themunder lower level conditions. "So God is a picky gift giver? He gives us a gift when we are born, and we can only unwrap it with one person, at his time of choosing? Hmmm....how anti-free choice. Almost dictator like. But heres the thing....we know that right now its a sin "in the christian standpont". The Negative's job is to show why is should stay that way. Not to state what already is. So I'm going to disregard this point seeing how it takes on the truth of the resolution, never proves it." In this attempted refutation my opponent seems to believe that God is a "picky gift giver" and that "dictator" who chooses the suitable person for the gift. However, this is not true. Yes, God would have some say in choosing the right and only sexual partner, but the choice is up to the first person, oneself to decide to have sex before marriage or not. If the person decides not to follow this motto, it would simply go against the law, and if the person decides the follow it, he/she would be in favour of being more Christ-llike in God's eye. "Well I haven't eaten in 5 days. That hotdog next to me looks really good. Tempting one could say. But God wouldn't like that, would he? He wouldn't want me to give in to temptation. The point of this is that not all temptation is bad. Once again my opponent assumes his side of the resolution, never proves it. So until my opponent proves pre-marital sex a bad temptation, this argument falls." I would like to quesetion my opponent's knowledge. How, in any form, being hungry realted to sexual temptation? In regards to the example of being hungry and being tempted of eating a hot dog, this is not a form of temptation, because being hungry is human nature, and the desire to eat in order of keeping oneself alive can only be viewed as a way of surviving, not temptating. It would only be a tempation, if, say the hot dog belonged to some else, or the hot dog was promsied to not to be eaten. Why is sexual temptation bad? It is so because it shows very little dignity of oneself, and of the sexual partners. If one was to accept the sexual temptation as my opponent describes it to be a "lesson", would this mean one could sleep around with prostitutes, cheating wives, or any other temptors? This would be disrespecting those who would marry these figures in future, by dirtying their body, and taking away God's gift from the right person. "Cross apply with my earlier argument about conception not at birth. Also, take into account that the majority of Christians would still only have sex with their spouse even if it pre marital sex was not a sin. On top of that condoms+birth control+bisectimies=unwanted pregnancies a very unprobable scenario." "Conception not at birth". This is theory is wrong as scientists define living things to be any form of life that has nucelus, and actiive major organ in it. Thus, proving that it is by law, when conception happens and when sperm and an egg is mixed nucelus is formed, therefore conception is a form of birth. Christians would still only have sex with theif spouse even if pre marital sex was not a sin? How would this be so? Chritians would be entitled to only have sexual intercourse with one's spouse within in the marriage, but who could gaurantee the beforemath of the marriage? My opponent has no proof or valid reason to prove this. Lastly, I have not decided to redefine the terms as it is the affrimative's role to set the defnitions, and the negative side redefining it would naturally mean the avoidance of debate. In conclusion, I demand the affirmative to redefine the terms in the mot suitable and neutral manner.