Sex before is marriage is okay.

Rebuttal: In response to my opponent's first point, I have 4 responses. 1) The contention basically states that there are risks with sex, and the older someone is the more capable they're of handling it. This is not true. I would concede that generally the older someone is, the more responsible, but that number opposed to how many young people are responsible is negligible. Let me clarify. I would contend that there is not a big gap between how many young people are responsible, and how many old people are. We see that everyday adults act irresponsibly as opposed to adolescents. Therefore we can mitigate this point to not having much weight in the round. 2) This argument is completely fallacious in reasoning by saying married couples are better equipped in handling these problems than unmarried couples. My opponent uses the example of how many young people are unmarried to show how irresponsible unmarried couples can be, but this doesn't speak to the essence of unmarried couples. Someone can be young and unmarried or be young and married. Both sides would have irresponsible people. Thus making this argument not unique to just my side. This calls for disregarding the argument. 3) While yes abortion being ethical would be less topic to this debate, I'm willing to go there. My opponent seems to assume many commonplaces with the audience such as the Bible, and believing abortion is unethical. The abortion argument, of course, presupposes many things, and if necessary we can go there. However, for now, I disagree with the abortion point, thus only leaving us with the risk of std. This I would agree is probably more damaging to younger people, but I contend that this negligible due to there being young marriages as well. 4) Being that the only argument in my opponent's first contention is about std, we can further mitigate this in saying that not all std are a big deal. HPV, people don't really care about that. Therefore the voters should take note that my opponent doesn't give us a demographic of the std being contracted, and they could be as harmless as HPV. Onto my opponent's second point. My opponent repeats the part about it should only occur within stable relationships but brings a new argument to the table which is that sex isn't an everyday thing. My argument, in essence, is, why not? 2 responses. 1) Sex doesn't have to be special, this type of thinking may be due to some religion I assume. Sex can be for fun while being careful. There is zero reason for making sex special. If someone doesn't want something to be special, there is no reason for them having to make it. This is similar to me saying that you have treat coffee as god's blessing. It's just not true and unwarranted. Disregard the argument completely. 2) This is not unique to marriages because people who have sex out of wedlock can have those "special" sex times. My case and defense from attacks: Against my sex build immune contention- "it doesn't really fit in" Doesn't really need to follow a theme here. "that is not something specific to couples who are engaging in premarital sex" We are comparing a world with premarital sex, and world without one. It's net beneficial if we have more people having sex because that means more immunity. This is a unique to my side. "not engaging in sex won't damage your health" It doesn't matter if not having damages, it matters if having it is better. "You need to also take into account how someone is at risk of catching sexually transmitted diseases" Refer to my arguments above. "there are many other ways to help your health" That doesn't refute the fact that sex is one of them. "Sex is definitely not required." I agree it's not required, but we are arguing whether if when done, it's okay. Against my stress reliever contention- My opponent's argument is in a nutshell, yes it makes you feel good, but not everything that makes you feel good is okay. Because of its absurdity, I have 6 responses. 1) Isn't what makes murder and rape bad that it damages society? It makes the relatives and friends of the victim and the victim themselves feel horrible. 2) Then what's your criteria for judging something is okay or not if it's not how it makes society feel? 3) The argument for pleasure is comparing pleasure to no pleasure, one prefers pleasure. But obviously, if there are other things to consider, such as the well-being of others, then some things may outweigh. It's not as if pleasure always wins. 4) Toys are okay because it brings pleasure to kids. This is a general statement, there are obviously times when toys can be hazardous to kids. 5) This is a reductio ad absurdum. My opponent tries to exacerbate my argument to the extreme when my statement was solely a general statement. 6) And finally, there are many ways to feel pleasurable, but that doesn't negate the fact that sex does.