Pre-Marital Abstinence

Con begins by saying that we do not know for sure what a person's values really are (where they are influenced). Because this is true, he has just self-defeated his own argument. He claimed that Purity Balls and abstinence pledges reflect the values of the parents, the church, etc. and not the individual making them. But if we cannot know one's own influences, as Con says right here -- "We really do have NO idea what these young women would be choosing to do with their lives, virginity, anything if it were up to them" -- then his whole idea about abstinence pledges not reflecting the views of the one making it fail entirely. Congratulations, Con. You just defeated your own argument :) Next, Con keeps repeating the same tired argument (zZzZzZz) when he says, "But don't take my word for it. Just ask the professional researchers who conducted a study and found that it doesn't work it all. That isn't speculation. That is fact." Once again, it does not matter if abstinence pledges fail. Con can cite all of the sources in the world indicating that abstinence PLEDGES fail, and yet that would have absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand. Once again (for the umpteenth time), this debate is not about the failure rate of abstinence pledges but abstinence itself. Con's burden is to prove that abstinence - not having sex - is detrimental. So far all he keeps saying (and citing and sourcing) is the fact that people go back on their abstinence pledges. This does not help his case at all; people who go back on their abstinence pledges are not practicing abstinence therefore this is entirely irrelevant to the debate. I've repeated this consistently Rounds 1 through 5. Next, Con talks about the media and makes sarcastic claims about how the media promotes sex. This, he claims, makes an abstinence pledge nearly impossible to keep to which I would 100% agree. However, once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution nor his burden. Yes - abstinence pledges are hard to keep. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. Does this prove that abstinence (refraining from sex) is harmful? No. Here is a step by step analysis of how Con's arguments and rationale completely fail and have failed throughout this entire debate -- Con writes: Sex + Abstinence + sex-drenched teen = UN-protected sex This whole equation completely fails. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEX + ABSTINENCE. SEX + ABSTINENCE = NO ABSTINENCE. Abstinence (which we have discussed and defined) means to refrain from sex. So when Con says "Sex + Abstinence" he completely negates the idea of abstinence all together. If one has sex, they are not abstaining. One cannot be abstinent and have unprotected sex. If they have unprotected sex, then they're not abstinent. Period. Not being abstinent has nothing to do with the resolution since the resolution is indeed about abstinence. Therefore, if all of the harms or detriments Con mentions have to do with unprotected sex, then that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RESOLUTION because if one is abstinent, then there is no unprotected sex to be had. Once they have sex, they are not abstinent therefore the harms from sex cannot reflect on the harms from abstinence. There are no harms to abstinence (only failed abstinence pledges). Next, Con writes, "And, on top of that, even if people practice abstinence, THAT doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do, just like being a total sexual junkie isn't good either." This is a new argument which according to debate conduct, standards and rules is not allowed to be introduced in the final round. This is what Con should have been arguing throughout this entire debate. Still, I'll say that while abstaining might not be the right or healthy choice for everyone, it is indeed helpful to some, and Con hasn't proven why it is HARMFUL and instead only focused on why it is not practical. Con writes, "Teens should be educated on the dangers and be aware of the facts, but by pressuring abstinence on their sweet little heads, it actually causes them to have MORE sex, not less." This is a statistic that is not backed up with any source or fact, therefore we have no reason to accept it. Further, if one PRACTICES abstinence (instead of just promises it), then once again there is no sex to be had. I understand that people tend to break their pledges, that those who tend to break their pledges are uneducated on sex, and thus in the end there can be damaging effects. However as I've explained consistently and repeatedly throughout these past 5 rounds and in the obnoxious comment section sub-debate, PROMISING ABSTINENCE =/= ABSTINENCE. Con's points about the failed promises of abstinence and those harms have absolutely nothing to do with actually practicing abstinence itself. Con states, "Then Pro goes on to speculate how abstinence is one hundred percent effective, which is actually the only BLATANT LIE here." Actually, Con saying that this is a blatant lie is indeed a blatant lie. NOT HAVING SEX means you cannot have any of the harms from sex!!! Promising virginity and then going back on your word, and then suffering the harms, is only the failure of an abstinence PLEDGE and not abstinence itself. This is common sense. Con's arguments are repetitive and laughable to say the least. For instance, Con mentions Bristol Palin and how she promised abstinence but then got pregnant. This, he says, shows how abstinence can be harmful. However, anyone with any rationality whatsoever can understand that if Bristol Palin practices abstinence, SHE. WOULD. NOT. HAVE. GOTTEN. PREGNANT. Clearly she did not practice abstinence, so abstinence wasn't harmful. The unprotected sex act was harmful. Con says "abstinence was to blame" for the pregnancy but clearly you cannot get pregnant from not having sex (abstinence). Therefore, it is impossible to blame abstinence and to do so speaks volumes about one's understanding of the definition of abstinence. For a reminder, see Round 1. In conclusion, Con has ignored several of my arguments. I have numbered them numerically from 1 - 8 but Con conveniently ignored the structure and subsequently my arguments themselves. While he tries to insult my intelligence, he fails miserably and in the process only demonstrates his own incapacity to properly construct a debate. The resolution specifically reads "Pre-marital abstinence," and in R1 (the opening argument), Con merely states that abstinence (not having sex) is harmful. Throughout this debate, he has failed miserably at demonstrating how abstinence harmful. Instead, all he has proven is that many people go back on their virginity pledges (which is obvious and irrelevant) and list the negative repercussions of unprotected sex. Clearly unprotected sex can be detrimental; however, unprotected sex is not abstinence. In fact, it is the opposite of abstinence since abstinence refers to not having sex at all by Con's own definition and standard. So here you can see that Con has not fulfilled his burden in the slightest in addition to ignoring and failing to respond to my arguments. I think a vote for the PRO is most obviously in order. Thank you.