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

SPA- "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? " Even though it may "seem" that way, it's not. The affirmative world fully understands the seriousness of a potential life. But what the Negative world fails to understand is 1) In the Affirmative world there is a very low chance of unwanted birth, and an even lower chance of that unwanted baby living a disasterous life. 2) The seriouness presented in the Negative world is very "over dramatisized". I highly doubt that the future generation of lives will be "disrespected". SPB- "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. " You say toe-may-toe, I say ta-ma-ta. You say illogical, I say logical. It doesn't matter what we say, it matter's what has evidence and what the voters buy. That example shows that no matter what the situation, life or death, free choice does not depend on the recognition of other's free choice. Also, I don't mean to critisize, sorry if you took it that way. I'm skipping numerous steps? Those would be. .. .? I'm doing the same thing your doing, arguing a point. Yes I'm arguing the benefits of adoption. You brought it into the debate. It's called an impact turn. Now your argument works in my favor. Oh, and I do dare. I think that it's better to live in harsh conditions than to have no life at all. But that's irrelevant seeing as its your argument, and you haven't provided evidence to say they go into harsh conditions. NC 1) "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. " I'm not going to touch this seeing as it has as much standing as my opponent saying that dolphins can fly. If my opponent backs it up with scripture or evidence, then I will attack. 2) "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. " No need to get insulting. I never questioned your intellect. Also, it has utmost relevancy to temptation. Sexual temptation, not so much. But now your changing your words. You first said temptation, so let's go with that. Also, maybe having sex with someone you love but won't marry has nothing to do with dignity. Once again, show some evidence. Once again, to extend the point, god gave us the gift, lets use how e see fit. 3) "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. " . http://www.fallibleblogma.com.... Read that. Also, you don't have any evidence yourself, so your side is just as invalid. "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. " Noooooo, if you think my definitions are abusive, you say so and offer an alternetive set of definitions. But seeing as its so late in the debate, plus you have made no arguments on the definitions, it doesn't matter. AC Just look to my arguments. Also, I have won the Value and Criterion debate. He drops that and never brings it up. also having no value or criterion of his own. 1) Please, Negative, use the numbering and format (SPA,SPB,SPC), it makes it easier for me and voters to navigate.