Sex before marriage

::Responding to my opponent:: "This has no place in this debate, because there are many couples who love each other, and have no intention of marriage. Moreover, it is not necessary to love someone, in order to have sex with them. " This completely avoids my argument. I never said a couple must marry to love each other nor did I ever say that marriage is the only expression of love ; in short my opponent provided a straw man argument. "So you see, the quality of love is completely subjective, thus further negating my opponent's strange and convoluted OPINION relating sex and marriage. " I don't see how the "quality of love" changes anything. You may find that person irritating but if you love him then your wish for the best for that person still remains. ::Benefits of Sex:: I said " 'Marriage, on the other hand, is simply a ceremonious coupling of two people' Electricity was also created, is this unwise? Animals kill animals, should we follow them? Furthermore, marriage is a result of emotion. " Here, I show to my opponent that this point of his is irrelevant. Now, when I said "Electricity was also created" I was obviously referring to the usages of electricity that have been invented. Bad wording ? Yes. Is it easy to understand what I was trying to convey ? Absolutely but even if it wasn't, my point remains. Nevertheless, my opponent feels the need to waste a fifth of his entire round ridiculing this one modicum mistake. "Also, if my opponent questions whether sex boosts self esteem, it is fairly clear that he has never had sex" 1) This is not an argument. Explanation: This is an assertion: 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. As you can see, my opponent, made no argument there. "My opponent has resorted to several convoluted and irrelevant scenarios" Not scenarios but arguments which are explained by scenarios. "using an example of someone who likes to kill. This is NOT the norm, so it can not be used in this debate per my opponent's own rules. " I wasn't providing an example rather an error. The error was that you've never considered the negative emotions and wishes we have. I didn't claim to be right because some guy wishes to kill others but rather I claimed to be right because some guy shouldn't act upon his murderous emotions. ::Votes:: Arguments: 1. ::Love:: Frankly, this wasn't challenged properly. He wastes his second round by telling us that this is irrelevant and now he provides straw man arguments. 2. ::Tires:: Not addressed. My opponent has conceded this point and if not, it's too late to post an argument. 3. ::Talk:: Not addressed. My opponent has conceded this point and if not, it's too late to post an argument. 4. ::Benefits of sex:: I have no problem with the benefits of sex, my reasons lay on the above three arguments. Granted, at the begining I did try to make an argument but now I find it unnecessary. Despite the previous comment, I must point out: " My study: While I do now realize the flaws of the study, I still have to disagree with you, particularly on waiting. ' Marriage is in no way implied by this statement'. While marriage isn't necessary for this statement, it is rather obvious that marriage equals waiting. I elaborate in the 'Love section'. " Conduct: An entire paragraph made just to ridicule my bad wording of one sentence is revealing. Grammar: Yes, I did mess up that one sentence but my opponent got lazy i. e. he gave no titles to his paragraphs (this creates confusion) and so forth.