Instigator / Pro
1
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Topic
#4282
Sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior preservative form of birth control.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1522
rating
14
debates
28.57%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Super explanatory, of course I'll expand in the first round.
If you need to understand something prior to participating in the discussion, let it be known.
Round 1
Sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior preservative form of birth control.
Why?
It prevents births without wasting resources. Just like by not spending money you save it. Trying to mitigate or reduce costs is saving money. It's not superior to preserving money by way of abstaining from spending.
Sexual abstinence, you control births while reserving the capacity of sexual reproduction.
Why is this the most preservative ?
You think of any other form, there is not 100 percent preservation of everything.
Those are the opposite of the absolute superior preservative step.
It's in opposition to the topic statement. We can suggest in another way to look at it, consider an individual abstaining sexually that'd result in increased fertility for preserving their genes.
That's a`la saving funds to be greater prepared to afford your needs financially.
So preservation can be argued in more ways than one. But that's getting more into all around survival, what's best for it and all like that.
In this topic particular, I'm simply contrasting the methods of birth prevention on a preservative spectrum.
That's why sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior preservative form of birth control. That's what I mean by that statement. Now the opposing side didn't ask any questions prior to getting involved so I don't know what they had in mind.
Perhaps just taking a chance to see what they can possibly challenge.
But I explained basically in simple terms what I'm talking about. So based on that view in looking at it that way, it makes sense. I understand there's different ways to look at things. The only thing one can do is challenge the validity in any independent view when it appears it's built upon some sort of foundational standard inference.
Since pro didn’t give definitions, I will start with that.
Definitions:
Definitions:
Sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior preservative form of birth control.
Mall said in the comments of this debate the following:
Preservative means to save or survive.
Thus, we can substitute this definition in when addressing Mall’s claim. If done, it goes as follows:
Sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior saving and surviving form of birth control
While the claim doesn’t directly say what is being saved/survived, it can be assumed that it refers to saving or maintaining the survival of the concept of not being pregnant. In other words, we can rewrite the claim as follows:
Sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior form of birth control that saves or maintains the survival of the concept of not being pregnant
The next thing I would like to define is what specifically “superior” is referring to. Superior, in this context, would refer to the fact that certain forms of birth control are superior to others due to the fact that they save or maintain the survival of the concept of not being pregnant. In other words, superior is used as a measuring tool for how good something is at saving or maintaining the survival of the state of not being pregnant, and will be defined as so.
Next, let’s define what birth control is. According to Merriam-Webster, birth control is defined as the following:
control of the number of children or offspring born especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception
Finally, let’s define what sexual abstinence is. According to Merriam-Webster, it means the following:
abstention from sexual intercourse
For clarity, I will also define what abstention means in this context. Abstention here refers to the process of abstaining, which according to Merriam-Webster means the following:
to choose not to do or have something
Putting these definitions together, we get the amended definition of the following for sexual abstinence:
choosing not to have sexual intercourse
The amended definition means the same thing as the original definition, but nailing down that sexual abstinence refers to the process of choosing not to have sexual intercourse is important for my argument so I wanted to make sure that that definition was clear.
If pro has any problems with my definitions, please say so in the next argument or it will be assumed that the definitions listed here will be accepted as the definitions for this debate.
Arguments:
Let’s begin with pro’s argument for sexual abstinence:
Let’s begin with pro’s argument for sexual abstinence:
Sexual abstinence, you control births while reserving the capacity of sexual reproduction.
Why is this the most preservative ?
You think of any other form, there is not 100 percent preservation of everything.
The “everything” in this case can be assumed to be referring to the fact that other methods of contraception generally do not have a guaranteed chance of causing you to be able to avoid pregnancy. The issue is that sexual abstinence can indeed still get one pregnant, there isn’t a 100% preservation chance. As defined earlier, sexual abstinence means “choosing not to have sexual intercourse”. However, if one is raped and gets pregnant, they didn’t choose to not have sexual intercourse. Thus, it is possible for one to get pregnant under sexual abstinence through rape. This isn’t true for other methods of contraception on the other hand.
According to Mayo Clinic,
According to Mayo Clinic,
Tubal ligation permanently prevents pregnancy
Thus, tubal ligation (often referred to as getting your tubes tied) works 100% of the time, unlike sexual abstinence. Thus, under the definition of the claim, tubal ligation is a more superior form of birth control.
I would also like to address something else that pro said in the above quote:
Sexual abstinence, you control births while reserving the capacity of sexual reproduction.
This appears to be an argument that something like getting a tubal ligation is a less superior form of birth control because it doesn’t preserve the capacity of sexual reproduction. However, this is irrelevant to the debate. Superiority is, as defined earlier, referring to how effective a form of birth control is at saving or maintaining the survival of the concept of not being pregnant. As this is only referring to pregnancy, not whether or not the form of birth control reserves the capacity of sexual reproduction, it is irrelevant to the debate.
Round 2
"Since pro didn’t give definitions, I will start with that."
You guys really struggle with context. Really, this is like a consistent pattern.
Are you actually reading what I put?
"That's why sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior preservative form of birth control. That's what I mean by that statement. "
I just stated here what I MEAN and you'd only know that if you took the time to comprehend my position in context.
See you guys are so conventional and formulaic looking for certain patterns looking for the actual word "definition" followed by a hyphen followed by a word or sentence.
I cannot spir this criticism because this is going to be a continuous problem. Which is being that I have to point this out about context. We have a deficiency in comprehension, communication and regard.
The question is are you really reading and attentive to all the details or skimming the text?
"While the claim doesn’t directly say what is being saved/survived, it can be assumed that it refers to saving or maintaining the survival of the concept of not being pregnant. In other words, we can rewrite the claim as follows:
Sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior form of birth control that saves or maintains the survival of the concept of not being pregnant"
Is it possible to debate without a strawman?
I just went over about context.
"Mall said in the comments of this debate the following"
Take the attention off the comments and focus on the context in the debate.
"Superior, in this context, would refer to the fact that certain forms of birth control are superior to others due to the fact that they save or maintain the survival of the concept of not being pregnant. In other words, superior is used as a measuring tool for how good something is at saving or maintaining the survival of the state of not being pregnant, and will be defined as so."
This is not exactly the way I put it. I like to be exact with what someone says. Sexual abstinence is the absolute superior preservative form of birth control by saving or preserving the reproductive capacity as oppose to wasting it.
"The “everything” in this case can be assumed to be referring to the fact that other methods of contraception generally do not have a guaranteed chance of causing you to be able to avoid pregnancy. "
The point is not about preserving a non pregnancy state. I don't think you fully understand what the topic is. You mistook it for "the most 100 percent guaranteed way of preventing pregnancy is sexual abstinence".
It's understandable as folks did ask for clarity although very little on the topic.
Then I elaborated in detail what I meant . If you're still lost, I can perhaps make another analogy.
"The issue is that sexual abstinence can indeed still get one pregnant, there isn’t a 100% preservation chance. "
First off, off topic. Second, this is flawed. I can't get to a destination by car by not driving a car .
"However, if one is raped and gets pregnant, they didn’t choose to not have sexual intercourse. Thus, it is possible for one to get pregnant under sexual abstinence through rape. This isn’t true for other methods of contraception on the other hand. "
Off topic. For corrective purposes, the sexual abstinence didn't cause pregnancy, the sexual assault did. Sexual abstinence is not a choice someone makes to ask somebody else to rape them.
Just because my car was stolen, it doesn't mean I'm avoiding to drive my car .
Also let me point this out "they didn’t choose to not have sexual intercourse". This doesn't sound or read right. It's like this is saying the victim chose to be assaulted like I chose to have my vehicle stolen. Something again with your point is flawed.
You're making a point that you choose to abstain from sex , then somebody chose to rape you while you're celibate, so therefore you elected to get assaulted.
You have to clean that up but in another debate. Get back on topic.
"Thus, tubal ligation (often referred to as getting your tubes tied) works 100% of the time, unlike sexual abstinence."
According to our actual topic this is definitely not preserving the reproductive capacity absolutely. If you don't believe that, I can give you what someone else wrote. This is off topic but the "works 100% of the time " statement maybe according to what you think or know . The tubes can reverse on their own or cause ectopic pregnancies. I just like to put the correction out for edification.
Another thing I'll mention sense tube surgery is being touted so strongly as the pinnacle, I'll use your logic when you broached sexual assault. Being that you emphasize that sexual abstinence doesn't work against birth prevention in the event of rape, tying tubes to prevent pregnancy doesn't work against birth prevention in the event of the rapist forcing somebody to untie the tubes , then rape them.
When we talk about birth control or being sexually protected, no argument is brought up about what others can do to you to sabotage that. You have no control on that but why suggest things towards your control being that other things can happen anyway?
Sex education, awareness and protection would be futile if this is the case. Just like it would be futile having the knowledge to maintain or clean my vehicle on account of outside factors .
Yes by this logic of yours, all birth control would be futile if we throw in some shortsighted argument about how other things can sabotage the objective.
"Thus, under the definition of the claim, tubal ligation is a more superior form of birth control. "
Please rethink this point.
"I would also like to address something else that pro said in the above quote:
Sexual abstinence, you control births while reserving the capacity of sexual reproduction.
This appears to be an argument that something like getting a tubal ligation is a less superior form of birth control because it doesn’t preserve the capacity of sexual reproduction. However, this is irrelevant to the debate"
Please check with the person you're debating to confirm what the correct topic is they came up with. Logically speaking they came up with it, they would know.
Not one time did I argue anything about what is the absolute step for 100 percent birth prevention. If you think I did, please quote it.
You quote what I actually did say and tell me what the topic is to my own created debate.
"As this is only referring to pregnancy, not whether or not the form of birth control reserves the capacity of sexual reproduction, it is irrelevant to the debate. "
Please re-read the first round and get on topic. We can go over it line by line if you so desire. You go over it, review it, study it . Let's see what you missed which I take is about all of it.
Arguments/Rebuttals:
"Since pro didn’t give definitions, I will start with that."You guys really struggle with context. Really, this is like a consistent pattern.Are you actually reading what I put?"That's why sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior preservative form of birth control. That's what I mean by that statement. "I just stated here what I MEAN and you'd only know that if you took the time to comprehend my position in context.See you guys are so conventional and formulaic looking for certain patterns looking for the actual word "definition" followed by a hyphen followed by a word or sentence.
I am indeed reading what you put. What you meant, in this case, was somewhat unclear. The evidence you cite for the fact that it wasn't unclear was "That's why sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior preservative form of birth control. That's what I mean by that statement", and I assume by this you are referring to the lines above this statement which explain your position. The issue is that these lines do not quantify exactly what is meant. For instance, as discussed previously, what "preservative" meant in your original sentence and what it was preserving weren't directly clear. You say you just stated here that what you meant was obvious if I took the time to comprehend your position in context, however I literally did a full analysis as to the definitions of what you've said.
Regarding your tangent about how I shouldn't be defining things, I find that argument utterly ridiculous. Figuring out how things are defined and what specifically they mean is an integral part of debating. Due to this, it is present heavily on this site. You seem to reference the fact that most debaters do this by saying, "You guys really struggle with context. Really, this is like a consistent pattern", and "See you guys are so conventional and formulaic looking for certain patterns looking for the actual word "definition" followed by a hyphen followed by a word or sentence". The reason why almost every debater does this is because you have to define what you mean in a debate when it is somewhat unclear. I will continue to use definitions in my argument.
"Superior, in this context, would refer to the fact that certain forms of birth control are superior to others due to the fact that they save or maintain the survival of the concept of not being pregnant. In other words, superior is used as a measuring tool for how good something is at saving or maintaining the survival of the state of not being pregnant, and will be defined as so."This is not exactly the way I put it. I like to be exact with what someone says. Sexual abstinence is the absolute superior preservative form of birth control by saving or preserving the reproductive capacity as oppose to wasting it.
You say in this case that the debate doesn't refer to sexual abstinence being superior due to the fact that it preserves births, but instead from the fact that it preserves reproductive capacity. As explained previously, based off of the claim, "Sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior preservative form of birth control", and the definition of preservative, "to save or survive", you would arrive at the conclusion that superior is referring to the fact that certain forms of birth control are superior to others due to the fact that they save or maintain the survival of the concept of not being pregnant. You claim that this instead means "Sexual abstinence is the absolute superior preservative form of birth control by saving or preserving the reproductive capacity as oppose to wasting it". This is not founded in either the claim or provided definitions before the beginning of the argument. If you believe that it is founded, please point out where the claim or provided definitions before the beginning of the argument say this.
Perhaps, when you created this debate, the interpretation of superior referring to saving or preserving the reproductive capacity as opposed to wasting it was what you intended. However, interpretations are not based off of intent but what is on the page. If I make an argument that all candy is bad, and my intent is that all unhealthy candy is bad, I can't then claim that my opponent is misconstruing the debate by bringing up healthier candies as an example that not all candy is bad. Regardless of whether or not this was your intent, the claim and definitions point to the interpretation of the conclusion that superior is referring to the fact that certain forms of birth control are superior to others due to the fact that they save or maintain the survival of the concept of not being pregnant, whether you like it or not.
"The issue is that sexual abstinence can indeed still get one pregnant, there isn’t a 100% preservation chance. "
First off, off topic. Second, this is flawed. I can't get to a destination by car by not driving a car ."However, if one is raped and gets pregnant, they didn’t choose to not have sexual intercourse. Thus, it is possible for one to get pregnant under sexual abstinence through rape. This isn’t true for other methods of contraception on the other hand. "Off topic. For corrective purposes, the sexual abstinence didn't cause pregnancy, the sexual assault did. Sexual abstinence is not a choice someone makes to ask somebody else to rape them.Just because my car was stolen, it doesn't mean I'm avoiding to drive my car .Also let me point this out "they didn’t choose to not have sexual intercourse". This doesn't sound or read right. It's like this is saying the victim chose to be assaulted like I chose to have my vehicle stolen. Something again with your point is flawed.
In what way is this off-topic? It deals with the implications of getting raped through pregnancy, that directly is part of the claim. For your argument on that the sexual abstinence didn't cause pregnancy but that the sexual assault did, you are correct in saying this. However, this does not relate to the claim. The claim, as previously discussed (and whether you intended it to be this way or not), means that sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior form of birth control that saves or maintains the survival of the concept of not being pregnant. Allowing one to get pregnant (even if unconsentually) is still not saving or maintaining the survival of the concept of not being pregnant.
Another argument you make here is that just because a car was stolen doesn't mean you are avoiding driving a car. Relating this to pregnancy, I imagine what you are getting at is that just because someone got pregnant doesn't mean they are avoiding getting pregnant. However, this just shows my point as it shows that you can still get pregnant while sexually abstaining, as sexual abstinence is a choice, certain actions (such as getting pregnant) can occur even if you don't choose them to.
"They didn't choose to not have sexual intercourse" reads perfectly fine. It is most certainly not saying that the victim chose to be assaulting, nor does your analogy mean that a person chose to get their vehicle stolen. All it's saying is that even with sexual abstinence you can get pregnant.
Another thing I'll mention sense tube surgery is being touted so strongly as the pinnacle, I'll use your logic when you broached sexual assault. Being that you emphasize that sexual abstinence doesn't work against birth prevention in the event of rape, tying tubes to prevent pregnancy doesn't work against birth prevention in the event of the rapist forcing somebody to untie the tubes , then rape them.When we talk about birth control or being sexually protected, no argument is brought up about what others can do to you to sabotage that. You have no control on that but why suggest things towards your control being that other things can happen anyway?
I apologize for saying that getting your tubes tied was a permanent procedure. Indeed, looking it up, it is possible to reverse. However, which of the following is more likely: Someone rapes you while you are sexually abstaining, or someone somehow manages to untie your tubes then rapes you? Getting your tubes tied is significantly superior in this case because we can assume that a rapist forcefully untying them is far more unlikely then just raping you.
Round 3
"I am indeed reading what you put. What you meant, in this case, was somewhat unclear. "
This is why I consistently offer the opportunity to ask questions for clarity. Everybody doesn't understand things the same way. Feel free to ask for clarity on anything.
"You claim that this instead means "Sexual abstinence is the absolute superior preservative form of birth control by saving or preserving the reproductive capacity as oppose to wasting it". This is not founded in either the claim or provided definitions before the beginning of the argument. If you believe that it is founded, please point out where the claim or provided definitions before the beginning of the argument say this. "
I either said what I said or I didn't. I don't believe you're playing dumb . So what do you not understand about my position?
Let me give you an example. Not engaging in sex as birth control is superior in preserving semen than using a condom. Matter of fact, semen isn't preserved at all. It's wasted and discarded.
Is it becoming crystal clear now ?
"In what way is this off-topic? It deals with the implications of getting raped through pregnancy, that directly is part of the claim."
I think you mean pregnancy through rape. It's off topic because the topic is not about preserving a non pregnancy state. You took the word "preservative" and installed your own interpretation and now imposing that it's my view and what I meant instead of allowing me to tell you what I meant. That's not how it works.
Instead of arguing back in forth and possibly using clarity issues to stall with dealing with my actual position, just concede you really have no counter case for me .
"For your argument on that the sexual abstinence didn't cause pregnancy but that the sexual assault did, you are correct in saying this. "
Good of you to concede that. Keep it going.
"Allowing one to get pregnant (even if unconsentually) is still not saving or maintaining the survival of the concept of not being pregnant. "
Off topic, I'm not dealing with something are not arguing against. I'm not going in circles.
Everything else you had to say just feeds into off topic points.
Bottom line to this topic is this question.
So the question is, is not engaging in sex preserving semen versus wasting it and discarding it pure preservation of it?
Extend all my previous arguments. Mall is continuing to argue that sexual abstinence in superior in ways unrelated to the claim. For instance:
So the question is, is not engaging in sex preserving semen versus wasting it and discarding it pure preservation of it?
This has nothing to do with the claim.
Let me make this clear:
The claim and definitions point to the interpretation of the conclusion that superior is referring to the fact that certain forms of birth control are superior to others due to the fact that they save or maintain the survival of the concept of not being pregnant, whether you like it or not.
Even if it was not your intention, this what the claim means, as discussed previously. Stop trying to insist it's something else. Your entire argument is off-topic because it arguing for the wrong claim.
To respond to a few arguments you gave against this notion:
I either said what I said or I didn't. I don't believe you're playing dumb . So what do you not understand about my position?
You didn't directly say that the claim was as I put above, but that is what the definitions lead towards. Extend my previous argument on this.
"In what way is this off-topic? It deals with the implications of getting raped through pregnancy, that directly is part of the claim."I think you mean pregnancy through rape. It's off topic because the topic is not about preserving a non pregnancy state. You took the word "preservative" and installed your own interpretation and now imposing that it's my view and what I meant instead of allowing me to tell you what I meant. That's not how it works.
You say it's off topic because the topic is not about preserving a non pregnancy state, but this IS an argument about preserving a non-pregnancy state. I didn't take the word preservative and install my own interpretation either. In the comments, you said before the debate that preservative means "to save or survive", which I incorporated into the amended claim.
"Allowing one to get pregnant (even if unconsentually) is still not saving or maintaining the survival of the concept of not being pregnant. "Off topic, I'm not dealing with something are not arguing against. I'm not going in circles.
Extend previous arguments that this is on topic.
Everything else you had to say just feeds into off topic points.
Again, untrue. The claim you are using is not the claim of the debate. Extend the previous argument I had about the claim.
Round 4
"So the question is, is not engaging in sex preserving semen versus wasting it and discarding it pure preservation of it?
This has nothing to do with the claim."
Then you forfeit. This is my position and because you CAN'T REFUTE IT, you deny it and strawman it with something else .
Classic strawman fallacy and methodology if I ever seen.
"Let me make this clear:
The claim and definitions point to the interpretation of the conclusion that superior is referring to the fact that certain forms of birth control are superior to others due to the fact that they save or maintain the survival of the concept of not being pregnant, whether you like it or not."
STRAWMAN MASTER. This goes on record on how you can directly tell somebody "this is not my position, this is not position, this is not my position."
That somebody forces the misrepresentation on you as a desperate move to get out of refutation. At least be honest to say "oh I misunderstood the topic. I misunderstood your position. "
Then the person argues based on the exact facets of the person they're arguing against. Instead of saying " no , irrelevant , let me remind you of your position". The position I came forth with but you think you're in a place to dictate what it is .
If that first round wasn't clear , you ask for clarity. I often extend that to people to ask questions on clarity. I'm not hiding anything. That first round , I can point to every word that explains my position.
Definitions explain things. So if you're hung up on things not being defined or explained, you then ask "Can you explain this more?" and say " What you gave was not clear".
Instead of that logical communication back and forth, the copout move was taken to fight me on what my position is.
Case and point.
Case : "Even if it was not your intention, this what the claim means, as discussed previously. Stop trying to insist it's something else. Your entire argument is off-topic because it arguing for the wrong claim. "
My point exactly. I'm sure if I ask this question, the opposing side won't even answer it.
Can you actually refute the position I say is mine ?
You can start to try with answering this next question.
So the question is, is not engaging in sex preserving semen versus wasting it and discarding it pure preservation of it?
"You didn't directly say that the claim was as I put above, but that is what the definitions lead towards. Extend my previous argument on this. "
Ok so your excuse is, you didn't understand my position. So if you misunderstood something, where are your questions at to get an understanding?
"You say it's off topic because the topic is not about preserving a non pregnancy state, but this IS an argument about preserving a non-pregnancy state."
It's good you admitted what is off topic. Now you show your incoherence by bringing in something unrelated.
"I didn't take the word preservative and install my own interpretation either. In the comments, you said before the debate that preservative means "to save or survive", which I incorporated into the amended claim. "
Watch this, to save or survive WHAT? No pun intended, what is the WHAT part ? Do you see where you slipped up? You either had to plug in what the what is or do the proper procedure which is not presupposing and understand what I'm talking about as it is my own position.
You might as well concede and maybe you didn't realize it but you presupposed "survive" or "save " automatically means retaining non pregnancy.
Maybe it took you all these rounds just to show how easy people can put words in somebody's mouth just off their interpretation of words. But you really should look at what another person is saying, get the full meaning of it.
If we can't argue on the same topic, we have no cause of a foundation. We have no foundation.
So drop what you thought the topic was. Come up with new arguments if you can. You have two more attempts to try to turn this around in your favor.
I'll make it easier and sum it up all right here.
Is not engaging in sex preserving semen versus wasting it and discarding it pure preservation of it?
The answer is in the question by the way.
"So the question is, is not engaging in sex preserving semen versus wasting it and discarding it pure preservation of it?This has nothing to do with the claim."Then you forfeit. This is my position and because you CAN'T REFUTE IT, you deny it and strawman it with something else .Classic strawman fallacy and methodology if I ever seen.
What we are not arguing is your position, we are arguing the claim. If your position is different from the claim and you argue that position instead of the claim, you are not upholding the resolution. For instance, if my position on something is that unhealthy candy is bad for you, and I make the claim of "All candy is bad for you" in an argument, I can't then get mad when my opponent uses the fact that some candy is healthy as evidence that the claim is wrong. Because they aren't arguing my position on candy, they are arguing it on what the claim is. The same applies here.
STRAWMAN MASTER. This goes on record on how you can directly tell somebody "this is not my position, this is not position, this is not my position."That somebody forces the misrepresentation on you as a desperate move to get out of refutation. At least be honest to say "oh I misunderstood the topic. I misunderstood your position. "
I did not misunderstand the claim; it is you that it is misunderstanding it. I understand your position on the topic perfectly, it's just your position doesn't match the claim. Again, you are not arguing your position, you are arguing the claim.
If that first round wasn't clear , you ask for clarity. I often extend that to people to ask questions on clarity. I'm not hiding anything. That first round , I can point to every word that explains my position.
I understand your arguments perfectly. They were clear. I did not need to ask for clarity. The issue isn't that I couldn't understand your arguments, it's that your arguments aren't arguing for the claim.
Instead of that logical communication back and forth, the copout move was taken to fight me on what my position is.
I am not fighting you on your position, I am fighting you on what the claim is. The claim is NOT your position, it is an independent basis for which the rest of the debate operates around agreeing with or disagreeing with (the pro vs con side). I don't mean to say this in a rude way, but I don't think you know how debates work.
Case : "Even if it was not your intention, this what the claim means, as discussed previously. Stop trying to insist it's something else. Your entire argument is off-topic because it arguing for the wrong claim. "My point exactly. I'm sure if I ask this question, the opposing side won't even answer it.Can you actually refute the position I say is mine ?
Whether or not I can refute the position you say is yours is irrelevant to the argument. I am refuting the claim, not your personal position. They are different, as explained previously.
You can start to try with answering this next question.So the question is, is not engaging in sex preserving semen versus wasting it and discarding it pure preservation of it?
Not engaging in sex does preserve semen instead of wasting it, if your definition of wasting something is to not use it to its full potential. That said, it doesn't matter if that's the case because that is your personal position, not the claim.
"You didn't directly say that the claim was as I put above, but that is what the definitions lead towards. Extend my previous argument on this. "Ok so your excuse is, you didn't understand my position. So if you misunderstood something, where are your questions at to get an understanding?
No, I understand your position perfectly. I misunderstood nothing. The issue isn't my understanding of your position, but instead your misunderstanding of the fact that your position is the claim without you putting it in the claim.
Watch this, to save or survive WHAT? No pun intended, what is the WHAT part ? Do you see where you slipped up? You either had to plug in what the what is or do the proper procedure which is not presupposing and understand what I'm talking about as it is my own position.You might as well concede and maybe you didn't realize it but you presupposed "survive" or "save " automatically means retaining non pregnancy.
This is indeed a normal argument against the claim of the debate, and I will admit that I did assume that is what save or survive meant. After all, we are talking about birth control, so it is a reasonable assumption to assume you are talking about pregnancy. However, let's assume that this definition of the claim is true. Let's look at the claim again. "Sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior preservative form of birth control". Now let's substitute save or survive into preservative. "Sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior saving or surviving form of birth control". From the fact that is referencing birth control, I did indeed assume that it mean regarding the lack of being pregnant. However, let's assume for a moment that it is instead about preserving semen, as you earlier said "is not engaging in sex preserving semen versus wasting it and discarding it pure preservation of it?" was your position above. Thus, we can say that the claim would be, "Sexual abstinence is THE absolute superior saving or surviving of semen form of birth control". Now, let's look at how WebMD describes sexual abstinence:
The official definition of abstinence includes not taking part in vaginal, anal, and oral sex. However, some people practice abstinence by only skipping one or two of those types of sexual activity.
This means that masturbation is still perfectly fine while sexually abstaining. Thus, one can "waste" semen through masturbation, which is little different from "wasting" semen such as through a form of birth control like a condom in your argument. Alternatively, a castration surgery will remove the penis and prevent any semen being "wasted". Thus, under your position of the claim, castration is the most superior preservative form of birth control.
Round 5
"What we are not arguing is your position, we are arguing the claim. "
These two things are not synonymous, I don't know why they're not to you. I don't know comrade. When you can't refute something, my position, you gotta cook up something else I guess.
"If your position is different from the claim and you argue that position instead of the claim, you are not upholding the resolution. "
If you could drop whatever you say the claim is and deal with my position but it's ok.
"For instance, if my position on something is that unhealthy candy is bad for you, and I make the claim of "All candy is bad for you" in an argument, I can't then get mad when my opponent uses the fact that some candy is healthy as evidence that the claim is wrong."
Well I guess I just don't see the difference between the claim to the fact I make which is my position. One in the same. In your example, you went specific, then broad sweeping. I didn't mix it up like that. I made a topic statement. Then the first round expounded. Down deal.
"it's just your position doesn't match the claim. Again, you are not arguing your position, you are arguing the claim. "
What a broken record. No offense. My position is summed up in that question I presented. Your answer if honest is making the claim fact . Now we can agree or disagree and leave it alone.
"I understand your arguments perfectly. They were clear. I did not need to ask for clarity. The issue isn't that I couldn't understand your arguments, it's that your arguments aren't arguing for the claim. "
They were clear but you didn't understand. Maybe clarity and understanding mean two different things to you.
"I am not fighting you on your position, I am fighting you on what the claim is. The claim is NOT your position, it is an independent basis for which the rest of the debate operates around agreeing with or disagreeing with (the pro vs con side). I don't mean to say this in a rude way, but I don't think you know how debates work. "
Ok the debates I take, my position is the claim to the fact. When you go into a debate with me, that's what it is. My debate topic, my rules, my parameters. Your topic, you can set it up anyway you want to.
This has to be one of the great red herrings. Earlier in the debate when I countered your failed refutation about preserving pregnancy and I stated that had nothing to do with my position/claim , now you attempt to paint this picture dividing this up.
"Ok well I can't refute your position so your claim must be different and I can cry that I don't understand that".
No no no my claim to a fact is my position. My position is a claim to a fact. That fact is in an answer which I believe you've yet to give to a question I asked unless I missed something.
That question is my position and claim. Boom, bottom line period, mic drop. Now how do you like me now?
I just don't take a lot of nonsense. Is not engaging in sex preserving semen versus wasting it and discarding it pure preservation of it?
You can kill all this other noise, by answering that question , you've backed my position and solidified my claim which is one in the same when it comes to debating me. Not speaking for anybody else, that's their business.
See I like to get right down to it, cut out all the rigmarole.
"Whether or not I can refute the position you say is yours is irrelevant to the argument. I am refuting the claim, not your personal position. They are different, as explained previously."
Yeah this is the first of been involved with something like this. See I never had this as an issue in any debate. A claim, a position, an argument, these are all the same. To say my position or argument is correct but the claim is false, then maybe the person with the claim has to resolve the disjointed issue. What would be the point not having everything relate?
I mean the bottom line is to refute everything. I just see this as conceding and admitting you can't refute everything. But what I'm getting from you is that you're not supposed to. But without going on and on about it because it's getting petty, I sum up everything on that question in context.
"Not engaging in sex does preserve semen instead of wasting it, if your definition of wasting something is to not use it to its full potential. That said, it doesn't matter if that's the case because that is your personal position, not the claim. "
A halfhearted conceding here but I think it's better than other folks that can't take their medicine of defeat and I'm telling you this is both the claim and everything else of mine. I'm telling, I'm telling you of my topic I setup, my position is my claim . Oh and it's not personal. I don't get into these debates to get personal. Some assume personal views but that's on them.
So being that my position is the claim and you conceded to the fact of the answer that sustains my claim/position, thank you very much for playing.
Need I go on? Perhaps just for edification purposes. It's game over right here, real rap.
"Alternatively, a castration surgery will remove the penis and prevent any semen being "wasted". Thus, under your position of the claim, castration is the most superior preservative form of birth control. "
This was just one of those topics you could not get. But I like how you're still trying. Remember back in the first round I mentioned about wasting resources and reserving the capacity of sexual reproduction?
"It prevents births without wasting resources. Just like by not spending money you save it. Trying to mitigate or reduce costs is saving money. It's not superior to preserving money by way of abstaining from spending.
Sexual abstinence, you control births while reserving the capacity of sexual reproduction.
Why is this the most preservative ?
You think of any other form, there is not 100 percent preservation of everything."
Really you suffered during this exchange by not using the first round as a guide to every detail and term of my side.
Semen was just an example of a resource to save while reserving the reproductive capacity which your example failed to cover.
Your example ends up destroying it, not leaving it as is. Your example should of covered preserving resources as well as the sexual reproductive capacity. See, leaving it as is rejects any so called alternatives.
In other words, everything left intact not wasting anything like when using any other type of birth prevention.
Your example, is like leaving the money in the bank but destroying part of the building, perhaps the entrance/exit pathway/tunnel to accessibly get the money out.
My example was, leave the money in the bank. Then to correlate it with also reserving the capability, I still can walk to the bank. I still can have the capability as always intact to retrieve it .
It's just detail after detail after detail you missed in this and you were having trouble with understanding a claim or something. Everything that you ever needed was in that first round.
All we had to do was go over every line, every word if need be to vet my "claim" slash position to see first whether it held consistency, validity and cohesiveness. I would of had no issue with that.
You admitted your assumption. I recommend to try just dealing in facts of what you know.
Thank you for your participation. Thank all of you, the readers .
Forfeited
bump
"Super explanatory"
is basically asking for exploitation here. Without definitions for clarification, this means you are going to fill no holes even if they are drilled within.
Preservative means to save or survive.
What is meant by preservative? Just asking.
I agree. Sexual abstinence is the only form of birth control tolerated by God. It is not encouraged by God to be fruitless, but if you want to be fruitless then dont have sex.
You would still be going against God's command, of course. However, the punishment for having sex and then spilling your seed is death. There is no specific punishment for abstinence mentioned, which shows that it is better tolerated by the God.
Abstinence is still sin, but a lesser sin than having sex to destroy your seed.
If you make this Rated, I’ll accept.
And communism is the supreme form of government... We just haven't tried it yet...