Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
390
debates
43.59%
won
Topic
#5522
Consented sex is consented pregnancy.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1456
rating
28
debates
58.93%
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.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Thanks, thank you readers.
To start this off, I'm going to address the misappropriated analogy made in the comments that appears to be from an individual that is waffling which way to go that be logically sound.
People that smoke if you ask them don't want cancer.
But they might as well come to terms with agreeing that this is the deleterious effect they are taking on. The person literate or knowledgeable and aware of the medical disclaimer given to them upon purchasing cigarettes is given information to make an informed decision for informed consent.
Now cancer is a risk or deleterious outcome. It's not a function. That's not the function of smoking.
My position is arguing about consenting to the function.
So an apropos example is someone driving a vehicle agreeing to having that vehicle transporting.
Someone confused my position with consenting to risk.
I say consenting to sex is consenting to to pregnancy.
If you don't want pregnancy, don't elect to engage in sexual matters.
The person used a poor analogy of not wanting to die in a car crash, don't get in a car.
The function of a car is not to die in it . We're talking function which is the outright outcome in utilizing the function of a thing.
Meaning something bound and expected. It's like the cold of winter. If you don't want the cold, don't expose yourself to it. It's winter, it's going to be cold weather. That's to be expected more than anything.
Engaging in a sexual act utilizing all sexual organs and components of their capacities that would sexually reproduce and to say you don't consent to the effect of the cause with awareness of this while doing the act is erroneous.
If sex was looked at as having the inherit function that it is, the issues with the aftermath of it would not be in the current state crisis that exists.
I received a response that the inherit function is an imposed opinion and that the function is whatever you decide which is arbitrary.
This is also true for risk. You can decide whatever risk is where function and risk can be in the same vein based on two opposing parties of course.
Again, subjective and arbitrary. But functions and risks are not the same.
A designed, structured expected outcome is not an unwanted risk. This is the programming that modern influencers and movements push.
Like I say, you don't run the risk of driving a car that you're driving. If you don't want to travel by car, don't attempt to drive one because doing so would result in such.
If you don't want children, don't have sex. Plain and simple.
That is the function of sex, not a risk . Those that are confused, confuse it as being a risk.
It's understandable because it is an unwanted outcome by some. But this doesn't change what the inherent function is. Some just don't want or reject the function. It's paradoxical by doing the very things to trigger the functions rejecting them at the same time.
Just like choosing to inhabit in cold climates but adores to live in the Caribbean.
People that just love the warm and hot sticky temperatures but have air conditioners in their homes.
It's understandable that those that do not enjoy high temperatures but would rather be comfortable in cool environments have air controlled air conditioned rooms.
It's just like playing with matches. If you don't want to get burned, it's nothing to play with.
The problem is, people misuse sex. So we have all this issue.
This may be where the opposing side may question "how do you misuse sex ?"
If it's not what you or people recognize as sexual abuse, how is it misuse?
Well how do you misuse matches?
But we have this issue. What issue? The abortion decision. Arguing is it ethical or not to abort babies and to have unwanted babies and protests. All the political rallys and discussions in between.
If people don't take the view and mindset about what sex is and what it's for, you continue to get the following:
Unwanted pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy.
Stop making a game between yourselves out of lying down.
Recreational sexual games, recreational sexual partners, recreational sexual relationships and open relationships.
Promiscuity running rampant and just doing things any old kind of way.
Reminds me of the individual that made the statement along the lines of the function being whatever they say it is. You don't get to impose that.
This type of propagating rhetoric pushes the falsehood that inherit functions don't exist. Which makes an arbitrary nature and mess of things already in order taken out of order.
Let's look at the nature of liability.
For instance, with the use or function of a matchbox.
These are matches you playing with. The responsibility is not running from the consequences.
If you're going to be responsible with matches or anything, there's no prioroty of a plan to tend to the ramifications and results that become.
Take the responsibility not to engage. Just like with the use of alcohol. Drinking games and whatnot. So then we have all these DUIs and vehicular homicides.
Drink responsibly, drive responsibly.
Abusing all these things to later make amends, corrections, doing good by paying penal restitution and any debt to society is not responsible.
Responsibility is initiated with a proactive nature.
Waiting to be reactive just places an individual with culpability after the fact.
The definition of consent is agreement or permission for something to happen.
When you have sex, and use preventative measures, such as birth control and condoms, that means you are not agreeing to be pregnant.
However, you are agreeing to the risk of pregnancy, since as you mentioned, pregnancy is a natural result of sex.
But you are not consenting to be pregnant. You can get an abortion. You can agree not to be pregnant.
I am not saying abortions are ethical.
I am saying that the individual can make a personal decision to not consent to pregnancy once are pregnant. They can revoke consent, which by the way, is a legal right.
Round 2
"When you have sex, and use preventative measures, such as birth control and condoms, that means you are not agreeing to be pregnant. "
By this logic, people that do unhealthy things don't agree to be unhealthy. Like eating unhealthy is not regarded as making one unhealthy so therefore it is treated as such. It has a view of non expectancy,not supposed to be, should be able to safeguard against it.
Instead of trying to offset what would become, just intuitively don't engage in unhealthy ways. Don't engage in sex just because you can offset or take a measure to go against or go around the nature of a thing, the very thing you're doing. It doesn't make you non conforming to that thing. You're engaging in that thing.
Then you indicate this approval with your next statement misclassifying a function as a risk.
"However, you are agreeing to the risk of pregnancy"
A risk of sexual activity is a sexually transmitted disease. An s.t.d. is not a function. Pregnancy is the result of a function, not a risk.
What is risk? An unwanted chance of danger counter of the productive innate use. The term "risk" is being broadly defined as unwanted. A risk is not substantially constituted as that.
I don't run the risk of being unhealthy by doing unhealthy things. I'm doing that, I am that. I don't risk pregnancy by doing what would become such by way of impregnating.
People that are aware that they're doing what causes impregnation or poor health consent by what is informed consent. They may not look at it that way. Quite commonly they don't even care. The concern is with hedonistic values and purposes. So they blanket everything else as a risk against that .
Being that you say consent can be revoked, you can't revoke consent without having consent first. So I agree you can revoke consent. You just indirectly acknowledged consent is in place first and that pregnancy is consented to. You just call it risk instead of function. So you agree, consented sex is consented pregnancy.
By this logic, people that do unhealthy things don't agree to be unhealthy. Like eating unhealthy is not regarded as making one unhealthy so therefore it is treated as such. It has a view of non expectancy,not supposed to be, should be able to safeguard against it.
You literally said, "by this logic" and then provided a scenario that did not follow my logic at all. If you are eating in an unhealthy way, there is no way to make that food healthy. Intercourse is different, because of protective measures.
Instead of trying to offset what would become, just intuitively don't engage in unhealthy ways. Don't engage in sex just because you can offset or take a measure to go against or go around the nature of a thing, the very thing you're doing. It doesn't make you non conforming to that thing. You're engaging in that thing.
With birth control condoms, and unfortunately, abortion, sex has become something different. No longer is it just a thing of practicality to reproduce. It is now something recreational, for better or for worse.
A risk of sexual activity is a sexually transmitted disease. An s.t.d. is not a function. Pregnancy is the result of a function, not a risk.
This is a misleading argument. If it is something you do not want to occur, it is a risk. No matter what it is.
If you are at a shooting range, there is a risk of someone getting hurt. Injury is a function of guns. That doesn't mean that injury isn't a risk. Your argument is nonsensical. Pregnancy, if in the current context of not being wanted, is a risk.
What is risk? An unwanted chance of danger counter of the productive innate use. The term "risk" is being broadly defined as unwanted. A risk is not substantially constituted as that.
Being pregnant, when you don't want it, is a bad thing. Your definition isn't very great, either. Here is one from a reliable source.
I don't run the risk of being unhealthy by doing unhealthy things. I'm doing that, I am that. I don't risk pregnancy by doing what would become such by way of impregnating.
Another absurd argument. You are stating that if something is certain to happen, it's not a risk. Totally true. In this scenario, however, pregnancy is not a certainty, as already stated. This is the false equivalence fallacy.
People that are aware that they're doing what causes impregnation or poor health consent by what is informed consent. They may not look at it that way. Quite commonly they don't even care. The concern is with hedonistic values and purposes. So they blanket everything else as a risk against that .
It isn't consent, because you can take active actions to prevent it from happening.
This example is a bit absurd, but it follows the same logic of an unwanted pregnancy.
If you light an uncontrolled fire in your house, the outcome is that your house is going to be burned down.
Any logical person would know this, and therefore would be agreeing to it. This is your argument.
However, if you safely light a fire in a fire pit, you are not agreeing for your house to be burned down. You are taking safe measures. (like condoms and birth control) Therefore, if your house burns down, you didn't consent to it. Sure, you may be consenting to the risk of a breeze catching a spark, a piece of wood just a little to sappy, a rouge flame. But you are not consenting to a charred house, as you have taken active measures to prevent it from occurring. The rest is out of your control.
Round 3
Are you enjoying this debate as much as me ?
If you can defend atheism real good, I recommend you taking up that other challenge I have opened if it's available.
" If you are eating in an unhealthy way, there is no way to make that food healthy. Intercourse is different, because of protective measures. "
Let me help you put this analogy back on track. You can't make an unhealthy way of eating unhealthy food healthy like you can't make the way of sexual reproducing not sexually reproducing.
You can offset the unhealthy diet countering it with other elements and or receiving treatments to do the same as a response just like you can counter the function in sexual reproduction during or even after the fact .
It doesn't change the agreement of what a person is doing by eating what is eaten to cause an effect likewise to a person agreeing to have the body function normally (via sexual reproductive organs) to bring about an effect.
"With birth control condoms, and unfortunately, abortion, sex has become something different. No longer is it just a thing of practicality to reproduce. It is now something recreational, for better or for worse."
Hence the controversy and abortion issue. Just like what is referred to as the American diet. Consuming it isn't thought of so much as nutrition and nourishment but what taste good and recreational to consume in any amount of indulgence. Hence all the health problems and statistics with that.
Still doesn't mean particularly to those that know better and are informed, don't consent to what they're doing. They're just also aware they can dip in and around it, manipulating certain factors trying to extract the fun out trying to evade receiving the results/consequences that are bound by the said action.
"This is a misleading argument. If it is something you do not want to occur, it is a risk. No matter what it is. "
I understand you're using a broad definition to define risk. But we have problems. We still have to know where inherit function begins and ends.
Is sexual reproduction/pregnancy the function of sex or a risk?
Before you answer, think about driving a vehicle for transportation. When you drive a vehicle to transport you , is the transportation the function of operating the vehicle or the risk?
"If you are at a shooting range, there is a risk of someone getting hurt. Injury is a function of guns. That doesn't mean that injury isn't a risk. Your argument is nonsensical. Pregnancy, if in the current context of not being wanted, is a risk."
Actually the function of a firearm is to fire, not injure.
Just like with fire itself. The function of fire is to burn, not injure somebody or burn someone. That can happen, that is the possible risk. But the inherit function alone is to burn to ensue at high temperature.
This is why people are having problems distinguishing these facets. No doubt the readers and voters will struggle.
Saying sexual reproduction is a risk while operating the sexual organs to fulfill that function of such is like saying transportation is a risk while operating a transporting vehicle.
This is the picture I'm driving home, no pun intended. Separate from what something is supposed to do versus what can happen. Function is not what can happen but supposed to happen or else you have a dysfunction or malfunction or an operation performed incorrectly.
"Being pregnant, when you don't want it, is a bad thing. Your definition isn't very great, either. Here is one from a reliable source. "
No the definition is detailed and specific and not broad to conflate everything. Giving me somebody else's definition doesn't trump what I've said. Dictionaries are just recorded uses of words from people like you and I anyway. Pitting a definition against another won't build your case.
You have to prove that function and risk is synonymous to prove your case. I take the stance that they're not the same. Being that they're not, pregnancy/sexual reproduction is not a risk but a function. This is why the birth control issues continue. You're trying to interfere with something that was setup to do what it does.
It doesn't matter how much you cleverly try to play with fire , you're more likely to get burned as matches, firecrackers, gunpowder is bound to do so. You continue to engage in sexual activity, in a sexual act, you're bound to find impregnation as the function carries through with all the codified elements in place. It's not a risk according to what a risk is in relation to an inherent function. There are various factors that can contribute or eliminate a risk. A function, when functioning correctly, in order to eliminate the outcome, eliminate the function. Don't try to shield or offset or go around the function. The function is still in place running to do what it does.
You don't want the function, don't do the act . The act administers the function. We have this abortion issue with trying to have things both ways. You don't want to get burned, don't play with matches. You don't want to get burned, don't play with fire. You don't want to get shot, don't play with a gun.
You don't want pregnancy, don't go into sexual games but abstain.
You mentioned recreation. Again, we have this issue from this manner of playing with all these elements.
Let's not get into talking about good and bad. It's not the topic and to put pregnancy in a context of bad doesn't makes sense for all of us that are here and I understand some of us weren't wanted. Let us not go there .
"Another absurd argument. You are stating that if something is certain to happen, it's not a risk. Totally true. In this scenario, however, pregnancy is not a certainty, as already stated. This is the false equivalence fallacy. "
Oh with fertile individuals doing it right, it actually is a certainty. People purposely avoid or go around the fertile window as a way of birth control right, but this doesn't eliminate the probability like any other contraception.
Hopefully you'll view sex differently after this topic. Society has a misdirected view on it.
"It isn't consent, because you can take active actions to prevent it from happening."
You have to say it isn't consent because it appears contradictory and ridiculous. Well what is ridiculous is doing an act that enables a function to the point of it ushering a result trying to prevent it at the same time.
You have to think about this in depth. A man desires to have vaginal intercourse with his male member in attempt to reach a climax. In order to release that climax, it should be obvious, a sexual reproductive function must occur. Are we not accepting this?
The male has to agree to doing what he is so called trying to prevent in his mind having the idea of the use of a contraceptive. Do you follow?
You cannot separate one from the other. This is the function of the act . Stop looking at it from one side or the pleasure side. We have to incorporate all the facets to this.
"This example is a bit absurd, but it follows the same logic of an unwanted pregnancy.
If you light an uncontrolled fire in your house, the outcome is that your house is going to be burned down.
Any logical person would know this, and therefore would be agreeing to it. This is your argument.
However, if you safely light a fire in a fire pit, you are not agreeing for your house to be burned down. You are taking safe measures. (like condoms and birth control) Therefore, if your house burns down, you didn't consent to it. Sure, you may be consenting to the risk of a breeze catching a spark, a piece of wood just a little to sappy, a rouge flame. But you are not consenting to a charred house, as you have taken active measures to prevent it from occurring. The rest is out of your control. "
You're still blending function with perils that could happen.
So in order for your argument to work you have to prove that sexual reproduction which the point of which is impregnation is actually not the inherit function to the use of sexual organs.
If you can't do that then you admit that when you agree to use something for its use, it's just that, you agree or consent to using it, having it function or functioning, etc.
In your example, the example should of stopped with people that consent to the use of fire consent to the action of a burn or burning. That is the functional nature of fire.
You have to be able to correctly separate and identify where the innate function begins and ends and where you're adding all these other elements that the function itself alone can't cause productively without external catalysts.
Those would be the outside chain reactors and reactions such as people, improper environments, inappropriate timing, underestimated judgment, poor choices, being uninformed, misinformed and so on. All of these elements cause other things in probable scenarios that a function alone doesn't have to spark.
So where the rubber meets road of this topic, you demonstrate that sexual reproductive organs don't have the inherit function of sexual reproductivity and that function and risk are the same.
This debate is stretching out and becoming a bit confusing and circular. Therefore, to keep discussion on track, I'll simplify it a bit.
Consent means to agree for something to happen. That is non disputed.
1. If you have sex and take active measures to avoid pregnancy, you are not agreeing to be pregnant. You are agreeing to the risk of pregnancy.
2. Agreeing to the risk of pregnancy and to be pregnant are very different.
If I am using a knife, I am consenting to the risk of a cut. That does not mean I'm consenting to having a cut. I'll put a bandied on it.
3.A risk is clearly defined as a chance of something happening which is bad. Unwanted pregnancy is bad, no matter what the function of sex is.
These are the three major components of my argument. For sake of simplicity and legibility of this debate, as well as to keep the discussion relevant, which part(s) of my argument do you disagree with? Why do you disagree with them?
Round 4
I think you're just thinking in a box thinking conventionally about what consent is and just struggle to grasp what I'm saying.
I'm going to respond to what you said and make the response as plain as possible.
"1. If you have sex and take active measures to avoid pregnancy, you are not agreeing to be pregnant. You are agreeing to the risk of pregnancy."
I don't believe you answered this question. Is sexual reproduction which amounts to pregnancy the function of sex(hint = sex = sexual reproduction)?
"2. Agreeing to the risk of pregnancy and to be pregnant are very different.
If I am using a knife, I am consenting to the risk of a cut. That does not mean I'm consenting to having a cut. I'll put a bandied on it."
This is why it's important for you to answer that question above. You say you're confused and any person would be when asked to properly distinguish between risk and function.
I already made a counterpoint to your point with the gun but you didn't refute my counter. You just made a similar point again this time using a knife and what am I going to say? Just make a similar counter and we're in a circle because you're not really countering, just repeating swapping out different elements. This is why you have to know what the functions of things are. You keep saying risk but let's identify a function. The function of a knife is to cut so when you use it you agree to cut because that's what it does not what it doesn't do. So to say you take the risk to cut is inaccurate. That is the use of the knife. Now cutting yourself can be unintentional and can be a risk. But simply to "cut" is a function, not a risk.
Again I'm trying to convey that when you use a particular thing to do what it does.....just let that register...... to do what it does....there's no disagreement or non consent with that. The problem is you and people alike are mixing up the inherit functions with what risks are. It doesn't matter how many definitions you can find for the word risk. You have to be able to identify what an innate function is of a thing.
"3.A risk is clearly defined as a chance of something happening which is bad. Unwanted pregnancy is bad, no matter what the function of sex is."
By this statement you made saying "no matter" translates to arbitrary wishy washy ideology just mixing everything up like play-doh. No this is invalid. Things have rules and orders to them . Functions have a certain set of rules for them to work as they do. We can't just throw them out conflating function and risk. By you mixing them up, you'll stay confused and mixed up.
Furthermore what is "bad" has to be unpacked. If it's just completely subjective, we're back at conflation again because no true standard line is drawn. This is why we continue to have these political issues and controversies. Just mixing things up throwing out the fundamental standards and rules set in place by innate capacities and functions. When you have an ideology such as this that you think you understand to then come across a clear line drawn universally non conflating the order of things, the confusion that you then experience is just a realization of what you thought you understood is actually the confusion.
So if you're going to say functions don't matter, we can't go no further in this topic. You are not able to identify innate functions with a "no matter" stance. No wonder you incorrectly identified the function of fire, a gun and a knife . You'll never be able to counter argue my points by not understanding them because my points demonstrate what the innate function of a thing has which you appear to be quite frankly mixed up on.
"These are the three major components of my argument. For sake of simplicity and legibility of this debate, as well as to keep the discussion relevant, which part(s) of my argument do you disagree with? Why do you disagree with them?"
Every single part you read of my responses that appear to not be in agreement , obviously parts you disagree with would be my disagreement. For instance your illustrations on the gun and knife as well as saying no matter the function. No, the function is very important. I understand liberalism teaches the opposite and its whatever; no matter. I don't agree that function and risk are synonymous. I have made this counterpoint in every one of your examples like with the gun and knife.
To answer the question you based your entire argument on, yes. Sex is meant to lead to pregnancy. I never disputed that. That's because it doesn't matter in the context of this debate.
The entirety of your argument is based upon this logic:
Pregnancy is the function of sex, and therefore being pregnant is not a risk, as it is the natural outcome.
Risk is clearly defined as potential for something bad happening that you don't want to happen. Even if pregnancy is a natural function, unwanted pregnancy is a risk, as it's bad.
Yes, the function of the knife is to cut, but cutting yourself is still a bad thing.
You put in some stuff about how the definition of "bad" is subjective, so therefore, we can say that a teenage mother with a child she does not want, and cannot support, is not necessarily a bad thing. Since you say the definition is subjective, we can leave it to the opinion of the voters.
So, can we agree that unwanted pregnancy is a bad thing, regardless of whether or not it is a natural function of sex?
Round 5
"Sex is meant to lead to pregnancy. I never disputed that. That's because it doesn't matter in the context of this debate."
In order to make your case stick, you have to say it doesn't matter.
Let me circle back to an earlier point you agreed to .
"However, you are agreeing to the risk of pregnancy, since as you mentioned, pregnancy is a natural result of sex. "
The thing you're struggling with is calling it risk versus the function. Which is not the epicenter of the topic anyway. But among everything else you have said, you appear to be waffling from this point of yours.
You agree that those that do engage in sex agree (consent) to pregnancy.
"When you have sex, and use preventative measures, such as birth control and condoms, that means you are not agreeing to be pregnant."
Case and point. You're continuing to waffle in contradiction to what you've stated.
"Pregnancy is the function of sex, and therefore being pregnant is not a risk, as it is the natural outcome."
Right, sexual reproduction is the function that results in pregnancy.
The definition of function is not the same as risk. You can't interchange them, you can't conflate them.
What you have to argue for and have not done is people that want to do an act for its unwanted function is cohesive. The only way you can try to do that is conflating risk and functionality.
"Risk is clearly defined as potential for something bad happening that you don't want to happen. Even if pregnancy is a natural function, unwanted pregnancy is a risk, as it's bad. "
Case and point. The conflation, broad stroking continues.
"Yes, the function of the knife is to cut, but cutting yourself is still a bad thing."
Ok so cutting yourself is not the function. It can be a risk depending on the agenda . The knife is not functional only when exclusively to cutting a person.
"So, can we agree that unwanted pregnancy is a bad thing, regardless of whether or not it is a natural function of sex?"
How is it bad? If we don't have pregnancy, we die out . Is that bad?
There are many people here that want to be here but were unwanted to be born. These people aren't bad for being here are they?
This is the issue with this broad brushing you got going.
In order for your case to stick, you have to prove that sexual reproduction is not an inherit function to sex that amounts to pregnancy and that sex is arbitrarily functional to whatever one wishes for it to function as.
Which most of liberal society including this site champions and will vote for.
But you already conceded indirectly by saying the following:
"However, you are agreeing to the risk of pregnancy, since as you mentioned, pregnancy is a natural result of sex. "
The suffix "cy" means to be in the state of.
You are arguing that to have sex is to accept being in the state of pregnancy.
However, no longer do people who don't want to pregnant have to remain in the state of pregnancy. They can get an abortion.
Additionally, when you are taking active measures to prevent something, you are not agreeing for it to happen. If you drive recklessly, you are agreeing to get into an accident, but if you are driving below the speed limit and following all traffic regulations, you aren't agreeing to get into a wreck.
If you have sex, you are agreeing to pregnancy, but if you're using condoms and birth control, then you aren't.
In 2024, anything is possible.
They are connected through the system of child birth and through conditional where neither can exist without the other.
But those people aren't connected in any way.
I think you should try Chinese.
The only way for you to live a good life is if you are born, which then also means those who would get tortured if born must be born as well.
So your good life can only exist if someone else has a bad life.
I can explain in Chinese if you dont understand English conditional sentences.
How is that relevant to living a good life?
You do, unless you can guarantee that no one who is born will be tortured.
Uh yeah, but you don't have to torture people to live a good life
If you have to torture someone to live a life you love, then you shouldnt live.
There are also people who love their life
Its not impossible to know, since there are people who hate their life and their life is pure torture.
Well it depends if living a life yields more joy or more pain, which I guess is impossible to know.
So its okay to torture people if it creates joy?
It's also consenting to create more joy, doctors, and activists.
Consenting to give birth is consenting to torture and kill people, as well as to create more rapists and violence.
Concede publicly in the debate so voters know you concede.
I've been doing my pre-debate research, and I've realized that there is no way to win this debate, unless my opponent is very unexperienced, and that definitely does not apply to Mall. When I accepted this debate, I thought it would something that I would be okay debating against my opinion on as long as there isn't an objective truth, but I realized that there is. Therefore, I forfeit this debate and give Mall the win.
I'd be happy to play devil's advocate for this. It's always a challenge. It'll be good to have this opportunity to strengthen my debate skills.
You should read Owen's comment and possibly start a new debate about this.
I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Is consent to smoking consent to lung cancer even if you get addicted? Many want to smoke; nobody wants lung cancer, but if you don't want lung cancer, then never start smoking.
Either play Devils Advocate or concede and let Mall claim an easy victory.
Also, don't tie yourself to, "Because I disagree with Person A on 1 issue, I must disagree with Person A on every issue".
Richard Spencer can say "Women should be allowed the right to vote" and I'm going to agree with him on at least THAT.
I actually just read the description and now I feel incredibly more stupid than I already knew my self to be. I'm in it now I guess though.
Honestly, I didn't have time to actually develop an opinion on this, I just took it because I've decided to make Mall my internet nemesis, and therefore must argue with him about everything.
You can vote now. Make a forum thread , discuss it, vote against it.
I want to vote on this debate. Can you remind me when it's done?
I sm an admitted gnome-o-sexual
Your profile says you are a female. You can't get anyone pregnant unless you are a trans woman.
I wish.
I am not consenting to pregnancy if I fuck your mom. She is getting an abortion