Instigator / Pro

Mall

1476

rating

336

debates

40.77%

won

Topic

#4069

Sexually consenting adults are not sufficient for what is non harmful/justified/right.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Sir.Lancelot

Tags

Society

Parameters

Publication date: 01.16.2023 08:05PM
Last updated date: 03.12.2023 12:14PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: One week
Max argument characters: 30,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Sir.Lancelot

1587

rating

182

debates

55.77%

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.

Pretty much what the topic statement is saying, for those that are to adhere to it, consent alone between the adults involved in a sexual matter is not sufficient to make the act valid/right.

What I mean by right is right in the eyes of the law and or harmless.

Just having consent alone does not make the act harmless supposedly making nothing wrong with it.

Like always, any questions seeking for clarity on the topic, any of the details here, please send a message or leave a comment.

Round 1

Mall

01.20.2023 04:59PM

Pro

I believe I made an error in the debate description that's not quite congruent with the topic statement but in this first round I will attempt to fully establish my position using the best words to explain it.

For those that didn't quite get it, the topic is about what is right in the eyes of the law.

So that should answer the questions about a legal basis or a moral basis. The two can coincide but in this context , there has to be at least a legal context when it applies.

This is about sexual contact, sexual activity, sexual behavior, sexual foreplay, sexual deviance, sexual play, sexual relations and any sex act that those believe that requires consent between adults to practice.

The other side will have to prove that these acts are made valid by consent alone.

The con side will have to prove the topic statement false by proving these acts are right by being in accordance with law/no harm involved just by the basis of consent alone .

In some cases, there is no law that enters in but there is a harm element to assess outside of any legal element.

Therefore, some cases , you assess what would be legal which would be or is supposed to eliminate harm. In other cases, you would assess the harm factor because that's all there is to classify something as right or valid in the context of this topic.

So to paint an illustration in effort to avoid any confusion in advance, here's one regarding two adults.

Two adults agree to engage in a sex act or sex. One adult is a HIV positive carrier. It is not right or valid that the two engage in sex.

You might as well say it's potential murder in the second degree or potential assisted suicide.

Sir.Lancelot

01.20.2023 05:43PM

Con

BOP:

Due to Pro being the one to make the claim, he needs to explain how it breaks the law if both parties are consenting adults or prove there’s a law for it.

In some cases, there is no law that enters in but there is a harm element to assess outside of any legal element.

So what then is the discussion?

Two adults agree to engage in a sex act or sex. One adult is a HIV positive carrier. It is not right or valid that the two engage in sex.

You might as well say it's potential murder in the second degree or potential assisted suicide

This could be a valid comparison, but there are two factors you’d have to prove for it to be murder.

1. Intent.

2. Premeditation. (Simply having knowledge of the virus and not disclosing it while planning to have sex does not mean you planned to pass the virus on.)

We can all agree keeping your HIV a secret to someone you’re fornicating with is a douchey thing to do, but that doesn’t make it criminal. Even in your own words.

When you’re adult and having consentual sex, there comes an underlying degree of responsibility for both sides to educate themselves and have the other tested.

Round 2

Mall

01.22.2023 12:24PM

Pro

"So what then is the discussion? "

Kudos to you on the questions and communication. Set an example for the rest of them.

To clear up the misunderstanding from your previous statement, the discussion is where you prove that all is required is consent.

If there are two consenting adults engaging in a sex act, that's the only criteria that makes it right for them to engage.

I went over already in terms of what "right" is in this subject.

Contextual illustration I presented:

"Two adults agree to engage in a sex act or sex. One adult is a HIV positive carrier. It is not right or valid that the two engage in sex.

You might as well say it's potential murder in the second degree or potential assisted suicide."

The opposing side response :

"This could be a valid comparison, but there are two factors you’d have to prove for it to be murder.

1. Intent.

2. Premeditation. (Simply having knowledge of the virus and not disclosing it while planning to have sex does not mean you planned to pass the virus on.)"

I stated murder in the second degree, not first.

"We can all agree keeping your HIV a secret to someone you’re fornicating with is a douchey thing to do, but that doesn’t make it criminal. Even in your own words. "

It actually is criminal to not disclose. It should be . Now if the two persons know and engage anyway, it's an attempt at assisted suicide.

Do you follow?

"When you’re adult and having consentual sex, there comes an underlying degree of responsibility for both sides to educate themselves and have the other tested."

The illustration I gave is just one example. There are countless examples that prove why consent alone is not sufficient to make the act harmless,there by right on its own.

Sir.Lancelot

01.29.2023 12:24PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 3

Mall

02.01.2023 08:08PM

Pro

Apparently a week is not long enough to come up with counter arguments.

You think of something, try to think of something, then you think "no that won't work".

You can make a choice to repeat your points. You can decide to ignore the points or really use the brain that you've been given.

This topic statement is really cut and dry. There's no way around it.

In many things that we do concerning our well beings, there's more factors to consider than consent.

I believe the opposing side was hoping the topic wasn't as straightforward as that. So they come in asking what the discussion is.

But they have an extension of time to come up with counter points. If I were them, I couldn't even think of an example that in a situation of consent, automatically, harm is removed.

People consent to go in the army, go on the police force, doesn't automatically withdraw harm.

Many people today hold arguments that any sex act no matter how deviant is ok as long as we have consenting adults.

No it's more to it than that.

Sir.Lancelot

02.01.2023 08:40PM

Con

Since we're specifically referring to the eyes of the law, there is absolutely nothing to prosecute in a court. If you tried to press charges, most lawyers would laugh you out of their office.

Extend.

Round 4

Mall

02.02.2023 04:03PM

Pro

We're speaking particularly of law in tandem with the risk of harm.

In situations where the law does not intervene to prevent harm, harm can still be in place regardless of consent.

For example, consent to go to war, consent to engage in sex with someone carrying a STD.

I don't believe the other side disagrees as there's no rebuttal.

Thank you for your participation.

Sir.Lancelot

02.09.2023 03:28PM

Con

Extend all arguments.

Mall

03.12.2023 12:14PM

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

In regards to what?

Sir.Lancelot

03.11.2023 09:33PM

-->

@Mall

Do you agree with the voter?

Mall

03.11.2023 09:31PM

When are we going to be honest?

No wonder debate.org got shut down. Half way truthful folks.

AleutianTexan

02.09.2023 05:58PM

Sorry for the two pings, I voted and then realize I didn't select Con. My bad.

K_Michael

01.29.2023 05:21PM

If you knowingly have sex with someone without telling them you have HIV, then there is not informed consent. If you have told them and they still want to have sex with you, then that is informed consent and everything is fine.
"The presence of consent predominantly affects the case, and the person who has transmitted the disease may not be found guilty. Several states have specific laws that let people with an active STD status knowingly indulge in sexual or physical contact with a person without the fear of prosecution, provided they tell their partner about the STD status."
https://www.levineblit.com/blog/what-stds-can-you-sue-for-everything-explained/

Intelligence_06

01.29.2023 04:19PM

--Decades have passed.--

"Let's start a world-scale war, shall we?" Said the prime minister of UK by then.
"Alright!" Responded the president of America, after the two have spent a night on the same bed, in the white house preferably.

...

YouFound_Lxam

01.16.2023 08:17PM

-->

@Mall

Morally or lawfully?

AleutianTexan

02.09.2023 05:57PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

I'm upset to vote on this debate because the "winner" is really not trying, however, the other side isn't answering key arguments. I vote Con, here's why:

1. I buy that the resolution is about legality. To be completely honest, Pro is talking about harm, and how that can happen outside of the legal system, but I have this quote from Pro "For those that didn't quite get it, the topic is about what is right in the eyes of the law." meaning the existence of harm is not the question of the topic. If you want the topic to be about harm, or you think all harm is illegal, you need to do that work much more.

2. I buy that, even if sleeping with HIV is harmful and SHOULD be criminal, it is NOT criminal. Pro brought up that there are other examples of illegality, but I would like even one of these numerous examples that could prove their point.

3. I buy the BOP is that Pro must prove that consensual sex between adults can be illegal.

In conclusion, Pro doesn't meet the BOP. I have no evidence that it is illegal, only with this murder claim, however Con correctly identifies that morality is not legality and that there is no intent. Second-degree murder requires the intent to kill someone, you mean manslaughter, though I don't evaluate that because it wans't brought up in round. This BOP overrides the topic, even if the topic allowed for a question of morality, though I don't evaluate that it does based on Pro's comments early on in the round and a lack of clarity about what the role of harm is in regard to legality.

Notes for Pro
1. Answer the BOP or meet your BOP.
2. There is literal legal laws on the books that make it illegal to sleep with someone without telling them you have an STD. Literally post one of those laws instead of trying to link them to murder. Also, the elderly/mentally disabled can't consent in some situations because they are unable and you should cite those laws.
3. I don't get the moral/prevent harm versus legality distinction but not distinction claim you're making. I have no clue how preventing harm ties into legality after reading the first or second Pro speech, leaving me feeling lost.

Notes for Con
1. You'll read this twice from me today, but you need to give a shit about the debates you're in.
2. You need to wrestle with the harm/legality... thing that Pro is going for. You ask what the debate is buy you should be creating a framework that a judge could use, especially since the Pro is really messy, otherwise I'm required to sort through theirs, and it might not turn out in your favor.
3. Read a disad to the claim that it should be criminal. "Calling consensual activity illegal is the basis of racist and homophobic ideals that the state should oppress people." This means that you get to not only call them irrelevant to the debate, but prove that if they were relevant, they're still wrong.

If yall have any questions or comments, feel free to question, comment, or message me!