Instigator / Pro

TheGreatSunGod

1500

rating

debates

61.11%

won

Topic

#6153

Kissing on the lips should be illegal

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

TheRizzler

Parameters

Publication date: 05.16.2025 06:50PM
Last updated date: 06.01.2025 06:37PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 5,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

TheRizzler

1486

rating

debates

70.0%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

TheGreatSunGod

05.17.2025 12:05AM

Pro

Okey.

So my case is simple here. We will be comparing current state of things with my suggestion, to see which is better.

If something greatly improves health, then that is probably good.

Banning kissing is actually very good, because kissing is dangerous.

There are no benefits to kissing.

But the harms are many.

First, the most obvious harm could be spreading bacteria which could harm teeth and health.

Then another obvious one would be spreading diseases and viruses.

But the worst part about kissing is that it spreads sexually transmitted diseases which cant be cured.

Thats right.

The best example of this is herpes.

Herpes is usually an STD, but often transmitted through mere kissing.

The worst part about this is that it is often transmitted to children by kissing.

There are many adults who believe its okay to kiss children on the cheek, often near lips. Usually relatives and family.

"Cold sores are caused by the herpes simplex virus and are very common. About 20% of children will have been infected by the age of 5 years, and about 80% of people will have been infected by the time they are adults."

The problem here is this:

1. It cannot be cured

2. It lasts for life

3. It is transmitted to others then

4. It literally affects billion of children

5. It hurts really a lot

6. It can be transmitted not just by kissing, but also from mouth to genitals much later in life, making sexual life uncomfortable.

I dont know what my opponent argues for here now, but I argue for adults to stop giving children herpes.

TheRizzler

05.18.2025 02:15AM

Con

Before making something illegal, it needs to fit in at least one of these criteria:

Does it DIRECTLY cause physical, emotional, or economic harm to people or society?

Does it infringe on the rights of others?

Is enforcement feasible?

Is it morally or ethically agreed upon as 'wrong' or 'evil'?

Therefore, although my opponent may have shown that kissing could improve general health, he has not provided a strong enough basis for it being 'illegal'.

Round 2

TheGreatSunGod

05.18.2025 10:16AM

Pro

Does it DIRECTLY cause physical, emotional, or economic harm to people or society?

Yes, as shown by my arguments.

Does it infringe on the rights of others?

Yes, as shown by my arguments.

Is enforcement feasible?

Ban would reduce amount of kissing.

Is it morally or ethically agreed upon as 'wrong' or 'evil'?

We are not debating here what is agreed by most. If all other people thought rape was okay, it wouldnt mean that I cant argue that rape should be illegal, or that they are any right in keeping it legal. This argument is essentially backwards logic. My opponent is using conclusion as premise there. He uses the fact that people agree to something as argument that they should approve of it. However, point of debate is to actually debate your position, not to merely say that you agree with your position. Making something illegal means good part of society agrees it is wrong. I argue that should happen in case of kissing there. My opponent must argue that it shouldnt happen. He produced no arguments to defend why kissing is safe or improves people's freedom. Kissing on its own is not any great freedom now. Due to spread of diseases and harm to health, kissing reduces both health and freedom there.

As ban of kissing would reduce kissing, it would reduce spread of diseases, especially to children.

TheRizzler

05.18.2025 06:37PM

Con

Does it DIRECTLY cause physical, emotional, or economic harm to people or society?
Yes, as shown by my arguments.

No. While it may INDIRECTLY cause harm (such as spreading disease) it does not cause DIRECT harm (such as murder or assault). INDIRECT harm simply is not a valid basis for illegalizing something. By that logic my opponent would make not washing hands, scratching your balls, sneezing or coughing without covering your mouth, or sleeping with more than one person criminal offenses.

Does it infringe on the rights of others?
Yes, as shown by my arguments.

No. Things that infringe on rights include restricting freedom of speech, searching a home without a warrant, etc. If anything, outlawing kissing would be an infringement of rights.

Is enforcement feasible?
Ban would reduce amount of kissing.

Publicly? Sure. Privately? Not really possible to monitor by law enforcement.

Is it morally or ethically agreed upon as 'wrong' or 'evil'?
We are not debating here what is agreed by most. If all other people thought rape was okay, it wouldnt mean that I cant argue that rape should be illegal, or that they are any right in keeping it legal. This argument is essentially backwards logic. My opponent is using conclusion as premise there. He uses the fact that people agree to something as argument that they should approve of it. However, point of debate is to actually debate your position, not to merely say that you agree with your position. Making something illegal means good part of society agrees it is wrong. I argue that should happen in case of kissing there. My opponent must argue that it shouldnt happen. He produced no arguments to defend why kissing is safe or improves people's freedom. Kissing on its own is not any great freedom now. Due to spread of diseases and harm to health, kissing reduces both health and freedom there.

My opponent has become dreadfully confused here. I did not say "if it doesn't fit all the questions then it shouldn't be illegal", but I a said "if we want to make something illegal, it should fit in at least one of these criteria first". My opponent is also trying to shift the burden of proof onto me by saying I must prove that society will be better off with kissing, but the proof is on Pro since he wants to change the status quo. He did not provide sufficient reason for kissing to be made illegal. Therefore I urge the voters to side with me. Thank you.

Barney

05.29.2025 06:22AM

#23

-->

@jonrohith

Your vote has been removed.
It was as follows: "As I taken biology group in high class, I have some knowledge on diseases. Yes STD are cruel and they are life threatening. But Banning a human emotional activity is not possible, Even during pandemic government asked to wear mask, not banned to talk. So taking precautions, testing for std is required and we can limit ,kissing to only one people like wife. Banning a emotion is not possible. and during physical relations wearing condoms, taking pills are useful. If you felt any changes ,consult a doctor ,we can cure many diseases in early stage."

The very beginning of informs me that you're not meaning to cast a vote, but rather state your opinion on the topic separate from how the debaters argued it; which is what the comment section is for, not the vote section.

You may of course revote, but please ensure your vote reflects analysis of what the debaters discussed.

tigerlord

05.28.2025 07:40PM

#22

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

I know it's not curable, but it only attacks when immune is weak otherwise remain dormant. So keep up the health.

TheGreatSunGod

05.24.2025 12:19PM

#21

-->

@tigerlord

I got it as a kid long time ago. It hurts when it first appears, and makes it difficult to eat. After some time, the visible symptoms go away, and it stops hurting, but disease itself is not ever curable.

tigerlord

05.24.2025 10:13AM

#20

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

alhumd ll Allah, no herpes in our area. I am sorry for your pain, though. I think nowadays, herpes is not a big issue, right?

TheGreatSunGod

05.23.2025 04:27PM

#19

-->

@tigerlord

Kissing is how I got herpes.

tigerlord

05.23.2025 03:51PM

#18

Kissing it good for health, science says, spouses should kiss each other 11 times. Just like our gut microbiome, our mouth also has it which improve our immune system. I have seen a video about it recently from the YouTube channel the diary of CEO. It's beneficial for health. But I know it should be limited to children. Banning is impossible, as it's the way of showing affection. It's inevitable to commit. Spearing awareness when someone is sick or has oral sickness, should avoid kissing, otherwise it's good for health. Having sex causes a lot of STDs, but could we ban it? In fact, Islam provides the best solution to not commit this outside marital relation so having fix partner for whole life is the best solution. Having multiple partner out of blue not only confuses your immune system but also could cause some autoimmune diseases. The same goes for kissing. Going kissing in random is bad and should be avoided, and it's already banned in Islam. But having this kind of relation to your spouses and if you kiss your own children then effects would be beneficial not bad.

whiteflame

05.19.2025 03:22AM

#17

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

@TheRizzler

@21Pilots

>Vote: 21Pilots // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Con really sold on this one

Reason for Removal: The voter must explain why they believe one side in this debate had better arguments at minimum in order to award points. Saying that one side "really sold" is not sufficient.
**************************************************

TheRizzler

05.18.2025 11:38PM

#16

-->

@Mall

@fauxlaw

@Sir.Lancelot

@FishChaser

@Moozer325

Could I get some more voters in here?

TheRizzler

05.18.2025 11:06PM

#15

It's very simple. I laid out the criteria for criminalizing something. Kissing failed to meet the criteria. I simply can't understand your vote from a logical standpoint

TheRizzler

05.18.2025 11:05PM

#14

-->

@AdaptableRatman

1.) You are not supposed to vote for people because of 'What they didn't get to clarify/say'
2.) I showed that everything he said in round one was obsolete in the face of the resolution.

AdaptableRatman

05.18.2025 10:58PM

#13

-->

@TheRizzler

You didnt address a huge amount of what your opponent said in Round 1 btw.

AdaptableRatman

05.18.2025 10:57PM

#12

-->

@TheRizzler

You mean Round 2 when your opponent had no way to reply. I read Round 1 and saw direct harms. Your opponent clearly meant that and didn't get a chance to clarify it. Also, your opponent didn't get to xlarify if indirect harms may be what he presumes you meant as well.

TheRizzler

05.18.2025 10:54PM

#11

-->

@AdaptableRatman

"Since Con agreed if 1 is a yes, the law passes and Pro clarified he addressed it in prior Round, Con loses."

It sounds like you didn't fully read the debate... I said that kissing had to meet at least one of the criteria for it to even be considered a possible candidate for illegality. It did not meet 1 since it wasn't concerning direct harm such as assault. I clarified that in round four...

TheRizzler

05.18.2025 10:51PM

#10

-->

@whiteflame

Please remove twenty one pilot's vote.

Autism

05.18.2025 04:28PM

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

What would u do if I sold you fetanyl

TheGreatSunGod

05.18.2025 04:25PM

-->

@Autism

Sure.

Autism

05.18.2025 04:24PM

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

Can I ask you a question please :3

TheGreatSunGod

05.18.2025 04:16PM

-->

@Autism

"No because I want to kiss you on lip"

Thats nice, but we just met.

Autism

05.18.2025 04:06PM

Kissing on the lips should not be illegal BECAUSE it harms the person's right to privacy and right to body. Kissing on the lips is generally a romantic gesture and romance comes under right to privacy which means the court has nothing to do with the person's choice of kissing another person with consent in private.

Autism

05.18.2025 04:01PM

No because I want to kiss you on lip

TheGreatSunGod

05.16.2025 11:37PM

-->

@TheRizzler

There. No description.

TheGreatSunGod

05.16.2025 11:36PM

-->

@TheRizzler

Alright.

TheRizzler

05.16.2025 11:25PM

-->

@TheGreatSunGod

Wanna debate this without the description being declared absolute? 😃

jonrohith

05.29.2025 06:24AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

same reason as fishchaser

FishChaser

05.20.2025 01:58PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

There are two main reasons I support con in this one.

1: Banning kissing in general is not practicable, even if it was a good idea the most you can do is ban public kissing in practice and that alone makes all other points moot. It would be like making a debate that says "we should cure cancer right now". We CAN'T cure cancer right now, so any argument for why we "should" is moot.

2: Pro presupposes a legal framework where safety is virtually infinitely more valued than personal freedom. He doesn't quantify the actual probability for example of getting an STD from kissing, it may be very tiny. Pro should have established the risk level, the degree to which safety is more important than freedom and why it is more rational to value safety over freedom to that degree.

fauxlaw

05.19.2025 03:51AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro makes several claims in R1, none of which are substantiated by more than his claims; he offers no academic sourced backing. He offers a quote, but does not bother citing the quote. Who is it? Pro's alter ego? The claims are summarized with 6 specific problems alleged by "kissing on the lips;" the Resolution's allegation, and thus, Pro's BOP.
#s 1 & 2 are really the same thing, and may survive as the only legitimate argument.
#3 amounts to a truism.
#4 limits the affect to only children by emphasis, which, while a reality, appears as a tug of sympathy because the effects are really universal to all ages. Pro repeats the child emphasis as his last argument of R1, but it's just more sympathy by personal Pro claim, and not substantiated fact by a credible source.
#5 is simple absurdity. kissing on the lips hurts? Never felt the pain, personally, so, as a voter, I cannot equate to the claim.
#6 wanders off course relative to the Resolution, which limits the discussion to lips-to-lips, only.

Con's R1 rebuttal offers four points:
1 Doesn't affect other people, society at large.
2 Doesn't infringe others' rights
3 Is not enforceable
4 Is not morally/ethically wrong/evil.

Con's summary appears to make an error claiming P)ro's BoP is that kissing on the lips improves health, but Pro is clearly making the opposite opposite claim. This error is minor considering the strength of the 4 other items, even though these, like Pro, are not substantiated by sourcing.

Pro's R2 rebuttals fail to turn Con's #1 and #2 rebuttals because pro ignores that other people and society at large are not affected by two people kissing on the lips.
Pro never addresses that wrinkle of Con's rebuttal.
Pro's rebuttal of Con's #3, enforcement, also fails because just reduction of incident of transferring disease is not completely eliminated by a ban, but merely reduced, so Con's argument is not defeated.
Pro's rebuttal against Con's #4 also fails because Pro claims the debate is not about what others think. But Pro has, again, ignored that others are not affected by the kissing by two people. It is a 1-on-1 association, not 1-on-all, and Con has successfully addressed that point because Pro ignores it. Pro is not able to capitalize on his one sure argument of potential transfer of disease by not emphasizing the point in either round, it remains a weak, and losing argument.

Con's R2 successfully defends his rebuttals of Pro's arguments, and thus wins the debate.

AdaptableRatman

05.18.2025 08:46PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Both sides seemed to somehow agree on the 4 questions where at least 1 needs to be a yes to make the law count as valid.

Pro's Round 1 covered many harms from kissing:
The problem here is this:
1. It cannot be cured
2. It lasts for life
3. It is transmitted to others then
4. It literally affects billion of children
5. It hurts really a lot
6. It can be transmitted not just by kissing, but also from mouth to genitals much later in life, making sexual life uncomfortable.

Con challenged NONE of these at all.

This means Con lost the harm question alone. Since Con agreed if 1 is a yes, the law passes and Pro clarified he addressed it in prior Round, Con loses.