CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
having sex in teen age is bad because in some countries young single parents suffer because of they were having sex too much and unwanted pregnancy was introduced in their lives and ended up been a single parent.
people need to learn that there are consequences to this action and therefore they should be educated on how to prevent things such as teenage pregnancy from happening. However like I said in my other comment during your teenage years is when all of those sexual feelings come alive.
Fucking is fun, humans are lucky that for us sex is pleasurable for most other creatures it is just for reproduction. Know the risk but know the benefits.
If you are enough mature and know the risks and think with your brain, not only with your penis, then i don't see what is the problem.. As so sex is not only an animalistic intercourse, locked in our subconscious mind but it is a way of expressing feelings. Well I don't see anything wrong with sharing your love with the person beside you. Am I right guys ?
The world is changing and it is for better people in future is the teens so they practice what they hear and what they see so I think its good for the teenage to have sex
As a specie we want to survive, and that is in our instinct. Biologically women are supposed to have their children 16-25. After 25 your supposed to be done having children, but today most women haven't even started when they're 25.
This ''not having sex before marriage'' thing is not biological, it is something society has invented. Biologically we're supposed to be having sex at 16-17
This ''not having sex before marriage'' thing is not biological, it is something society has invented. Biologically we're supposed to be having sex at 16-17
That used to be the marriage age. It is probably more biological than you give it credit for. Having more than one parent can help the children survive, so biologically it would make sense to procreate with someone that will stick around. Lots of animals form monogamous pairs. Their "weddings" are a little shorter. ;)
I didn't say monogami was invented by society - I said premarital sex was. Tell me a specie that waits to mate till their desition to be together forever is blessed by the Lord.
Marriage has no requirement to be blessed by the lord. Don't let Christians confuse you. The concept of monogamy plays a huge role in marriage. I am just saying that it could be more biological than you think.
I am fully aware of what monogami is, and fully aware of that there are at least 11 species known to be monogamous. We were talking about having sex before marriage - not whether monogami is more ''biological than I think''
I am fully aware of what monogami is, and fully aware of that there are at least 11 species known to be monogamous.
Good for you, now apply it to the debate instead of treating it separately.
We were talking about having sex before marriage - not whether monogami is more ''biological than I think''
Marriage in humans is what shows monogamy. If you don't have that "gaurantee" of monogamy you are providing a less secure future for your offspring. Sex before finding your monogamous partner is bad biologically. Humans pushing the age of child bearing back several years goes against biology. Avoiding the act for procreation before you are ready to procreate is biological.
Okay - sorry. Teenage sex and monogami - you start!
I already did, three times. Keep up.
I don't think marriage is proof of monogami in humans. 3/4 end up in divorce.
A concept that you are supposed to stay with one partner the rest of your life was invented to help propagate the species. 3/4 don't even end up in divorce, you are inflating the number to help your case. What percentage of parents get divorced before the kids are independent is a better question.
That might not been 3/4, but still the majority of marriages end up in divorce
A concept that you are supposed to stay with one partner the rest of your life was invented to help propagate the species
That doesn't really make us monogamous
I looked into my dictionary, and the definition of monogami is marrying once in your life or only having one mate. With more than half of all marriages ending up in divorce, and 45% of the population marrying more than once, I think it's sad that anyone would think we are a monogamous specie.
We might all have the ''idea'' of having the dream guy/girl and be with them forever, but that's not how it is. People give up, people get bored of each other. Love doesn't last forever, and we shouldn't fool ourselves by thinking it does.
No, you didn't. All you didd is saying monogami is more biological than I think
No, you misread. Marriage is more biological than you think. Avoiding sex before marriage is more biological than you think.
I already think it is natural, so what are we debating about?
You haven't related it to what you wrote.
I looked into my dictionary, and the definition of monogami is marrying once in your life or only having one mate. With more than half of all marriages ending up in divorce, and 45% of the population marrying more than once, I think it's sad that anyone would think we are a monogamous specie.
40% of the species is monogamous. You are ignoring a massive statistic because it isn't the majority. Plus, even if we aren't strictly monogamous, I only brought it up as an example of how it works.
We might all have the ''idea'' of having the dream guy/girl and be with them forever, but that's not how it is. People give up, people get bored of each other. Love doesn't last forever, and we shouldn't fool ourselves by thinking it does.
Who are people more likely to stay with? Someone who they believe is their dream person who they decide to marry, or someone they just randomly have sex with. The concept of not having sex before you find someone who is willing to stick around helps make your offspring's survivability go up.
We are not a monogamous specie.
Regardless, even without the species being strictly monogamous, following a monogamous lifestyle helps your kids survive.
Avoiding sex before marriage is more biological than you think.
How so?
40% of the species is monogamous.
When I google monogamous species, all I get is a short list of anywhere between 3-15 species. No where does it say 40% of all species are monogamous.
Would you like to give me some sources?
The concept of not having sex before you find someone who is willing to stick around helps make your offspring's survivability go up.
Yeah, but it doesn't make you monogamous.
Regardless, even without the species being strictly monogamous, following a monogamous lifestyle helps your kids survive.
There are about 25 million (25%) children in america with divorced parents.
There are about 250 minors who die each year. About 60 of them must come from divorced parents, assuming that 25% of the children in us come from divorced parents. One would assume that most of these die from diseases or injuries.
60 a year in a 20 million pile is going to make a very very small promille, every life counts, I know - but .. you know, I seriously don't think it's gonna help anyone survive just because you dressed up pretty one day, changed your name and vowed to stay forever, which is a promise there is a fifty fifty chance you'll keep.
When I google monogamous species, all I get is a short list of anywhere between 3-15 species. No where does it say 40% of all species are monogamous.
Would you like to give me some sources?
40% of our species. 40% of marriages are successful forever. A large portion of humans are monogamous.
Yeah, but it doesn't make you monogamous.
So what? Relate it to your argument, will you?
There are about 25 million (25%) children in america with divorced parents.
There are about 250 minors who die each year. About 60 of them must come from divorced parents, assuming that 25% of the children in us come from divorced parents. One would assume that most of these die from diseases or injuries.
You don't know if it is 60, that's the point. If it is way more than 60 I am right.
60 a year in a 20 million pile is going to make a very very small promille, every life counts, I know - but .. you know, I seriously don't think it's gonna help anyone survive just because you dressed up pretty one day, changed your name and vowed to stay forever, which is a promise there is a fifty fifty chance you'll keep.
Modern medicine plays a much greater role in our survivability than does our individual biological drives. The number is down to 250 because of medicine, not because of divorce. Our biological drives were formed centuries ago.
Just because you married once or never divorced doesn't make you monogamous.
You don't know if it is 60, that's the point. If it is way more than 60 I am right.
Then support it with some real evidence.
You are just giving me numbers from ... nowhere, to be honest, because I google things you say and nothing comes up.
Modern medicine plays a much greater role in our survivability than does our individual biological drives. The number is down to 250 because of medicine, not because of divorce. Our biological drives were formed centuries ago.
I don't see your point here :) I'm not saying divorce is the reason so few minors die every year. I'm just pointing out that children of divorced parents don't die any more than others, because being married doesn't increase your health.
Just because you married once or never divorced doesn't make you monogamous.
A large portion of the population doesn't have kids until they find someone to marry.
Then support it with some real evidence.
It isn't baseball, we don't have statistics for every random situation we can think of.
You are just giving me numbers from ... nowhere, to be honest, because I google things you say and nothing comes up.
I didn't give you any numbers. You gave some numbers and we found one was wrong.
I don't see your point here :) I'm not saying divorce is the reason so few minors die every year. I'm just pointing out that children of divorced parents don't die any more than others, because being married doesn't increase your health.
Well, our biological drives were determined before modern medicine.
Awesome, now you are trying to use future stats to prove me wrong. If the trend is heading towards out of wedlock it proves me right. Technology allows us to go against our biological processes. In the new age of technology we are moving away from what biologically drives us (marriage) with what unnaturally drives us (out of wedlock). So, when there aren't massive resources, married parents help more.
Then you can't say children who come from divorced parents are more likely to die
True, I am trying to apply to reason.
You said 40% of the species are monogamous.
That's your number. You gave the number of 60% of marriages ending in divorce. That means 40% stay together.
Yeah well .. still doesn't mean children are more likely to die if they come from divorced parents.
Well, try to apply to a time when biological processes were a bigger factor. A single parent would have had a harder time hundreds of years ago.
If the trend is heading towards out of wedlock it proves me right.
The current percentage for out of wedlock births is over 40% and has never ever been this high. it has gradually gone up since the 80's.
It is not 100% sure that in 2016 most of us will be born out of wedlock, but that article I showed you is not a ''future stat'' or a prediction. It is a forecast, or a very reliable guess from an educated person.
Of course there could be some massive twist next year, resulting in something no one could ever have seen coming.
The difference between you and me, is I been giving you links and articles to support what I am saying, but you can't support anything you say with anything at all, ecept your own word, which is worthless to me.
That's your number. You gave the number of 60% of marriages ending in divorce. That means 40% stay together.
Once again - by only marrying once or not divorcing doesn't make you monogamous.
Well, try to apply to a time when biological processes were a bigger factor. A single parent would have had a harder time hundreds of years ago.
Could you back this up with something? Anything? A video? Documentary, article?
Do you not know what prediction and forecast mean?
The difference between you and me, is I been giving you links and articles to support what I am saying, but you can't support anything you say with anything at all, ecept your own word, which is worthless to me.
I just told you that it supports what I am saying. Your very link shows I am right in the way I explained. Can you please address what I actually wrote instead of complaining about what I didn't write.
Once again - by only marrying once or not divorcing doesn't make you monogamous.
They stay together. Probably has something to do with a biological thought process that causes us to stay together.
Could you back this up with something? Anything? A video? Documentary, article?
Do you not know what prediction and forecast mean?
Forecast is what the dictionary tells me is the english word for the danish term prognose. So unless the dictionary translated it poorly, which it often does, then yes I know what a forecast is.
They stay together. Probably has something to do with a biological thought process that causes us to stay together.
A prognosis is a type of prediction, a forecast is a type of prediction. It is like you saying I am not mad, I am angry.
The argument is not about monogamy still, and hasn't been. The argument is that there is a biological process that causes 40% of marriages to stay together.
A prognosis is a type of prediction, a forecast is a type of prediction. It is like you saying I am not mad, I am angry.
Okay, then I know what a forecast is - what is your point?
The argument is not about monogamy still, and hasn't been.
Marriage has no requirement to be blessed by the lord. Don't let Christians confuse you. The concept of monogamy plays a huge role in marriage. I am just saying that it could be more biological than you think.
The above was one of the first arguments you made.
This may have been the case for our ancestors. These days in developed nations, children mortality rate is not affected by having only one parent.
It isn't about being born. It is about the child being able to grow up and have more kids. Children still do better with 2 parents over 1 parent.
Also, is there a reason why you reference monogamy? Wouldn't polygamy provide even more parents?
I referenced monogamy because it is more prevalent in humans. Polygamy seems to work differently though. I have seen it where the husband is spread out between his wives and the children don't benefit as much. But, 2 parent homes are more likely, and since the argument was about marriage in general I was focusing on 2 parents.
fucking is fucking at the end of the day, we do it to reproduce and for the fact its good shit! I mean who hasn't felt better after a sesh of make up sex?
its fun and part of life during your teenage years is when you're at your most horniest because all of those sexual hormones are coming alive.
