Contraception is counterintuitive

Imagine how much money you could save each year…

Round 1

1 of 3

SomeDebatePerson

Pro #1

Thanks for the debate.

A condom is meant to be placed on the male organ when it is erected due to arousal. Arousal can make people make unwise decisions, not think straight, and want to do things as quick and easily as possible without thinking about the long-term effects. This means they are less likely to put a condom on when aroused, which is the only time it is meant to be put on. The paradox shows fundamental problems in contraception.

The widespread use and access to contraception also creates many problems. It allows people to have sex whenever they want and think there are no side effects. This makes them more addicted and obsessed with sex. Addictions and obsessions also make people make unwise decisions. The more people use contracption the more they will want it and want it all the time everywhere. This will cause them to forget about “safe” sex since all sex is “safe” to them. They will want it so much they will be willing to make sacrifices, such as engaging in “unsafe” sex.

Contraception is actually responsible for STIs, even though it claims to stop them.

Fruit_Inspector

Con #2

Introduction

The framing of the debate rests entirely on three words: contraception is counterintuitive.

The description merely hints at an argument rather than providing context for the debate. Since no definitions were provided, I will provide my own that I believe are fair.

Contraception: the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means

Counterintuitive: contrary to what one would intuitively expect

There are two main ways this resolution may be interpreted - either from a theoretical standpoint or a practical one.

Theoretical (the boring one)

The first interpretation involves contraception as a concept or idea. The base word "conception" is given the prefix "contra-" (against) to form "contraception." The word structure (literally "against conception") seems to fit the definition perfectly. Any act of deliberately preventing conception is contraception.

From a theoretical standpoint, the concept of contraception is exactly what one would expect. Thus, it is not counterintuitive.

Practical (the scandalous one)

The second interpretation involves contraception as it is actually used by individuals. Here are some various methods:

Abstinence

The most effective form of contraception. Anyone practicing abstinence will effectively prevent conception.

Condoms

Perhaps the most popular contraceptive, condoms need no introduction. Boasting a 98% effective rate with proper use, they do exactly what they are intended to do. *BONUS TIP* Contrary to what Paula Dean might say, the WHO recommends not using butter to lubricate condoms.

Birth Control

There are various pharmaceutical methods of birth control, but all of them carry the same basic function. They alter various physiological processes in order to prevent conception.

IUDs

Not to be confused with DUIs, which will also have a short initial event with long-lasting effects. IUDs are highly effective at preventing conception.

Coitus Interruptus

I'm not going to explain this one. I just find it humorous that there is a fancy Latin name for this.

Every one of these methods are intuitive ways to prevent conception that are effective in achieving their intended purpose. To put it more simply, they work as expected.

Conclusion

My argument is simple:

Anyone practicing contraception is intending to prevent conception.
Modern methods of contraception are effective.
Therefore, practicing contraception is a reasonable and intuitive way to prevent conception.

No matter how you interpret it, the resolution fails. Contraception is not counterintuitive.

Round 2

2 of 3

SomeDebatePerson

Pro #3

Introduction

Cons seems to have tried to ignore my entire argument by trying to simplify the debate but then go into big details and explain definitions and methods.

Rebuttals

Abstinence

The most effective form of contraception. Anyone practicing abstinence will effectively prevent conception.

Con uses the argument of abstinence, the only 100% effective way to prevent conception. While this may work in theory, it will struggle in the real world. If someone has high libido, choosing to abstain is only going to dig the whole deeper.

Jesus and His Apostles promoted celibacy and abstinence but knew it wouldn’t work for those who couldn’t handle it:

“Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted” (Matthew 19:11).

“Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.” (1 Corinthians 7:5)

High ~~sexual~~ desire will make people make unwise decisions. As I said, abstinence for those who want ~~sex~~ is only digging the hole deeper and trying to stall ~~sexual~~ desire until it runs out.

Condoms

Boasting a 98% effective rate with proper use, they do exactly what they are intended to do.

Are you sure 98% is good enough? Are you going to get on a plane flight that has a 98% chance of getting there? People think they’re basically immune to conceiving and do whatever they want. This isn’t true. Then, they get mad whenever their luck doesn’t work out for them.

Coitus Interruptus

This method is even less effective. It has about a 20% fail rate.

Conclusion

Ultimately, con focuses on the one-time effects instead of the long-term and cultural effects. Contraception causes more unwanted pregnancies because people are used to not conceiving and then don’t want children.

Fruit_Inspector

Con #4

Rebuttal

Regarding the use of condoms during male arousal:

1. My opponent argues arousal causes people to make unwise decisions and not think straight, leading to a condom not being used. This assumes using a condom is a wise decision if conception is not a desirable outcome. My opponent has inadvertently admitted that a clear-headed person intuitively knows practicing contraception is the best choice for preventing conception. This proves there is nothing counterintuitive about contraception itself.

2. Condoms are not the only form of contraception. Birth control and IUDs do not require any action on the part of the man in his aroused state. Problem solved.

Regarding widespread access to contraceptives:

1. I reject that widespread access to contraceptives makes people forget the purpose of them. Pretty much every person who is old enough for hanky-panky knows exactly how babies are made. That common knowledge is the basis for understanding the purpose of contraception. You don't forget that just because you're a horny degenerate. Unless PRO provides evidence that people forget how babies are made due to repeated use of contraceptives, I see no reason for anyone to accept this baseless assertion.

Regarding contraception being responsible for STIs even though it claims to stop them:

1. This is demonstrably false. Microorganisms are responsible for STIs, not contraception.

2. Contraception is not intended to stop STIs. It is intended to stop conception (see definition for further clarification).

3. There is plenty of readily accessible information on the level of STI protection each form of contraception provides.

Conclusion

My focus for this debate has been on the resolution: Contraception is counterintuitive. Definitions are vital to interpret the resolution as I laid out in Round 1.

My opponent's argument also has no basis in reality. People don't forget how contraception works because they are aroused. In these cases, they are simply choosing to ignore the risks. They are no longer practicing contraception because they are not trying to prevent conception.

Round 3

3 of 3

SomeDebatePerson

Pro #5

Rebuttals

Condoms

My opponent argues arousal causes people to make unwise decisions and not think straight, leading to a condom not being used. This assumes using a condom is a wise decision if conception is not a desirable outcome.

Uh…you’re the one who “assumes using a condom is a wise decision if conception is not a desirable outcome.”

Condoms are not the only form of contraception. Birth control and IUDs do not require any action on the part of the man in his aroused state. Problem solved.

Oh, so you think is is only about the man? I’m just going to call on the memes to help me with this one:

BIRTH CONTROL PILLS SHOULD BE MADE FOR MEN

IT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE TO UNLOAD A GUN, RATHER THAN SHOOT AT A BULLET PROOF VEST

Let’s look at some quotes from this article and see if birth control is really as practical as you think:

[S]tudies have provided evidence that birth control pills may increase the risk of breast and cervical cancer and decrease the risk of endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal cancers.

You’ll need to take the pill every day at the same time. If you miss one dose, you’ll need to use a backup form of birth control for the next 7 days to prevent pregnancy. (Emphasis added)

The pill takes about 7 days to start working. If you’re sexually active during that time, you’ll need to use a backup form of contraception. (Emphasis added)

While it helps to prevent pregnancy, birth control pills don’t provide any protection against sexually transmitted infections (STIs). You’ll need to use an additional form of birth control, such as condoms, to avoid STIs.

And here we are, back to the need for condoms. At this point, it already seems counterintuitive to use these methods if you’re going to need to use a condom at some point.

Widespread Access to Contraception

I reject that widespread access to contraceptives makes people forget the purpose of them. Pretty much every person who is old enough for hanky-panky knows exactly how babies are made.

The reason why “[p]retty much every person who is old enough” to know is because contraception increases the average age worldwide, thus making more people aware and old enough to know “how babies are made.”

STIs

Microorganisms are responsible for STIs, not contraception.

A classic example of blaming mankind’s problems on the things instead. It’s like blaming gun violence on guns instead of people. This just gets old. Obvious, both things directly cause them, but people indirectly cause them and are more responsible for them since we also have to ability to stop or limit it.

Contraception is not intended to stop STIs. It is intended to stop conception

But condoms, a type of contraception, are intended to do both.

Conclusion

I will end with the condom paradox. A man needs to be aroused to put a condom on, but the more aroused he is, the less likely he is to put it on. Con seems to deny that arousal can affect decision making.

From Psychology Today:

Sexual arousal, in sum, hijacks the brain leading to a focus on immediate pleasure and gratification. Typically, after ejaculation occurs, a male then begins to consider (and often worry about) the consequences of his sexual involvements. (Emphasis added)

This really does prove my point. Arousal makes us focus on immediate pleasure, and it is only afterward that we consider what the consequences may be.

Final Rebuttal

Regarding the use of condoms during male arousal:

1. This section of my Round 2 argument explained why a clear-headed person intuitively knows that using contraception is a wise choice to prevent conception.

2. My opponent has tried to argue various methods of contraception will inevitably end up requiring the use of a condom. I will remind everyone that the purpose of contraception is not to prevent harm, it is to prevent conception. A method may cause great harm and still be an extremely effective alternative to condoms.

Regarding widespread access to contraceptives:

We have not been given any reason to believe that people forget the common knowledge of how women get pregnant and methods to prevent that from happening, even if they're aroused.

Regarding contraception being responsible for STIs even though it claims to stop them:

It should be apparent why my opponent's argument is ironically self-defeating.

Final Defense

Only one side has taken the time to properly define and interpret the resolution. Recall my simple argument:

Anyone practicing contraception is intending to prevent conception.
Modern methods of contraception are effective.
Therefore, practicing contraception is a reasonable and intuitive way to prevent conception.

While the effectiveness of contraception was questioned, it was admitted that the various methods have no less than an 80% effective rate. We can compare that to couples who practice no form of contraception having an estimated 85% chance at experiencing a pregnancy. If we put that in terms of trying to prevent pregnancy, not practicing contraception is 15% effective. This is significantly less than the effective rate of 80-100% while practicing contraception. This supports premise 2 of my simple argument. The definition of contraception supports premise 1, and there has been no valid reason to reject the conclusion. The argument is valid.

Conclusion

My opponent seems to think the condom "paradox" proves the resolution. But there is no paradox because 87-98% of people successfully use condoms while they are aroused.

Since I was accused of denying that arousal affects decision-making, I will point out that I have done no such thing. My counter-argument is that not using a condom is a conscious choice in which the person still knows the purpose of contraception. They are just ignoring that common knowledge in pursuit of a different goal.

Throughout this debate, we have been given no good reason to conclude contraception is contrary to what one would intuitively expect.

Contraception makes perfect sense, both theoretically and practically.

Contraception is not counterintuitive.

The resolution fails.

Leaning Global Moderator

#13

>Reported Vote: melcharaz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Voted for: tie
>Reason for Decision: stated 'some components of debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:

While I do think melcharaz's vote was light,
melcharaz 'did address the title and description in their RFV, appeared to weigh them heavily in their vote.
Appeared to have read the debate, mentioned and stated they disagreed with some of what they saw as tangents.
melcharaz 'could have included more thoughts on the conception arguments made by Pro and Con.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#12

--> @melcharaz

1. There's this thing called a PM. You can send it directly to one of us instead of clogging up debate comments with discussion of a given vote.

2. Debates have associated burdens of proof. The description is not, and has never been, the end-all-be-all for what those burdens are, particularly when they're written like this one. Unless the description explicitly states what the burdens are, which would require the contender to accept them, those burdens are necessarily up for debate, just like if the definitions aren't provided, there is room to debate them. If you find that flawed, I don't know what to tell you because that's just the nature of debate.

As for providing a clear standard for determining BoP, that's not something moderators are here to do. Debaters can establish that, and voters can determine how well they did at that task. We're not here to tell you there is only ever one way to interpret BoP and then fill in the blank for you. And if you, as a voter, are considering BoP in your determination of who wins a given debate, then yes, that's something you have to lay out so that people can understand how you view it and why. That's probably the most important standard for voting on the site: voters should be clear about their reasoning. If it's vague, it's not clear.

Regarding this debate, if you look at that description and tell me that you view it as an absolute requirement for what the BoP must entail... then we're clearly not reading the same set of words. It's reasonable for us to have different interpretations, but I don't see any statement in that description that holds either side solely to monetary impacts. You're welcome to poll other people on this, but a statement that starts with "Imagine" and ends with an ellipses is not what I would call an effort to impose a restriction on what this debate can cover. That just seems like you imposing meaning on those words.

melcharaz

#11

--> @whiteflame

1: unfortunately, yes, this is the only way i can call out a vote as the report doesnt work for me. Unless you are mentioning going to forums and declaring it or sending a private message? To which ill point out, no other mod has told anyone else to not call out publically.

2: if anyone can determine the burden of proof aside from description, then the voting process is inheriently flawed, there must be a clear standard of determining burden of proof. And it is often done in the descriptions, and almost always has been done so. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then YOU need to tell us where and how the bop is defined, or tell airmax to make a policy concerning it. You have a job on enforcing and making rules clear.

Its very clear to me that the debate is about money, because i hold the description as the medium to determine the burden of proof. Or at least indicate that it is. This laize fare mindset about how to debate needs to stop, make a clear objective standard, and until then, expect to keep removing votes because of it.

I now have doubt as to the weights you as head mod and other moderators use in determining votes, i will not press this until a policy change is initiated.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#10

--> @melcharaz

First off, this is not how you report a vote. You don't need to tag me in a comment and call these things out publicly.

Second, this statement in the description does not a read as a statement of the burdens inherent to this debate:

"Imagine how much money you could save each year…"

You can interpret burdens differently than fauxlaw does, but being less adherent to the terms used in the description of the debate if they don't explicitly demand that both sides accept a given burden isn't a reason for removal, particularly if someone in the debate proper does a clearer job spelling them out. That description reads more as Pro setting up his argument rather than a statement of what both sides must argue on this topic.

If you'd still like us to take a look at fauxlaw's vote, go ahead and report it. I'm telling you now, though: this would not suffice as a reason for removal.

melcharaz

--> @whiteflame

Remove fauxlaw vote as he assumed the burden of proof based on opening instead of description.

Description clearly indicates bop must include money, and he cannot in good faith vote con or pro as neither told of monetary or fiscal value.

Fruit_Inspector

--> @fauxlaw

Thank you for voting.

SomeDebatePerson

--> @Kohai

Mods! Fix it!

Intel_06

I accidentally pressed "no" on the thing above. I meant to press "yes".

SomeDebatePerson

--> @Mal

Please consider voting

Fruit_Inspector

--> @SomeDebatePerson

It was not an attack. I was acting in pure self-defense. I am prepared to justify my act of aggression before an international tribunal if need be. And I will wear my meme champion status for all the world to see!

SomeDebatePerson

My opponent attacks me for using memes but then gets the record for most memes used in a debate on this website. At least you’ll win that.

SomeDebatePerson

--> @Intel_06

On whom?

Intel_06

Skill issue.

melcharaz

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

I judge debates based on perimeters and foundation in description. Description speaks of money to be saved, yet neither side discussed contraception based on fiscial or financial gain or loss.

For some reason bible was included by instigator? As a source of health and morality, not of fiancial or fiscal gains, same with every link posted.
No one met description, they debated ethics and they debated health, not fiances.

Id vote no points but since i cant. I vote tie.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Pro has a common problem among debaters who think defining key words of a resolve [title] are not needed to assure both participants have clear understanding of Burden of  Proof and its dependence on their success. The lack of definition of contraception launches Pro into two arguments in R1 that both fail due to the lack. One, Pro compares poor decision-making with a contraceptive, and two, Pro compares STI’s with a contraceptive, thus making the contraceptive responsible for both unwanted results of having sex. Con’s R1 effectively defines both contraception and counterintuitive, putting both definitions at the forefront of his BoP rather than introducing flawed arguments against contraception with poor decision-making and STI’s. T%his debate was effectively decided for me by the convulsing of the R1, with Pro insisting on his flawed dependence on unwanted outcomes, and Con prodding support for his BoP by dependence of definitions to provide a easy path to victory by the simple logic that contraception is intuitive to help prevent both unwanted pregnancy and STI’s. Even Pro's R3 admits Con's argument is sound by saying: "Birth control pills should be made for men." These pills are clearly a contraceptive, and are intuitive; Con's entire argument. Con wins.

Round 1

Introduction

Theoretical (the boring one)

Practical (the scandalous one)

Conclusion

Round 2

Introduction

Rebuttals

Conclusion

Rebuttal

Conclusion

Round 3

Rebuttals

Conclusion

Final Rebuttal

Final Defense

Conclusion

New comment