Login/Sign Up




Would it be okay to have sex at a young age (13-16) as long as you're using protection and doing it with the one you actually LOVE?
Other

dumbass
Jul 30, 2011
13 votes
13 debaters
4
3
1
1


+ Add Argument

3
Yes, as long as you use protection.


scarleta
Jul 31, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reventonrage Show

Laws are not the same in all states either.

 
scarleta
Jul 31, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dumbass Show

Alright, how do you know the difference between being truly in love and just thinking you are in love?

 
gatorsf80
Aug 01, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dumbass Show

There are two elements to this debate. First it's the actual scientific evidence on reason to do it or not, and second is scarce tactics/junk science used to scare people to avoid certain behaviors society dictates us to do.

The science part: the more partners you have (or/and more promiscuous partners) , the greater is the chance of contracting STDs. Pregnancy is preventable 99.9% with proper planning and protection. Whether one is ready to engage in such behavior is a personal decisions, best taken with enough time to think it through. As far as legal age is concerned, it's a question of legality, where arbitrary age line is drawn to reflect, the age of high school completion, and the road to independence. Nonetheless, it's no longer the case, as you need college diploma for success, to find employment to be good responsible parents... Thus, the spirit of the law designed to protect minors is less of an argument of validity, but an acceptance of traditional culture which is no longer valid.
Further to prove my point, there are minors who are more prepared to act responsibly then some adults do.

Loving someone is not prerequisite for "doing it" but it creates less negative, and more positive feelings afterwards. One can even argue that love, is just what we tell ourselves, to promote the act of species reproduction, and we found many ways to justify it (romance books, movies, norms, social behavior, marriage...)
Same feeling can somewhat be reproduced by eating large quantities of chocolate...

 
gatorsf80
Aug 01, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dumbass Show

" "love" somebody is to create a more positive feeling in the relationship?. " Yes, humans need to be loved, to feel better, and the whole 'experience' should be more pleasant. Don't take the chocolate remark too seriously :-)
While chemically (phenylethylamine), works on the same receptors that people in love experience, "the relationship is more complex".

Adults will tell you, that you don't know what love is. That is primary because "Teen Love" is hormonal. Whereas Adult love, is based on forming long lasting relationship. Read the article, it will tell you all the stages of love.

Keep in mind several things, 1st Many teens will experience early stages of love, and will not experience later stages, until they are much older. 2nd, many adults forgot what early stages of love are. However, the reason that adults don't like their teens 'doing it', has less to do with love, than social reasons behind it. Such as, unwanted pregnancy, change of behavior, more independence or more dependence, lagging school work... They are all legit reasons which parents have to monitor. To show a teen is ready and mature, has less to do with 'doing it', but more of rational in planning, preventing unwanted consequences, taking responsibility of their own action. The biggest issue, is raging hormones interfering with rational thought, making teens act irrationally, despite of the fact that they think they do act rationally. In addition to peer pressure, and reverse psychology of teens acting against the wishes of their over-strict patients, which use "because i told you so", rather than explaining "why not". Notice the school-counselors (non religions affiliated schools) are mostly concerned about protection.


http://www.globalpsychics.com/listening-to-you/love-advice/chocolate-love.shtml

 
theudas
Aug 02, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dumbass Show

Sure, and while we’re at it, lets let 12 year olds drive cars if they really want it, just make them be safe and wear seat belts!! After all if they really like a car whats wrong with letting them put a phone book on the front seat so they can see over the steering wheel and run wild? *this post was full of sarcasm*





 
gatorsf80
Aug 04, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dumbass Show

Yes, many adults/teens alike skip certain stages. People get attached to different neuro-chemicals. Some stick to it, some explore other neuro-chemicals. That's why subject of 'love' means different things to different people.
However, at the puberty stage it's pretty much all hormonal. But just because it is, it does not mean, it cannot develop in to something more in the future. It's hormonal, because before you had hormone surge you didn't have such feelings before.

 
thales
Aug 05, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reventonrage Show

In Pennsylvania the age of consent is 13, provided that the older sexual partner is less than 4 years senior to the younger. At 16 a person can legally consent to sex with anyone. Several other states use this or similar systems to determine age of consent; you might want to check facts before asserting them.

 
Ramyaa Bommareddy
Aug 01, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
actually protection is up to you too.and you can do it even if you dont love da person you are doing it with.the point is,your protection is solely your problem.you use it if you dont wanna end up with a second hand disease(i mean comeon,if i were to die of a fatal disease i wud want it to be @least an xcitikng new one.not the same old hiv blah...) and an unwanted zygote.amen.

 
+ Add Argument

8
No, 13-16 is not the appropriate age.


reventonrage
Jul 30, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
A person aged between 13-16 is, under the law, a minor. Therefore, in legal terms, any sex at that age, with or without protection and regardless of whether he/she is doing it with the one they love, is considered rape with penetration.

 
reventonrage
Aug 01, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dumbass Show

No, the law defines sex with a minor as rape with or without both parties being consenting. Of course, in this case, it is really about whether the minor is consenting. But that is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Just because you define rape as something does not mean that the law defines it in that way or that the law should be congruent with your definition. Now, I understand that that is not what you have claimed, but I am saying that the way a person defines something might not be the legitimate definition.

"the law doesn't have to know unless someone says something about it"
This statement is utterly disgraceful. Just because the the legislators does not find out about something, it does not make it right from a legal perspective. For example, let's say Person A steals a pack of mints from a convenience store. Now, the store owner and the others in the store at that time might not know it and therefore, it is not reported. The law does not know it. It does not make theft legally permissible.

"I understand clearly that it's underage and that there are many risks of getting pregnant and getting STDs but hey if it's with the one you love and you're willing to take the risks for your loved one and not for the pleasure than it's okay."
This is a straw man argument. I have not posited any argument based on the risks of pregnancy or contracting STDs. The motion also has not stated anything to do with those two points. It is just a debate on whether is sex with a minor that you love correct or not. Any argument on pregnancy and contracting STDs is irrelevant. For one, sex does not always lead to pregnancy and/or STDs.

 
reventonrage
Aug 02, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dumbass Show

For all the flaws in the argument/s that you have posited above, you've got one thing right. I am and will prove you wrong. "sex is usually a personal thing." This betrays a deeply narcissistic thought. Unless I've got my biology facts wrong, sexual intercourse is a two person affair. Thus, how can you call it "a personal thing"? It shows that you have no regard for the other party what ever and that all that is important is satisfying your needs. " I don't see how you could get in trouble for it." You still don't get the point do you? As long as you have sex underage, you are already IN trouble with or without the persecution of the law. If you and/or your boyfriend is charged, it will only mean that you are in worse trouble. Furthermore, I have to repeat myself again, just because you don't get in trouble by having sex, that does not make it legally right to have sex underage. About your "sock monkey" example. This example is a typical false analogy fallacy. Thus, it is utterly irrelevant and it does not explain anything. First, the severity of the crime committed is incongruous. Underage sex in the eyes of the law is a serious offense. That is something that you still fail to grasp. Cleaning your hypothetical sock monkey cannot be attributed to an offense and even if it can, it is not as severe in any way at all! Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the punishment for cleaning your hypothetical sock monkey (i.e. being "yelled at by your mother") is even remotely close to the punishment of having underage sex or rape. In this case, your example is extremely pathetic and it does not explain anything at all. However, I concur that you're right about "Love can make you do crazy things." Seeing as underage sex is a "crazy thing", something that you seem to subscribe to as well. It means that having underage sex is, to put it mildly, irrational. And I know for one that you cannot make any sense out of nonsense or "non-sense". So, you argument does not hold.

 
distort
Aug 09, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I think there is something that needs to be clarified about this debate: What exactly is meant by "okay" in the title of this debate?

If it is meant to reflect a question regarding the legality of having sex with someone aged 13-16, then I would agree with reventonrage in that this action is considered rape by the law. Therefore, I would say that this action is not okay in a legal sense.

However, if "okay" was meant to reflect a question regarding the morality of the action, then I would argue that any decision is valid, as I view morals as inherently subjective. But, I would also like to add that consent is still mandatory, due to a lack of consent on the part of one party implying that the other party is valuing their own decision over the decision of the former party, which would be an incorrect assessment of value due to both decisions being equally valid in a moral sense (the 2 decisions being either to have sex or to not have sex).

Similarly, "okay" could also be said to reflect a question regarding the potential outcomes of such an action. If this is the case, then I would say that it depends on what potential outcomes the original poster is concerned with. In order to give a fully accurate assessment of this possibility, the original poster would need to specify their concerns regarding this action.

Lastly, I would say that any of the four sides currently available cannot be said to reflect my current position, as I am unsure as to what exactly is being debated. Therefore, I have simply selected the default side for this post (I wished to establish this to avoid any potential confusion).

 
dumbass
Jul 30, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The legal age to have sexual intercourse is 17. My boyfriend, Chris, is about to turn 17 august 31 and I'm only 15. Being 100% honest, I do love him. After being with 3 guys that I thought I loved, I now know what love is being with Chris. He says he truly loves me and I truly love him. Though, we're "too young" to be in love, I actually believe we are. I'm not just saying this because he's my boyfriend and all but because it's true. We talk about having sexual intercourse but it hasn't happened, yet at least. And he told me we're not having sex because sex is just for pleasure. We are going to make love because we're going to have sexual intercourse with the one we love. He said it really doesn't matter when as long as both of us are ready. I'm not ready yet but he said he'll wait as long as he has to. We plan to use a condom (duh) and believe there is nothing wrong with doing it at a young age as long as you're doing it with the one you love and not just some person you THINK you love but someone you TRULY love. I believe as long as you love you're partner and are using protection, it's okay (: not using protection is just plain stupid. Sex is for pleasure, so making love at a young age using protection is alright from my perspective. Just as long as the chick doesn't get pregnant :3 and I'm arguing for the yes it's ok as long as your doing it with the one you love and using protection not the NO one.

 
teachme
Jul 31, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dumbass Show

Wow...talking about going around and around...your post made me dizzy! ...Phewww!!! Not to sound derogatory, but what you said in one very looonnng paragraph, could have been stated in one or two sentences: "I believe that if you are both in love and you are using protection, sex before the age of 17 is appropriate." I, myself, have quite a bit to say on this subject matter, so will divide it into several posts.

I get the sense (especially from the way you are writing) that you might be trying to talk yourself into having sex with your boyfriend, and your boyfriend might be pushing things along a bit, in a very smooth way. I am sure he has had more sex than you...so sex is probably less of a big deal. The fact is, sex is more than just for pleasure...it is for procreation...and wearing a condom alone is not 100% reliable. Condoms are used more for protection from diseases, than to prevent pregnancy alone. Also, condoms can not protect you from contracting HPV (Human Papillomavirus), very prevalent today, especially among teenagers and young adults. There was even a vaccine manufactured to counteract at least some strains, but not all. You can contract HPV without even having sex.

There are like a hundred strains, but roughly thirty that affect the gential area and the worse ones that can potentially lead to cervical or penile cancer, are asymptomatic. (The virus can be on someone's leg and neither one of you may know or see it.) Other strains can give you genital warts, etc. The unfortunate thing, especially for women, is that there is presently no test for men. So, as women, we have to kind of use each other as guinea pigs. In other words, you have to know that the last woman your boyfriend had sex with doesn't have it. Which means she would have had to have a Pap smear to test for it, after having sex with him, and before her next partner...tricky and awkward, I know...because it involves trust on your part that he will ask her, and that she will carry through, etc. There are so many other STDs to learn about and be tested for, not to mention AIDS, but if you want to know more about HPV (and I sure hope you are concerned about more than just pleasure...that is, that you care enough about your own reproductive, and overall health, to want to know), here's a site to refer to, for more info: http://hpv.com/pdc/hpv/index.jsp

P.S. Why, on Earth, did you want a username for yourself like "Dumbass"???

 
teachme
Jul 31, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dumbass Show

Getting back to really the main function or purpose behind sex, which is procreation, loving each other is easy...but are you both prepared to be parents, should an unplanned pregnancy occur? We all know how often that can happen.

You said you thought you were in love a few times before, but that really wasn't true...and you may have even thought you were ready to have sex at age eleven, twelve, thirteen, or fourteen...but would you be ready, at even age fifteen (and he, at age 17), to be "good," responsible parents to your child...should one result in the midst of all the "love" and pleasure?

I am not in the position to question how you feel about each other, but the act of sex, itself, carries with it, a lot of risk and potential responsibility, along with the pleasure.

 
teachme
Jul 31, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dumbass Show

At age fifteen, I wasn't even thinking about becoming a parent, although I wasn't sexually active either. I did, however, have a high school sweetheart...and we were extremely "active," let's just say, in all other possible ways...lol (Needless to say, I know how the hormones are raging, especially around your age...when you have finally found someone you are truly attracted to and love.)

At around age sixteen, or so, after dating a couple of years, we began having sex. I felt I was ready, he was ready...it was the first time for both of us...and I know in my heart of hearts, that if we had become pregnant, we would have both done the responsible thing, and been good parents. Were we ready to be parents...of course not, but that is the chance you take, and the responsibility you must endure...when choosing to have sex.

Now that may involve some kind of conversation...whether that be, a heart to heart about potential future plans, and whether, or not, you are both in them...whether you are both willing to take on the resposibility of being parents, should a pregnancy occur, etc. I know you are very young, but based on what you are telling me, these are things you must consider and discuss, if you truly love each other, and are acting responsibly. Whatever you do, don't rush into things, and cover all your bases when you decide. You have your whole life ahead of you...good luck! ;)

 
teachme
Jul 31, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I can't really vote for any of the positions presented in this argument, no matter how well argued by fellow debaters. Mainly, because the creator of this debate did not include, nor allow, for the following positions:

1) Having sex at a young age (13-16) is appropriate, if both are in love, using protection, and are willing and able to take full responsibility, as parents, should a pregnancy occur.

2) Having sex at a young age (13-16) is inappropriate, even if both are in love and planning on using protection, since both are too young and underdeveloped to take full responsibility, as parents, should a pregnancy occur.

There is definitely a big difference between the developmental stage of a thirteen-year-old, and a sixteen-year-old, though scientific studies have shown that the brain is not fully developed until around age twenty-four or twenty-five.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the responsibility of becoming parents must be factored in somehow. If you want to perform an adult act, you must BOTH be willing and able to act responsibly, as adults, should a pregnancy occur. In other words, just because you are both young, does not give you free tickets to have an abortion. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, with the pleasure of sex, comes the responsibility.

 
dumbass
Aug 01, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: teachme Show

Sorry I intend to have a very very long explanation for something so small and simple. I'm not sexually active, and we're BOTH virgins. I have learned about HIV and AIDS and STDs and understand fully that some are not curable. Therefor I plan to have sexual intercourse at least at the age of mid or late 17. I'm too paranoid to get pregnant and worried that it will hurt like hell. Yes, hormones around this age do tend to get crazy but hey, we had at like 3 chances to do it and we both decided not yet. It does sound like he's trying to get me to do it with him by telling me nice stuff about it and saying he'll be waiting when I'm ready but it's not really like that. I hate the fact that I sound like those stupid teenagers that say oh well I will never do such a thing and they do it like the next day. I'm not like that. I took a Health class and was forced to see infected genitals and read the summary how it all started and such. I definately don't want to be infected...there. Point is I asked this question, the debate, to know whether or not it was okay and obviously everybody is taking it the wrong way with me. I was just curious to know whether or not people approved of this and I take it that they don't. Also, I just learned that pregnancy pills can affect your reproductive system so I have decided not to be active until high school is over so I don't affect the health to my future baby because my mom is forcing me to take the pill when I'm active at this age. But thank you for telling me about this and don't worry, I'm not having sex or making love any time soon. And "dumbass" is a cool name....don't judge me :P

 
reventonrage
Aug 01, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dumbass Show

My personal response to you (nothing to do with this debate) is that you seem to have everything rationally worked out from your perspective. That, I give you full credit for.

However, I think that on such issues, we have to consider things beyond ourselves. For example, in the event that should you become pregnant, would you be responsible for the child's well-being? If, for any unfortunate reason, you should be unable to take care of the child would there be someone you can trust 100% to take care of the child for you, other than your boyfriend? If your response to the previous question is your parents, can you be absolutely sure that they are able and willing to take care of your child for you? Especially if you're planning to go to college.

And, have you considered the well-being of the child? How would your child feel if he/she is frequently neglected by a mother who is still in school? How would he/she feel if he/she is shipped off to his/her grandparents' place because it is convenient for her parents?

Hope that you can take into account the questions above. This is why I do not approve of underage sex.

 
reventonrage
Aug 01, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: scarleta Show

Do you know of a law or legal system that condones underage sex?

 
reventonrage
Aug 05, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

You are betraying a vast ignorance of the legal system.

First, the motion of the debate has not specifically defined an area or country that the person "at a young age" is having sex in. It may or may not be in the USA. Consequently, it may or may not be in Pennsylvania. You have already committed a typical fallacy that only novices commit - the false analogy fallacy.

Second, the motion also does not state if the "older sexual partner" is less than 4 years senior to the younger. It merely states "the one you actually love". Since you are arguing that it is okay because the state law in Pennsylvania (again, this is a false analogy you have provided) allows sex if "the older sexual partner is less than 4 years senior to the younger", you are assuming that this is indeed the case when the motion does not say so. Your assumption is baseless and it only serves to fit your argument. If your assumption does not hold, then your argument does not hold.

Third, if the "age of consent is 13" and "provided that the older sexual partner is less than 4 years senior to the younger", it does not mean that sex is legal. Think about it. If the "older sexual partner" is only 13, it would make the "younger" at least 12 years old. That is below the "age of consent" of 13, which then makes the sex illegal and hence, it is a case of rape with penetration.

Fourth, my question to you was if you know of a law or legal system that condones UNDERAGE sex. If the law defines the legal age of consent to be 13, then it follows that if the older sexual partner is aged between 13 and 17 when the younger is aged 13, the sex is NOT CONSIDERED UNDERAGE. It is ABOVE the age of consent. Therefore, your argument is a straw man argument. You have not answered my question. All you have done is to provide a rather pathetic regurgitation of the state law in Pennsylvania without reference to your argument or my question.

Finally, I have not asserted any facts in the QUESTION I posed to you. I am asking a question. I have no idea how you arrived at the baseless conclusion that I am asserting an argument. Since I have not posited any argument in my question, and your rebuttal is based on a supposed "assertion" that I have made, then your argument is a straw man.

Therefore, as you have committed two fallacies that any person who is debating should know from debate 101, your argument does not hold at all.

Bottom line is: (1) Your argument does not hold true and (2) you might want to learn how to debate before putting forth a completely fallacious argument.

 
thales
Aug 05, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reventonrage Show

WOW that's a lot of mischaracterization.

Anyway.

You initially asserted that sex with someone 13-16 was rape because the person was "a minor." In the post I responded to, you asked if any legal system condoned sex with someone under-aged. Of COURSE no legal system defines rape and then condones it; what would be the point of that? Therefore I concluded that you meant "underaged" in the same sense in which you previously (mis)used "minor," and responded accordingly.

There ARE laws that condone sex with people aged 13-16 (and exempt them from characterizations as "rape"), which makes your first post an assertion of untrue facts AND also answers the question in your post just prior to my first one. I have no way of knowing whether the person who posted this question is in a jurisdiction subject to those laws, and frankly I don't care; I was simply responding to you.

 
teachme
Aug 05, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dumbass Show

Dumbass...you say "...hey if it's with the one you love and you're willing to take the risks for your loved one and not for the pleasure."

Why would you do something that is strictly for someone else's pleasure and not your own? Sex is not meant to be a sacrifice...lol You say that you are "willing to take the risk for your loved one." Woahhh...lol...that is a HUGE red flag!!! Sounds like you are either being talked into something, or quite frankly...you are full of it!

When you are between ages 13 and 15, you're barely a teenager. Many a young girl, even older than you, has gotten talked into having sex (or talked themselves into it), gotten pregnant, and lived to regret it...no matter how much they thought they loved their boyfriend.

Anyone, at any age, can say "yes" to sex...we all know that...that is the very reason why these laws exist. They are to protect the young, vulnerable, and naive...especially ones who are caught up in teen romance, and not in any position to become parents on their own...as well as, to deter unwanted pregnancies.

When you have sex all mapped out, such as in your comment: "Therefore I plan to have sexual intercourse at least at the age of mid or late 17," it sounds like you are treating sex as something you must do by a certain time, and get over with...regardless of your life circumstances, or whom you are dating. You may not even be with the same boyfriend, you say you so dearly love. You may be without a partner altogether, or dating someone whom you discover is not for you.

Ultimately, since you were asking, I have to agree with Accipiter...that is, if you were truly ready...you wouldn't be searching for answers on the internet. I just hope you don't rush into things, just out of spite. Sex (especially for the first time) is too special for that (or should be), and life is too precious, should something "unplanned" occur. ...Again, take your time in deciding, and good luck! :)

 
battletista
Aug 05, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
NO, if you REALLY love that person than you WAIT untill marriage. God made that clear in Genesis. even if you're not religious, Its still wrong! You are a minor, and the risks are far too great. end of story

 
reventonrage
Aug 05, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

If you "have no way of knowing whether the person who posted this question is in a jurisdiction subject to those laws", then it is your fault because, as I have mentioned if you did even read my rebuttal at all, you have put forth a completely false analogy. The burden of proof lies with the person who made the claims. That which can be claimed without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Furthermore, I reiterate my argument again: my assertion in my first post talked about underage sex. If a person is considered legally overage to have sex at 13-16, then it follows that they do not fall into the category of being "underage". How many times do you need me to repeat that before it sinks in? It's a fairly simple fact to understand. You claim that the legal age of consent in Pennsylvania is 13 is utter and complete bullsh*t. You have no knowledge of the law whatsoever. The legal age of consent in USA for ALL states range between 16 to 18. Since the question says aged between 13 and 16, it means that in the UoD, the lower limit in question is 13 years of age and the upper limit in question is 16 years of age. Any age above 16 is irrelevant vis-a-vis the UoD. This makes ANY sex between the age of 13 and 16, i.e. with reference to the UoD, ILLEGAL in any sense. Please check your facts here: http://www.ageofconsent.us/. Furthermore, these laws are only limited to the state of Pennsylvania and some states in the USA. The question does not mention that this hypothetical situation of having sex with a person you love aged between 13 and 16 is even living in the USA or not. So you cannot quote specific state laws and try and form a bogus argument based on those laws which do not even apply to, and hence represent, the whole of USA. Also, I do mean "underage" in the same sense as "minor". Legal dictionaries define a minor as someone who is UNDER LEGAL AGE. Therefore, I have not misuse any terms in any sense. Rather, it seems like you do not have much knowledge of the law all. Since you obviously have little or no knowledge of the law and how it works, you cannot attempt to smoke your way through an intellectual discussion by quoting the law.

 
ukuleleist
Jan 26, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
13-15 y/o do not have the mental capacity to understand what love is. You may "love" him or her, but really, your just attracted to them. Sex involving 2 minors is legal, just so everyone knows. Your not ready for a baby, which is a possible consequence of it, so wait till your older. Just stick to dating like normal people do.

 
Stuart James
Apr 05, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
NO, because this age group (children) are not emotionally/mentally/physically responsible enough and they are still developing emotionally/mentally/physically

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

electroshock therapy abortion america animals Art baby battle Bush comics convinceme Death debate debates Dog economics ect ethics evil faceoff Fight gender global warming God health history humans internet Iran Iraq Islam Jesus love management marijuana men money music peace people philosophy politics pollution President psychology religion religon Sex society Spirituality suicide technology terrorism the us vancam vs War Women world Yes