Sex is unhealthy and immoral

Sex is unhealthy and immoral. People who engage in random and emotionless sex are poisoning the world by spreading disease and sins of the flesh. God will smite thee who has sex!

I look forward to debating an opponent who agrees.

Amen to that, brotha.

My stance in this debate is that sex is unhealthy and immoral. Con has already agreed with me, so I find nothing worth rebutting in his opening statement. I will however say that he was correct when he said that "People who engage in random and emotionless sex are poisoning the world by spreading disease and sins of the flesh."

I now wait for my opponent to produce some kind of argument.

Alright, my opponent has failed to make an argument in the first two rounds. Because of this, I will make a simple argument here, so I cannot be called out for not having an argument (even though my opponent already agreed with me).

Sex is unhealthy because it causes diseases to spread. I am not saying that sex is ALWAYS unhealthy, I am simply saying that overall, it causes more health problems than it fixes. This makes it unhealthy.
It is immoral because some people say it is so. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. While there may be some popular moral paradigms, their popularity does not make them more valid. Remember that just as Sex did not have to be unhealthy ALL THE TIME to be considered unhealthy, neither do these people have to consider all sex to be immoral.
I would wager that the majority of sexual relationships are either outside of a relationship or in a short-term relationship. I also hold that many people (possibly not most) view such instances of sex as immoral. Thus, at least a good portion of sex is viewed as immoral by a good portion of people. Since people's opinions are what decides morality.

Also, let us consider the opening round my opponent put forth. The type of sex he was referring to was very specific; he referred only to 'emotionless' sex. Thus, it is not unreasonable to assume that this is indeed the intended meaning in the resolution. This is also the type of sex the most people believe to be immoral.

With that, I'll let my opponent make his concluding statements.

My opponent argues that sex is immoral and actually unhealthy. HA!

If sex is unhealthy, Beemer, then why do people not only not get sick from it if practiced correctly, nor do they die from it, but in fact science shows the opposite: sex, in fact, is healthy for people both emotionally and physically. Unhealthy? Let's hear you explain this one.

Secondly, oh sexually depraved (see: virgin) opponent Beemer, you state that sex is immoral. How so? Because your god says so in a book written by sheepherders and whipping boys -- less than -- 2 thousand years ago (the timing being key to its inaccuracy)? Uh huh. Another religious zealot nut job trying to project his warped morals and misplaced insecurities onto other, healthy people. Sex is about as immoral as breathing. if sex were immoral, then it logically follows, Beemer, that to procreate, and to ensure the continuation of humanity, ergo, survival, is also immoral.

My opponent, through logic, implies that survival itself is immoral.

I look forward to my confused opponent backing up this ridiculous claim.

God bless sex! Huzzah!

Sex is unhealthy because it spreads disease. If the right precautions are taken, this can be avoided. however, this is irrelevant. The resolution isn't "If practiced a certain way..." Sex is unhealthy because on its own, it is an extremely easy and common way to spread disease. Just like sharing hypodermic needles is unhealthy, so is sex. In either case, there are precautions one can take to reduce or limit the health risks, but the acts themselves are still immoral. My opponent has simply asserted that sex is healthy, without backing it up. Sure, it may have its positive effects, physically and emotionally. However, the negative effects I brought up (spreading things like herpes or AIDS) far outweigh the positive effects. These negative effects are present when the act is done naturally, without any kind of artificial protection. Getting shot isn't deadly when the victim is wearing a bulletproof vest, but it's still deadly when no such qualifier is used. No qualifier was used in my opponent's opening statement or the resolution, so we can assume the debate was not meant to mean sex in general.

Keep in mind that my opponent DIDN'T EVEN ADDRESS the fact that sex spreads disease.

Next, my opponent makes a complete straw man out of me, and he even throws in some ad hominem as an extra bonus.

I already stated why sex is immoral, and it's nothing my opponent addressed. Sex is immoral, when no qualifier is used, because many people think it is. Morality is determined by what people believe. It is not something innate, it is simply a reflection of opinion. I didn't state anything about my religion (I'm an atheist), nor did I say anything about 2000 year-old texts.

I admit that most everyone will agree that sex is morally acceptable when specific qualifiers are used. "Sex is ok if the people participating are married." There are many who would say that. However, just like last time, the resolution and the opening statement of my opponent does not state a qualifier.

I have also shown that procreation does not have to be unhealthy or immoral, since certain specific qualifiers can make sex not fit these adjectives.

Next time, read your opponent's argument, rather than simply posting a generic response that doesn't address the points I made.

My opponent is relying on the fact that people will simply see the debate topic and vote his way without even reading the arguments, and this will probably happen. I implore anyone voting against me to tell me why. My opponent addressed none of my points, so they are valid as far as the debate is concerned.