Instigator
Points: 21

Polygamy

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
bsh1
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender
Points: 6
Description
--Overview--
This debate will last for 4 rounds, with 3 days to post each round. There will be 10,000 characters available to each debate for each round. Voting will last for 2 weeks. I am taking the Pro position.
--Topic--
Some form of polygamy should be legal.
--Definitions--
Polygamy: the practice of having two or more legal spouses simultaneously
Should: expresses desirability, expediency, prudentiality, and/or advisability
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
Round 1
Published:
Thanks to Wylted for accepting. Should be an interesting debate.

I. The Plan

I am arguing specifically for polygamous marriages in which all relevant parties can offer their informed consent. That means, simply, that:

  1. Any would-be spouse must be aware that they are entering a polygamous marriage (and the exact number of spouses and children involved) before the marriage can be conducted
  2. Any person wishing marry additional spouses must notify any existing spouses of their intention to marry an additional spouse and must also receive the consent of those existing spouses to marry that additional spouse
  3. All participants in a polygamous marriage must be at least 18 years of age
  4. Absent other mutually agreed, legislated, or court-ordered arrangements, custody of any child belongs to the biological, married parents within a polygamous family
  5. Polygamy should not be restricted to any gender- or sex-based restrictions or guidelines (e.g. 1 man with many women)
II. Framework

Pluralism is a basic feature of life. People like my opponent and I disagree on topics such as polygamy, the subject of this debate. We may have different values, priorities, backgrounds, experiences, cultural perspectives, and religious beliefs. Given the inevitability of pluralism, people must seek normative guidance on how best to act when they confront different value systems or perspectives. Consider that "[v]alues organize, coordinate, mediate and direct experience. In so doing, they serve both a valuable epistemic as well as existential function. Values direct and guide our activity, but more than that they color the nature of our encounters with other persons...The common mistake among valuers that leads to a 'totalizing' of values as 'absolutes' or 'ultimates' is to forget that any given value encompasses only an aspect of reality and ought not to be treated as transcendent or reducible to that reality...And Locke believes that if he is correct in asserting that '[a]s derivative aspects of the same basic reality, value orders cannot reasonably become competitive and rival realities' that he will have provided the necessary theoretical foundation for a more latitudinarian exchange between diverse human collectives." [1] The rejection of totalizing values is therefore both practically and logically necessary in that it is needed for effective human interaction to take place and in that values cannot form a separate reality unto themselves, respectively. Therefore, rather than embracing any totalizing value framework, we must be balance rights, interests, and moral concerns to arrive at a conclusion which is, at its base, pluralistic in its origins.

III. Religious Freedom

Perhaps most famously--at least in the American context--polygamy has been debated as an issue of religious freedom, with various fundamentalist groups believing that it is a religious requirement that they enter into polygamous relationships. [2] But this context is too narrow. Many religions and belief systems around the world either permit or require polygamy from their adherents. In some African faith systems, the more wives, and thus children, a man has, the "greater the chances that the family will enjoy immortality." [3] Islam also allows for polygamous marriages under certain conditions, and some Muslims believe it to be their religious duty to have multiple spouses. [4] For members of all faiths who believe their faith requires them to engage in plural marriages, statutes which fail to allow them to participate in those marriages inhibits their religious freedom and the free exercise of their faith requirements.

IV. Ethnocentricity

It is the case that polygamy is the majority marriage style in the world. "Even today monogamy is the minority relationship style around the world. Cultural estimates suggest that as many as 83% of societies around the world allow polygamy." [5] Indeed, "[p]olygamy is legal in 58 out of nearly 200 sovereign states." [6] From Kurya and Bororos tribes' polyandry to the polygyny of West Africa, polygamy is widely practiced by thousands of cultural groups across the globe. [7, 8] The proscription of polygamy is therefore unacceptably ethnocentric, to the extent that it imposes a specific external norm of these other cultural groups.

V. Freedom of Choice

Individuals ought, generally, to have the freedom to choose their own lifestyles. While polygamy will certainly not work for everyone, it will work for some, and those for whom it is an attractive option should be able to pursue it. For example, Vicki Darger describes how living in a polygamous family has benefited her personally, esp. during a struggle with postpartum depression: "In the end, what got me through this rough time was the steadfast devotion of my husband and my sister wives. They never gave up on me. They saw me at my worst and still loved me. When I was unable to give my children all the attention they needed, Alina and Val were there to make sure they were cared for and loved. Joe never stopped listening or walked away, even when my criticisms stung. I came out of that experience more grateful than ever for my family and for the resilience of my relationships." [9] For her, the choice of polygamy was beneficial in a way which it may not be for everyone, but her ability to chose that particular lifestyle should not be impinged without cause. Generally, people's choices should be respected because what everyone wants and needs in and out of their life is different.

VI. Freedom of Association

Entering into relationships like marriage is necessarily an associative act. Freedom of association, as a right, is critical because we define ourselves in part by who we associate with. I define myself, in part, as a Democrat because I associate with the Democrat party. I define myself as an activist because I associate myself with groups like the Human Rights Campaign. I define myself as a a member of the DART community because I have associated with this site. Being able to associate freely is central to our construction of our personal identities and human dignity, and it is therefore important that freedom of association be respected. Indeed, "considerable associative control is necessary for self-respect, wellbeing and the cultivation of judgement." [10]

VI. Situational Benefits

In places struck by economic hardship or by a shortage of men (particularly in places where men are the primary breadwinners) polygamous marriage can be enormously beneficial. Consider: "a new study of polygyny in Tanzania finds that the practice of sharing a husband may, in some circumstances, lead to greater health and wealth for women and their children...When comparing households within individual villages, polygynous households often had better access to food and healthier children. Polygynous households also owned more cattle and farmed more land than monogamous households. These findings support evolutionary anthropological accounts of marriage indicating that polygyny can be in a woman’s strategic interest when women depend on men for resources." [11] Similarly, in Russia, there is a significant disparity in the male-to-female ratio in which there are millions more women then men. Women in rural areas, where life is hard already, would benefit from "rights to a man's financial and physical support." [12] In fact, "A lot of women live on what were collective farms, which are often deep in the forest and miles away from the nearest town...You live very close to nature...[Y]our heating is entirely through log stoves, there's no running water and inside sanitation is rare. If you are lucky enough to keep animals, you must care for and butcher them yourself. So if you are looking after children as well, life can be near impossible for a woman on her own." [12]

VII. The Right to Privacy

Respect for the privacy of individuals requires that, generally speaking, the state not interfere in the private choices of individuals. Privacy is important: "Friendship and intimacy would be impossible...without the ability to reveal oneself more fully to some people than to others. Wider social interactions are also seen as dependent on people’s ability to include some and exclude others from their inner circle." [13] People ought generally to be able to order their own private lives as they wish, including who to include in their inner circle via marriage. What happens in the bedroom, what happens in the household, is largely up to the participants involved, and the government ought not deny them the ability to formalize these private relations if they so choose. If anything, by formalizing marriages, thereby according the married individuals spousal privilege, government formalization of these relationships enhances the privacy claims of the participants.

VIII. Conclusion

In conclusion, a variety of rights are at stake in the question of polygamy. Considered holistically, as respect for pluralism demands, it is clear that polygamy ought to be legal. Thus, I affirm.

IX. Sources


Thank you! Please vote Pro!
Published:
I apologize to bsh1, I am not feeling myself these arguments are what I plan to work with and are copy pasted. It
s still the same general arguments I would use but I have some serious concentration issues at the moment. We can debate whether this is a conduct violation, but he still needs to address them in order to win.

Most polygamous marriages are also polygynys (one man many wives), by legalizing polygamy we are mostly just creating more polygyny. The following article explains why this is bad,, though it is also listing some pros. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201801/the-pros-and-cons-polygamy

While polygyny may benefit the men involved, it denies wives to other men, especially young, low-status men, who tend to measure their success by their manhood, that is, by the twin parameters of social status and fertility. With little to lose, these frustrated men are much more likely to turn to crime and violence, including sexual violence and warmongering. It can be no coincidence that polygamy is practiced in all of the 20 most unstable countries on the Fragile States Index.
All this is only aggravated by the brideprice, a payment from the groom to the bride’s family. Brideprice is a frequent feature of polygynous unions and is intended to compensate the bride’s family for the loss of a pair of hands. Divorce typically requires that the brideprice be returned, forcing many women to remain in miserable or abusive marriages. If polygamous unions are common, the resulting shortage of brides inflates the brideprice, raising the age at which young men can afford to marry while incentivizing families to hive off their daughters at the soonest opportunity, even at the cost of interrupting their education. Brideprice if often paid in cows, and, to afford a bride, young men may resort to cattle raids and other forms of crime. Gang leaders and warlords attract new recruits with the promise of a bride or an offer to cover their brideprice.

One study explains the benefits of monogamy to society as a whole http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657

In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.
Matt Riddley offers some good insights to this study' http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/polygamy-fuels-violence.aspx

The correlation between violence and polygamy (strictly, polygyny — being married to more than one wife at the same time — as having more than one husband is much rarer) is not just about violence to women. It is also about violence among men. From Troy to Brigham Young, from Genghis Khan to Islamic State, there has been a tendency for nations that allow polygamous marriage to exhibit more crime and more warfare than those that do not. The cause is increased competition for mates. Polygamy results in more unmarried young men, and these commit most violence.
Even moderate polygamy can produce large imbalances. Imagine that in a village of 50 men and 50 women, two men have four wives, four men have three wives and fourteen have two wives: that leaves 30 men chasing the remaining two women. A recipe for trouble.
A fascinating 2009 paper called The Puzzle of Monogamous Marriage, by the anthropologist Joe Henrich and his colleagues, detailed the historical correlation between polygamy and crime, chillingly explaining it thus: “Faced with high levels of intra-sexual competition and little chance of obtaining even one long-term mate, unmarried, low-status men will heavily discount the future and more readily engage in risky status-elevating and sex-seeking behaviours. This will result in higher rates of murder, theft, rape, social disruption, kidnapping (especially of females), sexual slavery and prostitution.”
When you have polygamy, it is natural for it to result in a society where the wealthy older men have several wives and the poor young men don't. This has statistically been proven to increase violence in society. We have the example of the squirmishes in the south Sudan because of it. https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war

In South Sudan, brideprices may be anything from 30 to 300 cows. “For young men, the acquisition of so many cattle through legitimate means is nearly impossible,” write Ms Hudson and Ms Matfess. The alternative is to steal a herd from the tribe next door. In a country awash with arms, such cattle raids are as bloody as they are frequent. “7 killed, 10 others wounded in cattle raid in Eastern Lakes,” reads a typical headline in This Day, a South Sudanese paper. The article describes how “armed youths from neighbouring communities” stole 58 cows, leaving seven people—and 38 cows—shot dead “in tragic crossfire”.
Thousands of South Sudanese are killed in cattle raids every year. “When you have cows, the first thing you must do is get a gun. If you don’t have a gun, people will take your cows,” says Jok, a 30-year-old cattle herder in Wau, a South Sudanese city. He is only carrying a machete, but he says his brothers have guns.
Jok loves cows. “They give you milk, and you can marry with them,” he smiles. He says he will get married this year, though he does not yet have enough cows and, judging by his ragged clothes, he does not have the money to buy them, either. He is vague as to how he will acquire the necessary ruminants.

There is also direct evidence of the civilizing effect of women on men and how that disappears when polygamy becomes the norm. https://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/must-women-civilize-men/


Liberals sometimes feel that it is narrow-minded to favor traditional marriage. Over time, my reporting on poverty has led me to disagree: Solid marriages have a huge beneficial impact on the lives of the poor (more so than in the lives of the middle class, who have more cushion when things go wrong).
One study of low-income delinquent young men in Boston found that one of the factors that had the greatest impact in turning them away from crime was marrying women they cared about. As Steven Pinker notes in his recent book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature”: “The idea that young men are civilized by women and marriage may seem as corny as Kansas in August, but it has become a commonplace of modern criminology.”

even the birth of a daughter correlates with CEOs being more generous in employee compensation and benefits than the birth of a son. This study was conducted among 10,000 companies in Denmark, so it has to be taken as research among a fairly homogenous population, but there is plenty of evidence in it that gender has a more profound impact of the actions of men than we thought. Mothers and even sisters have a keen correlation to the generosity of men.
Polygamy has also been linked to more abuse against women. Take the following article for example. http://www.asanet.org/press-center/press-releases/polygamy-and-alcohol-linked-physical-abuse-african-marriages

Contingent on the country, about 10 to 17 percent of the sampled marriages were polygamous. Women in such relationships were, depending on the country, about 1.3 to 2 times more likely to be at risk for physical violence from their husbands than women in monogamous marriages.
The results for polygamy didn't come as surprise, Christobel Asiedu said, because women in polygamous marriages tend to have less power and are more likely to be dependent on their husbands

This is not too far off from what I would argue on my own despite not being explained as well. I apologize for the sloppy technique, hopefully we can focus on debating the issues rather than having the debate turn into what constitutes acceptable plagiarism or whether this is a conduct violation. Once again I'm sorry about the concentration issues at the moment.
Round 2
Published:
I will now rebut Con's case.

I. Overview

These arguments respond to the general gist of Con's case, and reinforce why it is important to embrace the Pro position in this debate.

  1. Women are not chattel. Con's approach to the debate topic is itself degrading towards women. He treats them a commodities which must be kept in supply for men who simply cannot control themselves. Women are not commodities and should not be regarded as such. We should broadly reject Con's case because of the fundamental way it regards women.
  2. Criminalizing the innocent. Making polygamous marriages illegal means that individuals who--for cultural, religious or other reasons--engage in polygamous marriages become socially ostracized and placed in unjust legal jeopardy. "[A] key challenge for now comes from the lack of legal protection – such as laws that prevent discrimination – for poly relationships. In the US Army for instance, adultery is even seen as a crime, meaning a person cannot be ‘out’ as poly if they are married." [5] In other words, these individuals have to live their lives in secret and, if they're caught, could be penalized simply for living their lives. 
  3. Pariahs no more. One of the main reasons polygamous families may not be functioning optimally, according to Con's data (which I dispute below), is that they are treated as social pariahs. The more their relationships are normalized, the more likely they are to be comfortable using various resources available to straight couples and living mainstream-style lives.
  4. Reducing Adultery. Polygamy would likely reduce adultery. Adultery, as a contributor to crime and divorce, is something which ought to be reduced. "The legalization of polygamy would go a long way towards eliminating a lot of these reasons. In a polygamous society falling in love with another person need not sound the death knell of an otherwise successful marriage. Instead a marriage of two can be expanded to three and even further if necessary." [19]
II. Too Few Spouses

Con proposes that polygamy, and particularly polygyny, will lead to a shortage of marriageable women. There are at least five reasons why this claim is seriously misguided.

  1. Expense. Women are expensive, which places an upward limit on the number of wives most men could conceivably have. Even a man with a couple of million in the bank would have a tough time attracting more than a small handful of women, because as demand for women increases, so to would the demands of women on their potential suitors. It is thus highly unlikely that polygamy would lead to a severe drought of marriageable women.
  2. Tradition. In many cultures (particularly in the West), polygamy is not viewed favorably. Cultural pressures to remain in monogamous relationships are likely to discourage high rates of polygamy, and are thus likely, to ensure a reasonable supply of marriageable women for the general population of men. In fact, "there are only an estimated 500,000 poly relationships in the US, which is a tiny minority." [15]
  3. Polygamy itself. Polygamy is the ability of individuals to take multiple spouses. I can envision a situation where a man has multiple wives, but those same wives also have multiple husbands. This inter-spousal sharing, so to speak, prevents any one man from monopolizing a large group of women, and could potentially prevent a shortage of wives.
  4. Polyandry. I am not just calling for the legalizing of polygamy (1 man with many women), but also polyandry (1 woman with many men). These practices have the potential to balance each other out to some extent, ensuring a viable supply of marriageable women.
  5. Gender Imbalance. In countries or regions with more women than men, in fact it makes quite a lot of sense to endorse polygamy, because otherwise a disproportionately large number of women will be unmarried. Why only focus on making sure men get married as Con does? It's fundamentally misogynistic to prioritize men having spouses over women having spouses. And, as I noted in my case, in countries or areas where men are the primary breadwinners (a reality of life), it is important for the wellbeing of those women that they are able to get married. [11]
As for the brideprice, I am not required to defend it and I won't be defending it. The brideprice, understood as a kind of formalized dowry paid by the groom's family or the groom to the bride's family, would be scrapped in my world, though polygamy would be retained. Moreover, it's not at all clear how the brideprice is unique to polygamous cultures, as many monogamous cultures have it as well. [16]

III. Correlation

Con suggests here that polygamy is correlated to violence by increasing rates of sexual competition. There are at least three reasons why this claim is seriously misguided.

  1. Dependent Premise. This argument depends entirely on the premise that polygamy creates a shortage of marriageable women. Insofar as that premise is flawed, so too is this entire argument.
  2. Correlation =/= Causation. It may be the case that polygamous societies have high rates of crime for reasons unrelated with polygamy. Consider that many of these countries are in areas where resources are already scarce and where terrorism and war have historically been high for political, religious, and ethnic reasons. Even if a definitive link to polygamy were shown, it would be nearly impossible to assess the exact impact on violence would be, making this argument difficult to weigh.
  3. Brideprice. Outlawing brideprices, as should be done, would immediately reduce the incentive to engage in violent raids and crimes like those described in Con's Sudan example.
IV. Civilizing Impact

Con suggests here that marriage has a civilizing impact on male participants. I have two responses to this argument.

  1. Dependent Premise. This argument's impact depends entirely on the premise that polygamy creates a shortage of marriageable women. Insofar as that premise is flawed, so too is this entire argument.
  2. Non-unique. Participants can be civilized in polygamous marriages as well; nothing Con has said precludes polygamous marriages from having a civilizing impact on the parties to it.
V. Domestic Violence

Con suggests here that polygamy is correlated to domestic violence. There at least four reasons why this claim is seriously misguided.

  1. Correlation =/= Causation. Con's source takes its data from "Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, and Zimbabwe." These countries are already likely to have high rates of domestic violence given the latter two's poverty, the latter three's political instability, and all four's comparatively weak government control of rural regions. More than that, data from just four countries (and which came from only 10-17% of the sample) cannot be generalized out to polygamy everywhere.
  2. Potential Solvency. Women in Tanzania are able to use a cultural practice involving marriage between straight women to escape domestic violence. "This means she can keep the family home which is jointly owned with the younger woman, despite a tribal law which dictates that only males can normally inherit property...It is believed marriage between women is helping to reduce the risks of domestic abuse, child marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM) within the tribe which has more than 700,000 members." [7, 17, 18] The idea of straight marriage between women as a means of pooling resources and protecting each other from harm has the potential to significantly reduce domestic violence in some cultural contexts.
  3. Relationship Satisfaction. One would imagine that if domestic abuse were rife within polygamous or polyamorous relationships, that relationship satisfaction in these relationships would be low. In fact, that's not the case. "[I]ndividuals in poly relationships are better at communicating and that jealousy is often lower. In new research...she even discovered that overall relationship satisfaction can be higher in poly relationships, though another earlier 2015 reviewfound that satisfaction was similar among monogamous and 'consensual non-monogamous' relationships." [5]
  4. Brideprice and Divorce. Much of the reason why wives may be more unable to leave polygamous relationships (as opposed to monogamous relationships) can be attributable to a lack of legal divorce options in relevant jurisdictions or the brideprice. By ensuring that divorce is legal (which I support) and by ensuring that the brideprice is illegal, this problem can be solved altogether.
V. Sources


Thank you! Please vote Pro!
Published:
II. Pluralism

I’m sure my opponent argued pluralism as some sort of pre-emptive strike on what I would argue. I’m not sure what he expected my arguments to be, but I don’t want to spend too much time on this. Pluralism as I understand it, is just the common sense notion that no group has a monopoly on the truth or how best to live. I agree for the most part. I think he also agrees that sometimes we have to create laws that do ban certain cultural or religious practices, if they are deemed harmful.

The Quran advocates for stoning homosexuals to death.

"if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers," "If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses," "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/homosexuality.aspx
So does the bible and Torah

“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A13&version=NIV

We have all the major Abrahamic religions advocating for stoning homosexuals to death. If my opponent wants to argue that we should allow that sort of pluralism than fine, but I suspect even he would put limits on how much we respect the beliefs of others when it comes to creating laws.

I fear I have spent too much time here, stating the obvious, that it is a balance, weighing the right to practice your religious beliefs with individual rights, what is good for society, and banning some practices that are harmful to individuals and society.

III. Religious Freedom

Religious freedom is important, but just like we ban stoning homosexuals, and ban or should ban all forms of slavery, we need to balance the harms and the benefits.

Pro says: “polygamy has been debated as an issue of religious freedom, with various fundamentalist groups believing that it is a religious requirement that they enter into polygamous relationships”

I don’t know about some people on this site, but I always look into citations. The citation my opponent used to support the conclusion that some groups see polygamy as required is an off shoot of Mormonism called the FLDS church led by Warren Jeffs. I’m a sensitive guy. Overly so, and I am crying while writing and researching this. There is no easy way to put this. This group advocates for polygamy, claiming it is required for their religion as a pretext to molest child brides as young as 9 years old. Here is a description of a video excerpt shown at Warren Jeff’s trial.

“The sound quality was poor, but the packed courtroom hung on every word. Jeffs' voice drifted down from ceiling speakers like curling smoke. The FLDS "prophet" both threatened and reassured the girl, mumbling prayers that enjoined her to joyfully perform God's will. In the courtroom, hands involuntarily flew up to cover mouths as it became clear that the girl had been restrained on a sort of temple altar bed, while several of Jeffs' adult "wives" stood by to assist him in case the child panicked. Five minutes into the recording, Jeffs' droning prayers were accompanied by the sound of rustling clothing. Then came a rhythmic heavy breathing that no adult could misunderstand; it went on and on. At one point, Jeffs, panting, asked the girl if she "liked it." She answered in a small, squeaky voice: "I'm OK, sir." “ https://www.hcn.org/issues/44.10/flds-continues-abusive-polygamist-practices-in-utah-and-arizona

When you say we should respect a groups religious practices, using a group who molests little girls, is perhaps not the best example. Granted his plan says nobody under 18, but 18 year old girls are naive and can be just as easily coerced into joining these abusive relationships, I think it is worth noting what happens to the young boys in these societies that really promote polygamy. The FLDS church my opponent used as an example of those who should have religious freedom in that regard shows yet another example of why these social practices are harmful to society.

This is a type of society that requires that females outnumber men, so what happens to excess boys that are no longer needed. They are expelled from the community, sometimes as young as 13, and often are desperate and fall prey to child molestors. They are typically uneducated and have no experience in the real world, so turn to drugs, alcohol and crime and many also become homeless. http://flds101.blogspot.com/2008/05/flds-life-101-lost-boys.html

If this is his lone example of a group that requires polygamy of it’s members than we can forget the religious freedom argument. He uses examples of groups that permit polygamy, but only of one who requires it, and it is a poor example at that. I really want to show that it is hard to find examples of large religions that require polygamy, so let’s continue.

“In some African faith systems, the more wives, and thus children, a man has, the "greater the chances that the family will enjoy immortality.”

So what, In my round I showed why polygamy harmed probably many of the same African Faith systems he is referring to. I think the key words here are “greater chances”, so we have a system where the likelihood of immortality increases, but they can still become immortal without polygamy, so we aren’t really stopping them from having eternal life by banning the practice, plus I need to know more about these specific faith systems from my opponent to know why the believe that. This could just be a poor english interpretation of what their more complicated belief system is.

“Islam also allows for polygamous marriages under certain conditions, and some Muslims believe it to be their religious duty to have multiple spouses.”

Once again, I want to show the source my opponent is using, and it is worth it to actually read through the sources we both use on this debate so you can get a full picture of this. https://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/religion/2013/04/what-kind-woman-willing-share-her-husband

“The Quran instructs Muslim men to “marry women of your choice two or three or four””

If we stopped there, you might agree with my opponent. Muslims have to marry multiple wives, no matter what the harm it causes to society, but the article continues.

“but warns that “if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly [with them] then only one or [your concubines]. That is more fitting so that you do not deviate from the right course.” The Prophet Muhammad said, “Whosoever has two wives and he inclines towards one to the exclusion of the other, he will come on the Day of Judgement with his body dropping or bending down.”

The reason this verse is important is put into perspective by a holy man and expert on Muslim practices.

“In other words, “It is mission impossible,” according to Mufti Barkatulla, a senior imam and sharia council judge in Leyton. He firmly believes that there is no place for polygamy in modern Britain. “There are a number of cases we have come across and there is hardly a case where a man can balance all the duties required in a polygamous situation . . . In today’s industrial society, it is impossible to observe the conditions laid down by the scriptures.” Polygamy, he points out, predates Islam and was permitted in Islam in the context of war to offer protection to war orphans and widows. Many of the Prophet’s 11 wives were widows”

IV Ethnocentricity

My opponent quoted a stat that 83% of societies around the world allow polygamy. A read the article cited and it said the same thing, no citation though. Just a sex journalist stating the statistic is there, but after scouring the internet for a few more hours I think I got close to the original source. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/203674

A 1998 study by Douglas White professor and anthropologist. The stat is of how many societies existent and no longer existent have been polygamous, which is quite different than estimating current societies. But why did we go from 85% of societies being polygamous to now 25% if divided by countries (58 out of 200 as mentioned by bsh1).

An anthropological study looking at the reasons why polygamous and monogamous societies flourish or suffer has discovered the conclusion in a 2012 anthropological study. The study says:

“In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.”

What it means is that monogamous societies are more beneficial in the ways we care about.

V/VI/VII-

There is no reason these marriages need to be formalized and encouraged by government given the damaging effects to society. In fact they are so harmful they should be discouraged.

VI- Situational Benefits

“a new study of polygyny in Tanzania finds that the practice of sharing a husband may, in some circumstances, lead to greater health and wealth for women and their children”

I think we can agree that when rich men are the only ones getting married than women not forced to marry broke men will have better access to quality healthcare, resources and food, but my studies show that it is worse for society over all especially economically which is probably the biggest reason women would seek polygamy, because of bad economies that cause them to be desperate enough to seek security nay survival over being with their true love

Round 3
Published:
I will now defend my case.

I. The Plan

Con fails to raise any discrete objections to the plan itself. This is going to be important because parts 1-3 indicate that, in my world, polygamous marriages would require consent from all relevant parties and that those parties be adults. These parts are going to moot some of Con's case and rebuttal arguments.

II. Framework

Con concedes pluralism, acknowledging "that it is a balance" and that pluralism is "common sense." Let me repeat the essential upshot of pluralism: "The rejection of totalizing values is therefore both practically and logically necessary...Therefore, rather than embracing any totalizing value framework, we must be balance rights, interests, and moral concerns to arrive at a conclusion which is, at its base, pluralistic in its origins." This impacts the debate in 2 ways.

  1. Pluralism precludes Con's case. Con's case is entirely predicated on a consequentialist paradigm, which is in inherent contradiction to pluralism. Respect for basic freedoms often comes into conflict with pursuit of beneficial outcomes. In fact, almost all of Con's response to my case come from this consequentialist mindset, reflecting Con's totalized value perspective. To the extent that Con's case is an expression of a totalizing value or a totalizing value mindset, it must be rejected out of hand.
  2. Pluralism means no values are inherently better than any others. Human welfare is just one good out of many and cannot inherently outweigh the other goods expressed within my case. It is a balancing act, as Con admits, and so human welfare, as a value, is not more weighty or valuable than any other value which we must balance within a pluralistic framework.
Con cannot now respond to pluralism because he has conceded it; any such responses would be impermissibly new.

III. Religious Freedom

A. FLDS

The abuses of Jeffs are abhorrant, and I am not going to defend them. What Con misses in his fallacious appeal to emotion here is that the abuse was committed by a handful of sick individuals. Many Catholic bishops have been accused or convicted of sexual predation, but no one understands those incidents to mean that Catholics ought not have the freedom to engage in their specific worship practices, including those that have priests work 1-on-1 with children (e.g. confession). The FLDS church was led for 32 years by LS Johnson before Jeffs, and the sources do not allege any sexual misconduct under his leadership. [2, 20]

Based on this analysis, I have six discrete replies to Con:

  1. The freedom of any religious group should not be curtailed because of the gross misconduct of some of its members.
  2. The group in question is not inherently problematic, because for 32 years, at least, it lived a crime-free existence, with the sole exception that it was polygamous.
  3. In my world, Jeffs and his accomplices would have still faced legal repercussions for their misconduct; child abuse would be legal in neither of our worlds.
  4. By making polygamy legal, we can reduce the appeal that fringe faiths like this have for people interested in the polygamous lifestyle. If polygamy is legal, people interested in it would not need to seek out seclusion from the world within these fringe groups. Thus, legalizing polygamy would likely reduce the potential for this kind of abuse.
  5. Con suggests that 18 year olds are open to manipulation, but this is true in his world too. If they are manipulable, they are manipulable in a monogamous or polygamous society.
  6. It is important to note that Con has not drawn any definitive link between polygamy and child predation. If the FLDS had been a monogamous cult, the misconduct may have been just as likely. Indeed, many monogamous cults have engaged in such abuse. [21]
Thus, there are at least 6 good reasons to reject Con's argument as nonsense.

B. African Faith Systems

Con says that because having more wives only leads to "greater chances" of immortality, it is not necessary. That misconstrues how religious freedom works. In the Catholic Church, for example, confessing one's sins leads to a greater chance of those sins being forgiven, but that doesn't mean that it can be curtailed. To curtail the practice, because it is seen as fundamentally tied to the exercise of religion, would violate the religious freedom of Catholics. We could even imagine a hypothetical religion (let's call it Wylbishism) which says that those who engage in text debates online have a greater chance of ascending into heaven. Because the practice of debating online is fundamentally seen as being tied to the faith, it would violate the religious freedoms of Wylbishites to prohibit their debating online, even if doing so is not strictly necessary. Similarly, then, even if polygamy only leads to a greater chance, because it is fundamentally seen as tied to religion, prohibiting it violates religious freedom.

Con then claims he needs to know more about the religions because it could just be "a poor english interpretation." Con's argument is ridiculous on its face. As Con is not a theologian, expert on African cultures, or a linguist, it's unlikely he could improve on the "english interpretation" of the scholars I cite. Moreover, to the extent that Con admits he talks about "many of the same African Faith systems" I talk about, he acknowledges that polygamy in these faith systems is a thing. Con is grasping at straws.

C. Islam

One Mufti's interpretation is not definitive for Islam and Muslims in general, which is what Con misses here. That many Muslims do take multiple wives indicates that Mufti's view is the minority view. [23] Religious freedom is also about one's personal faith beliefs, and to the extent that, as I said, "some Muslims believe it to be their religious duty to have multiple spouses," respect for religious freedom demands we allow them to have multiple spouses. Con never responds to this latter claim; extend it as unrebutted.

IV. Ethnocentricity

Con objects to my source because its a journal article. Con then tries to find the root source for the statistic I provide, and comes up with a 1998 study by White. There are two problems with Con's replies: (1) the BBC is a highly credible and well-respected news source, and is therefore trustworthy, and (2) the White study isn't the root source.

I googled "polygamy 83%" and in less than a minute came up with another BBC article (which I hadn't previously seen) which did link to the root study. The root study for the 83% statistic is from a study by Fortunato and Archetti from 2009. The authors write, "The majority of human societies allow polygynous marriage, and the prevalence of this practice is readily understood in evolutionary terms...Eighty‐three percent of human societies allow polygynous marriage." [22] The study is primarily concerned with why monogamous marriage evolved in Eurasia, but does not make claims about the current usefulness of either form of marriage, nor does it argue for either's legality. It traces the evolutionary causes for monogamy within a specific cultural and geographic region. But, insofar as the study does observe that 83% of cultures are polygamous, it is clear that outlawing polygamy would be seriously ethnocentric.

Con then writes: "But why did we go from 85% of societies being polygamous to...58 out of 200 as mentioned by bsh1." The reason for this is pretty straightforward: cultures are not the same thing as countries. A country like China is home to numerous ethnic and cultural groups, from the Uighurs of Xinjiang to the Tibetans of Tibet to the Mongols of Outer Mongolia to the Han of the Chinese seaboard. Furthermore, many countries with cultures that practice polygamy might still outlaw polygamy anyway. Therefore, it is entirely consistent to say that 83% of cultures practice polygamy and also that polygamy is legal in 58 nations.

I addressed Con's block quote when I responded to his case.

Because absolutely none of Con's responses substantively and accurately address any of my arguments on ethnocentricity, extend this argument as basically unrefuted.

V. Drops

Con cannot now respond to these arguments because he has failed to respond to them; any such responses would be impermissibly new.

A. Freedom of Choice

Con drops that freedom of choice is an important value and that legal polygamy better gives people freedom of choice. For people like Vicki Darger, who find strength in their polygamous families, polygamy can be a deeply rewarding lifestyle choice. For those for whom polygamy is a good life choice, polygamy ought to be legal.

B. Freedom of Association

Con drops that freedom of association is an important value and that legal polygamy is key for freedom of association, as marriage is an associative act.

C. The Right to Privacy

Con drops that the right to privacy is an important value and that legal polygamy is essentially a private choice that should be left up to individuals. Moreover, Con drops that polygamous marriage could increase privacy by expanding spousal privilege.

VI. Situational Benefits

Con's response to this argument is only valid in countries where polygamy would create a shortage of marriageable women. In places like Russia, where men are comparatively scarce, Con's argument has no weight. Extend the Russia example as unrebutted. There are situational benefits to polygamy in many circumstances, esp. when men are scarce.

Con's response is too men-centric and ignores the benefits to women and children (e.g. food security) that polygamy brings in places like Tanzania, where life is already hard. It's thus likely mortality rates would rise without polygamy. Tanzania faces great food insecurity and malnutrition; 60% of Maasai children there are stunted. [11] If polygamy can prevent that, we should make polygamy legal.

V. Sources


Thank you! Please vote Pro!
Published:
I'm going to need an extension on this round. I have off Monday and Tuesday if pro will grant it, if not I will make my case for why I should win in the final round and deal with the consequences of not being able to post in time
Round 4
Published:
I will now review the debate and its key voting issue.

I. On the Debate

Con should not be allowed to defend his case in Round 4. To allow him to do so would be to allow him to make new arguments in the final speech, which is unfair, and would be to deny me any ability to defend my rebuttals of his case, which I had been scheduled to do. Think about it like this: I have had 2 opportunities to talk about my case, and Con will have had two by the conclusion of Round 4. However, I will have only had 1 opportunity to talk about Con's case, while, if he addresses it in Round 4, will have had 2. In order to ensure equal response opportunity, and thus fairness, Con should not be given any opportunity to talk about his case whatsoever. Therefore, I urge the voters to regard my opponent's case as having been dropped entirely by my opponent. At this point, Con should only be able to reply to my case. This not only (a) prevents new arguments from being made in the last speech, which is prohibited by the rules, but it also (b) ensures equal response opportunities per case. While I sympathize with Con's scheduling duties, we have both had 3 days to post each of our rounds and we have an equal obligation to do so. That my opponent failed to post an argument should not disadvantage me in this debate, particularly since I have been accommodating of my opponent's scheduling requests (e.g. by delaying my first round post).

II. Voting Issues

I will now summarize arguments that I and my opponent have previously made which I believe are key to the debate. This summary will be conducted with an eye to explaining to the voter why they ought to vote Pro.

A. Con's Dropped Case

1. Con has no offense

Con has dropped his case, meaning that all of my replies to it have and must stand unrebutted. Without his case, Con has no concrete evidence linking polygamy to any kind of consequentialist harm, including esp. the dangers of having too few marriageable women and the risks of domestic violence. Con can no longer make or defend these arguments because they are dropped. Ultimately, the impact of this drop is straightforward: Con has no offense of his own left with which to meet his BOP and no empirical data that he can use to salvage a win in this debate. Moreover, Con drops the overview I place on his case which precludes our even considering his arguments, undermines the accuracy of his data, and gains additional offense for the Pro position.

2. Pro has offense

From my dropped argument's against Con's case, I am garnering the following pieces of now-untouchable offense:

  • Polygamy prevents innocent people from being unjustly made criminals
  • Polygamy reduces adultery
  • Polygamy has the potential to reduce domestic violence through the legalization of polygamous marriages among women
  • Polygamous relationships have higher relationship satisfaction measurements
These four pieces of offense are enough to vote Pro right now, given that Con has no case left to defend or to meet his BOP with. That said, there is still more offense out there left for Pro.

B. Pro's Defended Case

1. Pluralism

Con conceded pluralism, which led to two devastating impacts for his case: (1) pluralism precludes Con's line of argumentation because it comes from a totalizingly consequentialist perspective and (2) since no values are inherently better than any others, human welfare (the value Con relies on most) cannot itself trump other values. Since all of Con's arguments come from a place of human welfare (as a totalizing point of view), Con cannot show that his arguments are the most weighty under a pluralistic framework, nor, indeed, would pluralism accept the kind of argument Con is making. But, I would also note a third impact: (3) given that no value is inherently better than any other, since I am winning in the greatest number of value areas (given the values Con dropped as well as ethnocentricity and/or situational benefits and/or religious freedom), I am already the debater best achieving pluralism, and am thus winning this debate.

2. Religious Freedom

Con tries to make a lot of hay out of one case of religious freedom gone wrong, but never is he able to show any correlation or causation between polygamy and child abuse. Instead, the most Con has shown is that in one case, a few sick people went off the rails; but that cultish groups go off the rails is neither exclusive to polygamous groups nor inevitable within polygamous groups. And, of course, I am arguing only for polygamous marriage among consenting adults. Therefore, while Con sinks a lot of time into this argument, he is not gaining any offense from it.

Even as Con is failing to glean any offense here, I am gaining offense in at least two key ways: (1) I show how legalizing polygamy could reduce abuse by bringing polygamists out of fringe groups and into the mainstream where they can lead more normal lives and be subject to more regular scrutiny. As I wrote earlier: "by making polygamy legal, we can reduce the appeal that fringe faiths like this have for people interested in the polygamous lifestyle. If polygamy is legal, people interested in it would not need to seek out seclusion from the world within these fringe groups. Thus, legalizing polygamy would likely reduce the potential for this kind of abuse." I am also gaining offense from (2) protecting the religious freedom of people in a number of faiths, including Islam and traditional African faith systems.

3. Ethnocentricity

Con does not find the study that actually went with the source--a study which I later provide. But, he really did not need to go looking for the study anyway because the BBC is a highly credible source. The actual study says that "Eighty‐three percent of human societies allow polygynous marriage." Moreover, because I did not introduce the study in the final round, it is not new, and must be considered on its merits. It would therefore be ethnocentric to make polygamy illegal, as it would impose a specific cultural viewpoint on the majority of human societies out there.

My opponent fails to refute the substance of this argument because none of his attacks are actually applicable. Don't let him make any applicable attacks at this late juncture, as I'd have no opportunity to respond and as they'd be new in the last round. Therefore, this argument can be extended as utterly unrefuted.

4. Dropped Values

Con dropped that legal polygamy was key for three rights/values, namely: (1) freedom of choice, (2) freedom of association, and (3) the right to privacy.

5. Situational Benefits

I am gaining two pieces of offense off of this argument: (1) the unrefuted Russia example (which Con cannot now reply to) shows that polygamy is beneficial in regions where men are outnumbered by women, and (2) legal polygamy has the potential to save thousands of lives. I will repeat my argument from the last round: "Con's response is too men-centric and ignores the benefits to women and children (e.g. food security) that polygamy brings in places like Tanzania, where life is already hard. It's thus likely mortality rates would rise without polygamy. Tanzania faces great food insecurity and malnutrition; 60% of Maasai children there are stunted." To repeat from my case: "When comparing households within individual villages, polygynous households often had better access to food and healthier children. Polygynous households also owned more cattle and farmed more land than monogamous households. These findings support evolutionary anthropological accounts of marriage indicating that polygyny can be in a woman’s strategic interest when women depend on men for resources." In polygamous families, health and nutrition are better than in non-polygamous families, meaning that in places like Tanzania, where men remain the primary breadwinners, polygamy could save countless lives.

III. Conclusion

There are several clear ways to vote Pro in this debate. The first of these ways is on the weight of the offense. I have identified 13 discrete pieces of offense I am winning, whereas Con is not winning any. This imbalance provides a clear rationale for voting Pro. The second way to vote Pro comes from weighing the arguments within a pluralistic framework. Not only does pluralism work strongly against Con and his totalized value structure (with enormous emphasis placed on the single value of human welfare), but it works in favor of Pro. Given that I am winning in multiple value areas, including human welfare (from situational benefits), freedom of choice, freedom of association, the right to privacy, freedom of religion, and cultural equality (preventing ethnocentrism), it is clear that I link best to the framework. Even if I weren't winning in all of these value areas, winning just four of them would make the Pro side the side best aligned with pluralism. Since Con dropped at least three of these areas, Con is facing a massive structural disadvantage to outweighing Pro via pluralism. But, as I said, I am already outweighing Con because Con has failed to substantively refute most of my arguments. Finally, you could vote Pro by simply asking: who has a case left standing? Only Pro has a case remaining. Therefore, I strongly urge a Pro vote.

Thank you to Con for the debate and to the voters for voting. Please VOTE PRO! 
Published:
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere


Observe rule number 4. Bsg1 has violated this rule and should recieve a 7 point loss as per the next rule.


10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
 If you agree he has violated rule number 4 than you should be able to place a vote not only for arguments in my favor, but also conduct. ''

At the end of round 1 BSH1 ruined the decorous atmosphere by saying "Vote Pro" at the end of round 1 in a cocky attempt to declare himself the winner before any other arguments or rebuttals had a chance to be provided by me. BSH1 also sent me several hateful PMs during the course of this debate which is just in bad tadte for a mod. I quote his PM's here

"Wylted, go fuck yourself. You suck at debating and it is a slap in the face to have to suffer through a debate with such a retard"

These are definite displays of poor sportsmanship and as a result I should be awarded the win. The whole reason I have barely participated is that BSH1 has pretty much bullied me to the point of losing interest in this debate.

Added:
Well, I guess I’m the sex panther of voters.
50% of the time, I vote for Virt every time.
#71
Added:
--> @ethang5
So, as we can all see: no evidence of any kind. again. He’s very good at making accusations, very poor at actually providing justification for them.
And like so many other times, when he actually makes specific claims, you end up proving yourself a liar.
I give virt all my votes? Omg that’s so true.
Except here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/311?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
And here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/242?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=4
Out of a total of 5 non forfeit/concession votes.
And as for Bsh1, you are absolutely correct that I have voted for him 100% of the time. I have consistently and repeatedly voted for him in every single debate of his I have voted for: every single only one of them - this one.
So yet again: you’re flat out demonstrably full of shit. Which is why, again, you have absolutely no credibility.
#70
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
>Until then, I’m going to treat your insane, paranoid claims - asserted with no evidence or justification - with the appropriate amount of disdain.
Sure. But I'll bet you're also going to keep giving bsh1 and Virt all your votes.
Think about it, you're the reason why many members won't do formal debates. Fake voting. You proud?
But take heart, the people who hire your fake votes have the greater sin. You're just the muscle, not the Don.
#69
Added:
--> @ethang5
No, I think the fact that you keep going on these nonsensical rants, with any proof of anything.
You’ve accused me of being the only person to vote in a particular way, when 3 other people also voted that same way. You’ve also asserted - with no evidence - that I only vote one way, and keep asserting that I only vote one way even after many, many, many examples of me voting other ways is presented.
I’m saying that you have a history of making things up, producing no evidence to support your claims: and then simply repeating those same lies over and over again because you think the “gentle reader” doesn’t see that you’re a liar. You have no credibility as a result.
If you can produce any specific example wher you think my vote was unfair or unreasonable - go ahead, and I will happily defend every vote I have made.
Until then, I’m going to treat your insane, paranoid claims - asserted with no evidence or justification - with the appropriate amount of disdain.
#68
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
You really think alleging silly things like "rants" sways the Gentle Readers? You and Virt gave all points to bsh1. You and wylted are in the Voting Club with Virt who appointed you, and Virt and bsh1 are mods, aaaaand, bsh1 is about to be #1 on the leaderboard as the best debater. Oh my! How serendipitous!
You're not just a ringer. You're the boards OFFICIAL ringer, by appointment to his majesty bsh1. Virt used to be a pretty good person. I guess bad company does ruin good character.
#67
Added:
--> @ethang5
Excellent observation - you are spot on noticing that no fortune cookies voted in this debate.
Frankly the rest of your angry fact-free rant is not based on anything resembling reality. Maybe we’re all part of the Illuminati?
#66
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Right, but it wasn't a fortune cookie that gave full points to bsh1 after your pal and fellow vote club member wylted threw the match in the last round. It was you and fellow vote club member Virt.
"Vote Club" is starting to take on a whole different meaning. My God this is petty. Fakery and cheating to raise your elo? Really?
#65
Added:
--> @ethang5
No offence, but I’ve seen fortune cookies that were better at discerning the current state of reality than you are.
#64
Added:
It is clear this entire debate is a sham by wylted and bsh1 to pad bsh1's elo. Bsh1 and wylted are good pals from long ago.
#63
Added:
--> @bsh1
I’m still in the process of analyzing the arguments, but I wanted to record my vote first.
#62
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Totalizing means to the exclusion of all else, in that context. So, to prioritize freedom to the exclusion of privacy or free speech to the exclusion of equality is problematic. There can also be degrees of "totalizingness."
Instigator
#61
Added:
--> @bsh1
“The common mistake among valuers that leads to a 'totalizing' of values as 'absolutes' or 'ultimates' is to forget that any given value encompasses only an aspect of reality and ought not to be treated as transcendent or reducible to that reality”.
Could you please explain what you mean by “totalizing” in this context and throughout?
#60
Added:
I do it at the end of each of my rounds. Asking the voters for their vote, even in constructives, is neither unusual nor inappropriate.
Instigator
#59
Added:
Direct quote from the end of round 1
"Thank you! Please vote Pro!"
Contender
#58
Added:
--> @Wylted
No he did not. He stated the resolution is affirmed and to vote for him. That's standard practice. I've seen him do it in every single debate
#57
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
There was a forfeits in spirit by pro not offering any substantive an argument and merely posted at the last minute to avoid the technical forfeit is effectively the same thing. The final round was a complete wholesale deviation from adult behaviour, the whole alleged PM, and the ridiculous claims that pro affirming his position is bad conduct was petulant and childish. Not only is this a deviation from the explicit sportsmanship and conduct rule, but also the idea that affirming and suggesting vote pro is somehow an issue with conduct is an obvious attempt at trolling. In addition, it also appears to be a new argument, which in itself violates the rules.
While obviously, some of these violations are either minor, the whole point of the rules as stated are typical to allow punitive votes for anti-social debate behaviour - for which cons example was textbook.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Disclaimer: Pro asked me to vote on this debate.
Conduct
Con's conduct in this debate was deplorable. First, I found him to be intentionally lazy. He missed two rounds of arguments and in the last debate lied about Pro sending harassing details for a "cheap win." For this reason alone, all 7 points are going to pro per the rules "Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss."
I'll still analyze the arguments
Arguments
In debates any argument that one fails to respond to is considered dropped. Because con missed two rounds, he effectively conceded and dropped the arguments. Pro's framework around plurality, historical precedence, freedom of choice, and freedom of association. Furthermore, he showed that marriage has socio-economic benefits. These arguments go unchallenged by con. Con's main framework was that legalizing polygamy would create more polygamy. So what? Con really doesn't say why that's a bad thing. I find it also poor conduct that con decided to just quote a bunch of articles rather than attempting to summarize them and using those sources in his own words.
The only way to vote here is to vote pro.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
After reading over the debate, I don't feel that I can offer any valuable opinion of the arguments offered by either side.
However, I do feel strongly that it is appropriate to award conduct to Pro for this debate.
In the final round (after failing to offer any argument in the prior round), Con suddenly abandoned the argument itself and began attacking his opponent wholesale.
Con cites several of the rules from the debate description and accuses his opponent of violating them. I have asked moderators for clarification on these sorts of "rules" that get tacked on to debate descriptions and was told that such rules are not enforceable. So even if Pro had violated such rules, it wouldn't matter.
However, in making his accusation, Con violates an actual site-wide rule by posting (what he claims is) the content of a private message. That violated the actual "pm doxxing" rule.
I'm not really sure what Con was trying to accomplish here... He had to know he was breaking the rules. Was it some attempt at irony, to break a real rule by accusing his opponent of breaking a fake one? Or was he trying to lose the debate on purpose? Or did he really think such a crazy scheme would fool voters into voting for him? We may never know.