The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Are we in need of redifining family?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 549 times Debate No: 92459
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Economic incentives for conventional marriage is getting undermined. Especially women are tend to delay their marriage and prenancy as late as possible for their career. There are more celibates and cohabits than before.

Along with this changes, the shared house/ childcare are rising in some area.
Some extremists claim 'free love', and some draw future where every children raised by government so to eliminate all sorts of discrimination in education and environment.
Examples above are little too extreme, but we are definetely in need of redefining "family".

Open for any ideas and comments!


I will be debating with you. You didn't post rules, so I'll just say this is the acceptance round.

Family- a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for participating in the debate :)

Yes,"In most societies, the family is the principal institution for the socialization of children. As the basic unit for raising children...,"(Wikipedia, family)
As you mentioned in your argument, family is basically parents and children. And system for preservating the species.
Traditionally, men worked for household and women were in charge of nursing children and managing the house. However it has changed, most are dual-income families. Many of them express difficulties arising from managing both working and forming a family.
As environment changed, shouldn't family concept need to be changed as well?


The definition of family has absolutely nothing to do with who works. Just because parents struggle with having time with their family, that is completely irrelevant to changing the definition of family. The definition is a pretty broad one, child and parents in a household. It does not mention whether they work or not. You aren't describing a family, maybe fixing stereotypes that died out in the 1960's. We have had "families" all the way back to the time we were apes, we have changed our environment but not our family. Look back in the 1400's many families were exactly how they were today. From what you're trying to say, changing a family is illogical.
Debate Round No. 2


LillianaKang forfeited this round.


Pro has forfeited. Vote con
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SJM 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made the argument that because families have problems and that families have changed into dual income, that the definition of family ought to be changed as well. However, con successfully refutes it by saying that the definition has nothing to do with pro's point since the definition only states parents and children living together, not parents and children living together without problems and non dual income. Then con makes the point that the history of families has gone way back. Con had better arguments.