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

Divorce should not be encouraged II

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,715 times Debate No: 28766
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




"Divorce should not be encouraged"

Divorce has been a wide practice around the globe. So, instead of saying, "Divorce should not be ALLOWED", I used the term, "encouraged", since it is already allowed.

As Pro, I will provide reasons on why divorce should not be allowed.

Rules would be:
No Trolls
Provide evidences in claims as possible

Round 1 would be for acceptance.
Round 2 will begin the start of presenting argument
Round 3 is where rebuttals will enter
Round 4 is where last argument and rebuttals for Round 3
Round 5 is for conclusion.

Conclusion can be presented in every round (Except Round 1 since this is an opening remark and is for acceptance purpose ONLY)

We have 4 rounds for debate.

Please do follow the rules.

For some reason, I have mistaken putting the number of characters for every argument, therefore, I have to make another debate with the same debater.


I accept the challenge, again.
Debate Round No. 1


Divorce should not be encouraged as it was one of the reason for health problems in every individual in the family like the father, mother, and worst, the children.
Consequences are:
1) Suicide:

75% of all suicides being committed by men - over 22,000 men per year.

And suicide rates for divorced men are even higher than that - divorced and separated men are TWICE AS LIKELY to commit suicide as other men, per the study "Marital Status and Suicide in the National Longitudinal Mortality Study" by Augustine J. Kposowa, Ph.D., at the University of California at Riverside. CBS News covered the report in some detail here.

The study showed that being single versus being married made no difference in suicide rates.
- Simply 'being married' does not provide singificant mental health benefits relating to suicide.

Even more tellingly, for women marital status, married, single, separated or divorced, made NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in suicide rates.
- So somehow, divorce affects men in a much more significant way than women. One wonders what that way could be...

Previous to this study, increased rates of suicide for men had been explained away by claiming that significant mental and physical health benefits were to be had from married life, and by 'congitive differences' between men and women - women purportedly spending more time 'processing' their problems and thinking more 'inclusively' than men, Well Dr. Kposowa's research has exposed that canard, (wait, let me speak plainlythat misandrous, shovenist tripe for what it is.

Let's take a moment and really reveiw those numbers, which we will extrapolate using the published rough perecentages in the CBS news article:

Total Suicides: 30,000 per year
Men's Suicides: 22,500 per year
Women's Suicides: 7,500 per year
Divorced/Separated Men's Suicides: 14,850 per year.


2) Divorce would have bad effects on children
Children feels bad about seeing their mother and father separated. Their psychological and social health may be affected.

Suicide, crimes, and disorder from physiological to mental are being suffered after the parent's child had divorced.

3) It ruins family.
Divorce is not only for parents, but again, for children, and even sometimes, for grandparents and in-laws and all people related to their family.

Divorce gives health problems. Though, it may not be severe at first, but as seen, it gives us mental health problems like depression, to the point that, people commit suicide. Children were badly affected here also.

Besides, there are ways that can help resolve marriages and solve problems:


I thank my opponent for presenting his arguments, and will now offer mine without adding a rebuttal to his as per the rules of this debate.

The question posed here is whether or not divorce should be encouraged (allowed), or better said, should the status quo be maintained.
As the con side, I will show why exactly the status quo should be maintained, and that there is a very good reason why divorce is legal and allowed at present.

1. Unfulfillment of the role of marital unions

To begin with, it is clear that the union that is marriage has certain roles it has to fulfill. Marriage is, in its core, a union formed between two people, formed out of love, and with the goal to live, prosper etc. together.
Marriage changes one's life drastically and is based on stability, understanding and compromise - those are the prerequisites for a marital union to be functional and to last.

The role of marital unions is to bind two people and help them achieve all their goals, prosper, and lead a stable and generally happy life.
As stated before, synergy is key to the stability of a marital union - should that synergy disappear, the marital union cannot fulfill any of its roles; and it loses its reason of existence.

A few basics make lasting love possible in marriage. These include caring, long-term commitment, integrity, togetherness and maintaining a positive focus. [1]

That being said, it is clear there are functional, as well as dysfunctional marriages. Divorce serves as a solution to a situation where the marital union is dysfunctional, and, in the eyes of the couple, beyond repair. When the couple reaches a point where they simply cannot function together, there is no point in preserving the marriage - its dysfunctionality will prevent it from being of any use to anybody.

It is only natural that such a bond as marriage, which has a large impact on one's life, can be dissolved. No one can predict what will happen concerning the relations between the two people in the marital union, and for that reason, the right to divorce must be maintained.

Marriage isn't really about the two united against the world, but rather the two individuals in a world full of mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual challenges and surprises. [...] When two people are simply unable to sustain their love for each other and are unwilling to spend the remainder of their life in what is left of their relationship, then divorce becomes a way to set each other free. [2]

To grasp the necessity of divorce, one must understand that divorces aren't monsters waiting behind the corner to destroy a couple's happiness and harmony. A divorce is the consequence of a pre-existing problem which eliminated the functionality of the marriage and set it beyond repair. At that point, the couple divorces, for they both realize their marriage is left hanging in a void; it is useless and causes them suffering.
If it so, then what is the point of blindly insisting on preserving the marriage. What's the point and what good does it bring? The answer is self-evident - none. That is, indeed, the reason that divorce is legal and allowed in the status quo.

2. Quality of life

It is clear that every single human being strives for the highest possible quality of life. A person's quality of life is incredibly important for the well-being of said person, and should be ameliorated and augmented by all means. That much is logical and understandable.

A dysfunctional marriage hinders one's quality of life severely. As was already stated, marriage is a grand decision that has a great impact on the life of the two individuals of which it consists. If that impact is negative, why shouldn't the couple be allowed to divorce?

Who has the right to force two people to be unhappy? Who has the right to force them to uphold a lifestyle they do not wish to uphold, to hinder their quality of life, to prolong their emotional distress? And to what end?
Indeed, what end would not allowing divorce be a means to? What, exactly, is achieved and preserved by not allowing divorce?

Allowing couples to divorce gives the two individuals a chance to restore happiness to their lives should it be lost in the marriage. It ultimately preserves their right to living happily and freely. Forcing them to stay in a union they would do anything to get out of is nothing more than a form of slavery.

If one were to look at the big picture, it is the right to divorce that indirectly helps preserve quality of life. Both members of a certain marital union are aware that they have a way out, a way to restore things to how they were in case they made a mistake. That right is an important part of modern family life - for a reason, too.

I have proven throughout this exposition that the right to divorce ameliorates quality of life, forms one of the pillars of modern family life and aids in ensuring that a dysfunctional union can be promply dissolved.
On the other hand, huge questions rest over the case that supports not allowing divorce. Questions to which one cannot offer a logical, humane answer.

Back to my opponent.


Debate Round No. 2


Before I proceed to my rebuttal, I have to change the rules. I have to clear this to all of you, I need to change the rules for Round 3 and 4. As seen, Round 3 is limited to rebuttal while Round 4 is BOTH argument and rebuttal. Seems that something is not right, so, I decided ADD an argument form in Round 3 and REMOVE the argument form for Round 4, so that, there would be no added arguments, and that, it will not affect the conclusion area for Round 5 and for the scoring of the voters to us in this debate.

To clear, Round 3 would be for rebuttal and argument.
Round 4 would be for rebuttal in the argument from Round 3.

Rebuttals for Round 2:
Point One: Personal stress vs Marriage (Rebuttal to, "Unfulfillment of the role of marital unions")

Con, in his point, is trying to saying that there are problems "beyond repair", thus require divorce.

"And no marriage is free of conflict. What enables a couple to endure is how they handle that conflict. So how do you manage the problems that inevitably arise? And how can you keep the spark alive?"

Marriages, in reality, do have conflicts. We cannot escaped that phenomenon, but what we can do is how do we handle it.

From the question, "So how do you manage the problems that inevitably arise?" It takes that such problems is being burdened to you, thus, you should give the solution. I do believe that marriage is a two person process, the wife and the husband. But, my point is, avoid depending too much on your spouse when you have the problem. Its ok to work with him/her, but not all the times, it would work. Try to see yourself some solutions as well.

Personal stress, how do you deal with marital stress?

The fact that every marriage has a conflict, it is UP TO THE COUPLE if they will loose love or grow more in love by facing the problem TOGETHER.

From MY OWN POINT OF VIEW, there is no "functional" and "dysfunctional" marriage. It is up to the couple if they will give up or not.

Point Two: Personal vs Couple (Rebuttal to, "Quality of Life")

Every people will not just marry someone, and if the individual is mature, he/she will think first of what he/she will enter, the same time, try to check if he/she is financially stable and is able to achieve his/her dreams as an individual.

In fact, even in Marriage, if the couple would prefer tom improve their quality of life by achieving their goals, then, they can help each other. Something we should remember is that, Marriage is permanent, as said by Con himself. When you marry someone, you should not look for another again. It is a big choice.

To proceed with my argument, my points would be focus on health again and on alternatives (pre and post actions that we can do for marital conflicts)

About health,
My always point is the suicide cases. A lot of people think that to divorce is to "set free from such burden", but then, some would end up killing themselves.

"Divorce is typically a painful process for all concerned. While it can take adults time to regain psychological equilibrium, whether or not children ever recover a stable perspective continues to be debated. Post-divorce hostility between adults, in addition to directly harming kids, is a sure indicator that the emotional split is incomplete."

What we can do when entering a marriage and dealing with it?
Entering a marriage:
1) Be aware that Marriage is a BIG choice, thus, think DEEP.
From Con's point about Quality of Life, when you will enter marriage, make sure that you are ready. Make sure that you are unsatisfied to be single, wants to marry, and make sure who you will marry is your love. Make sure that you achieve what you want to achieve, and always remember, you can achieve more even when in marriage.

2) Marriage would have conflicts.
It is merely a fantasy to have a marriage without conflict. Giving up (Divorce) won't be the solution as it also causes health problems (Psychological, physiological, emotional, physical). Some would even regret, thus commit suicide.

"Post-divorce hostility between adults, in addition to directly harming kids, is a sure indicator that the emotional split is incomplete."

Emotional split is incomplete. Well, why not, just maintain the marriage?

In the marriage:
1) Handle stress properly.
I know that we have limitations in how do we handle the stress, the same thing, a rubber has limitation on how it can hold itself: When pressured cannot carry, it will broke.

But also know your resources. In military, the base alone deployed in a particular place cannot endure the fight, especially, when it is just foreign and it is facing the whole country itself. It needs BACK UP in case that it cannot handle the military attacks or rebel attacks (depends on whom it is facing with).

We have our limitations, but we can have a BACK UP: family, friends, spouse himself/herself. When you cannot take it, look for someone that will help. Friends, church leaders (if you are into a church), or anyone. Internet and research can help, too.

2) Avoid thinking of "divorce"
Marriage would not last if the two would have the thinking of, "I can divorce when the problem arises". Despite of the some countries allows divorce, always remember that marriage is permanent, and a MUST be permanent. It is up to you how will you let yourself spark the love between you and your spouse?

3) Remember the possible consequence.
Some would want to break their spouse, but in the end, they realize, they cannot live without him/her. Anger in your spouse is just a mask, trying to mask what your spouse and you have been: positive relationship, sweet dating, romance.

When a person who break up with his/her spouse remember those, he/she would mostly regret - one reason for suicide and depression.

Note: As seen, I had "caps lock" some words, that is for emphasis' sake.

Thanks and God bless.

The sources are already posted during the statements.


I thank my opponent for presenting his exposition.

As far as I've been able to understand the rules my opponent set forth (I had some difficulties due to them being written in very bad English), I am entitled to offer a rebuttal to my opponent's round 2; so I shall now do so.

Let's deal with the part about suicide first.
To begin with, I must point out a contradiction in my opponent's exposition. He states that "simply 'being married' does not provide singificant mental health benefits relating to suicide". This statement renders the statistics he listed concerning suicide irrelevant, since he himself states that the state of being married per se has no effect on suicide rates. He practically strengthened con's case by stating this. For that, I offer my thanks.

He then states that divorce affects men more than women, and that "one wonders why it is that way". No, one doesn't wonder. That fact is completely irrelevant as to the topic of this debate.

To complete the first part of his exposition, he lists more numbers related to suicide. Unfortunately, the whole part concerning suicide is contradictory and uncomprehensible, and as such a feeble argument with no visible point.

I shall now dismantle part 2 and 3 of his argumentation, dealing with effects of divorce on children and other family members, both at the same time.

Divorce makes people unhappy...I am compelled to answer with a very popular response - you don't say? Unfortunately, it seems my opponent doesn't understand the causes of divorce. Divorce isn't, as I've explained in round 2, a little gremlin behind the corner waiting to jump and say: "Hey, my name is Divorce, and I will destroy your lives! (insert evil laugh here)".
Divorce is a result of pre-existing problems and differences in marriage which the couple have deemed unsolvable.
I find it hard to believe that a dysfunctional marriage would bring any more happiness to family members and children than a divorce of the couple in question. Children certainly won't be happy with living in a house where nobody gets along - living in a dysfunctional family may even be worse for them than living in a family with divorced parents. Here are some examples of effects on children brought upon them by their living in a dysfunctional family (marriage):

  • Feeling of loneliness
  • Being too hard on oneself
  • Finding it hard to relax and enjoy
  • Difficulty expressing feelings
  • Extremist responses and decisions
  • Problems forming intimate relationships
  • Adopting themselves to abusive relations
  • More concerned in helping others, apprehensive to seek approval
  • Taking over more than they can handle
  • Incompetent handling of anger, frustration and hatred

Yes, it's tough. But it's better to explain to the child what exactly is going on, and offer him an honest, and perhaps more open, life. It is better for a child to live in an environment where family members face problems openly and where he/she can have a functional relationship with both parents separately, than to maintain a senseless charade that only puts stress on communication.
As for other family members, I've already pointed out that preserving a "dead" marriage is no better than divorcing and won't bring any more happiness.

Finally, my opponent mentions divorce being a cause of health problems. I am forced to ask my opponent whether he believes that dysfunctional marriages cause any less - divorce is a result of problems and unhappiness, it doesn't just materialize out of thin air.

As for my argumentation, I shall offer more explanation as to the decision to dissolve a marital union, which is closely tied to my statement that "the couple have deemed [the problems in their marriage] unsolvable".
The focus here is on "have deemed". I believe everyone would agree that marriage is a incredible step in life for both individuals in a couple. Their lives are both affected - it is their marriage. They are living in it. Thus, another reason why divorce must be allowed is the simple fact that no legislation should interfere with divorce; because no legislator has the right to decide what others will do with their marriage, and to indirectly issue orders as to what people should do with their lives.
It is only natural that those involved in a marriage should decide its fate. Not the government, not you and me.

Back to my opponent.


Debate Round No. 3


For rebuttal for Con's Round 3 argument:
As mentioned, stresses is managed by the person or couple. It is up to them how to manage such situations they are facing. Offering divorce is like giving them an option just to simply break. "Dysfunctional family relationship" would have occur if the couple would just give up on their problems.

"-Feeling of loneliness
-Being too hard on oneself
-Finding it hard to relax and enjoy
-Difficulty expressing feelings
-Extremist responses and decisions
-Problems forming intimate relationships
-Adopting themselves to abusive relations
-More concerned in helping others, apprehensive to seek approval
-Taking over more than they can handle
-Incompetent handling of anger, frustration and hatred"

The list above is a result of one's personal action, on how he/she takes his/her stresses, not from marriage. If divorce is encourage, then couples may just give up when they would want to. Children in a particular family may be affected in their growth. More broken families will arise.

As said, people should take marriage as "permanent", and whatever problems they face they must solve.


I thank my opponent for his rebuttal, and will now offer mine for his round 3 argument.

First, I will deal with the attacks on my argumentation.

Unfulfillment of the role of marital unions

This is, honestly, the most confusing rebuttal I've had to reply to on this website. My opponent doesn't even seem to be sure what he wants to say, let alone really attack my arguments.
Alas, I am obligated to offer a reply, so I will attempt to do so.

My opponent first claims no marriage is free of conflicts. True. It isn't.

He then states marriage is a two person process. I will repeat my response from round 3 - you don't say?!
And then it gets confusing. Really confusing. First I hear a statement about marrge being a two person process, which is immediately followed by a statement that one should work individually without depending too much on the spouse.
This is very much contradictory, and it is not clear:

a) What my opponent wants to say
b) How, exactly, this has anything to do with my argument, or with divorce

Next, we hear about how couples will grow more in love by facing problems...what?! I am indeed sorry, but I find no other way to reply to this. Honestly, what does this even mean?
It seems that somehow, for some reason, my opponent seems to believe problems arise out of nothing, followed by the couple saying "Oh, look, a problem, let's solve it and fall in love even more".
Problems that cause divorces exist because it is impossible to salvage the love and the marriage. Divorce is what ends a marriage that's going down a one way street.

He ends the rebuttal to my argument by saying that, in his opinion, there is no such thing as a functional or dysfunctional marriage.
His point of view, unfortunately for him, means nothing and changes nothing. The fact that he doesn't believe such marriages exist doesn't mean they don't exist. They always existed, and they exist now, despite my opponent's point of view.

Quality of life

My opponent begins with saying people should enter a marriage prepared, as well as sure they want to marry. This is true. However, none can predict the future. Even a marriage that has always been rock-solid can enter into a state of turbulence, and might go down the path of no return given certain unexpected events. Events no one could have predicted, say, twenty years ago, no matter how prepared the couple was.

He then goes on to state that, after marrying, one shouldn't look for another spouse. Of course no one wants their marriage to fall apart - every single couple wishes for a happy life. However, unexpected events occur, and people do look for other spouses. They sometimes manage to achieve a happy, stable life, with only the second or third spouse.

Finally, my opponent states that he takes the statement that "marriage is permanent" from my round 2 response. Indeed, I stated that marriage is meant to, that is, should, be a permanent covenant. The emphasis, however, is on the word should. If a marriage turns out not to be happy, the problems to be unsolvable, and the marital union to be unefficient, the couple must have the opportunity to divorce.

This is where my opponent's attacks on my argumentation end, and his own argumentation begins, so I shall now address it.

My opponent says that some people commit suicide after divorcing, or suffer emotional trauma and depression.
Divorce is, of course, not a pleasant experience. Some people do indeed commit suicide or start suffering from depression (here I must also point out that my opponent has himself said that being married has no effect on lowering suicide rates).
There are, on the other hand, more cases in which people recovered and started life anew, finding happiness and stability in a new marriage. Such cases are much more numerous.
Furthermore, I must repeat a question that remained unanswered. If the couple has determined that their marriage is beyond repair, how exactly will staying married bring any benefits? Being forced to maintain a charade and being forced to live an unhappy life puts even more stress on the irreversibly damaged relationship.

My opponent then states that one must be ready when entering a marriage, as well as aware of possible conflicts. These are facts, not arguments.
Also, being aware of possible conflicts doesn't mean being able to stop them.

He then quotes a source and states that since the emotional split is incomplete, one can just as well maintain the marriage. Yes, sure, why not? It's that simple, isn't it? Just maintain it, and everything will be just fine...
My opponent grossly trivializes the problem of marriage dysfunctionality. It is hard to split. Emotional splits are costly and taxing, but when they are finally dealt with, one is free to start anew. There are always cases of hostility - there are extreme cases everywhere. On the other hand, however, would there not be cases of hostility if people were forced to stay married? Hostility due to helplessness?

My opponent ends his exposition by naming what people should, in his opinion, do in a marriage.

1. Handle stress properly

My opponent says people need back-up, and gives an analogy with a military base. I shall reply with the same analogy.
There are bases and armies that fight and win. There are also bases and armies that defeat their opponents after they recieve back-up. There are, however, bases and armies that fight bravely, to the very end, but still fail. If they had been relocated, or evacuated, they might have lived to see another day and been of more use in a future, decisive battle.

Just as the military must have the sensibility to recognise a lost cause and evacuate its personnel, so must couples be allowed an opportunity to such a sensible decision.

There are cases where back-up isn't enough.

2. Avoid thinking of divorce

I find this to be ridiculous. No one marries thinking: "Oh cool, I'm getting married. When there's a problem, we'll get a divorce, and problem solved."

Most couples try to sort their problems out, and sometimes they fail. When they fail, it is humane to offer them a possibility to start again. The most important question of this debate is one my opponent has not yet answered. Who, exactly, has the right to force someone to remain married? Who has the right to meddle in people's personal affairs? Who is more able to know when a marriage is done for than the very couple forming that marriage?

Furthermore, my opponent must learn the difference between the words must and should. Marriage should indeed be permanent, but it cannot be made to be so by force.
Yes, it is up to every couple to decide about the "spark of love" in a marriage. That's exactly why divorce exists - for cases when the couple has determined that said spark is extinguished.

3. Remember the
possible consequence

My opponent begins by stating that some people would like to break their spouse. I doubt one would enjoy breaking their spouse. Breaking spouses is illegal.
Breaking up with one's spouse is another matter entirely.

The other problem here is that I do not see what the point of this argument is. If it was impossible to live without one's fist spouse, people who divorce would universally commit suicide. However, they don't.

Finally, to simply remind my opponent that there indeed are reasons for divorce, I will offer this source which offers five good reasons (not the only ones, mind you) for divorce. I'd copy them, but that would make me exceed the character limit.

Back to my opponent.

NOTE: I realize that, in the last paragraph, I commented on semantics. It is not something I often do, but my opponent's part of this debate was written in very bad English which I've had difficulty understanding and it just added to the confusion in my opponent's argumentation. Thus, I couldn't resist commenting on semantics.

Debate Round No. 4


For conclusion:

Divorce should not be encouraged as it causes people to be more troubled. Children affected, and these children often fall to suicide or crime cases.

The couple's health is also affected.

There are more ways to resolve a marriage, and in my argument, I presented steps to prevent such.

Thanks to Con for accepting my debate and to all voters. God bless :)


Since, apparently, I am not allowed to offer a rebuttal to round 4, I shall simply conclude the debate.

This debate was meant to be about whether or not divorce should be encouraged, but it mostly hasn't been.
My opponent presented confusing and incoherent arguments which were mostly mutually contradictory and/or had nothing to do with divorce.

He also ignored most of my arguments, and failed to answer the two most important questions of the debate:

a) How, exactly, is maintaining a ruined marriage better than divorcing?
b) Who, and why, has the right to force a couple to remain married?

That being said, I must also point out that I elaborated on divorce, and why it is good in detail, as well as refuting my opponents arguments.

Given this, and how the debate was led, I have nothing more to say.

Thanks to my opponent for the debate.

Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by zgb1997 3 years ago
That's pretty much semantics.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
"A person's quality of life is incredibly important for the well-being of said person, and should be ameliorated and augmented by all means."

Erm, no. There are limits. "all means" seems to mean.... well, all means, even if it hurts others.
Posted by zgb1997 3 years ago
I have forgot to mark the source in round 3. It refers to the effects of dysfunctional marriages on children.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was more convincing, but had problems with rule making in the middle of the debate so he loses conduct for that. Pro's writing wasn't well-formatted, but spelling and grammar is still tied.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's strange rules coupled with a mid-stream rule change. S&G to Con for what should be obvious reasons. Sources tied, though Con used his far more effectively. Convincing arguments to Con for making sense, and for bringing in very good arguments that were never effectively rebutted by Pro.