Divorce should stop.
Debate Rounds (3)
Moving on to the social aspect. Families are the building blocks of society. If the family is broken, so the society will be. Statistics show that children who grow up without a father are twice as likely to be a criminal. The divorce will hurt the children and then the children will hurt the society.
Well, i would disagree. The basis of family is to procreate, love would be on the side. You can love someone without marrying them and partaking in procreative activities, but not vise-versa (at least not morally). So that would be another problem, people entering marriage aught to know what it is really about. But the statistics agree with me, divorce ruins lives.
As far as remarriage, no step-father or step-mother can replace a real one (and many are abusive to the step-children), so no you cannot just toss out and replace the blocks. Does not work like that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheShadeM 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I will go from round to round. In Round 2, Pro brings forth some verses from the bible. He also then talks about how children who grew up with no fathers will harm society. Con says he cannot argue about Christianity and makes a good point when he says that not all families are Christians anyway. He also counters well when he says there are bad fathers too. In the final round, Pro agrees to drop the Christian aspect. He says that people who get married in the first place should know what it's going to be about and biological parents cannot simply be replaced. Con counters well when he said that things can change in the marriage when kids come and so couples should be able to make new decisions down the line. He also admits that the problem happens before marriage itself. All in all, as judge, although both sides agreed that factors before marriage itself is important, Con was able to counter all Pro's supposed benefits. Pro's case was also too simplistic and not convincing.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.