The Instigator
Pigney
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
stormsasuke180
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Divorce should stop.

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 1 vote the winner is...
stormsasuke180
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 210 times Debate No: 96525
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Pigney

Pro

Hey, i know this will be SUPER controversial, but i will try to prove my point first on a Christian standpoint, and second on a social standpoint. My opponent must simply argue that divorce should not stop.
stormsasuke180

Con

Ok. Let's have this debate and you can start the arguement and I will offer my rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Pigney

Pro

On the Christian aspect, the object of marriage, i would say, is to populate heaven. To keep it out of things that your parents have the sole right to teach you, i will move on to scripture,God's words are these "And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." (St. Matt 19: 3-9) The wedding vows also show that marriage is to be perpetual
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.
stormsasuke180

Con

I am an atheist so I cannot really counter the Christian aspect due to my inexperience in that so forgive me there. It would be best if we focus on the social aspect because not everyone is a Christian so we can't use that when the two who are divorcing aren't Christian. As for the social aspect, yes they are the building blocks of society. The basis of a family is love. If you do not have love, what is the point of marriage? Is it better for the children to have a bad father who doesn't love the family or for the children to not have a father? Divorce is needed. Isn't it better to destroy the damaged building block by replacing it?
Debate Round No. 2
Pigney

Pro

Thank you, we will drop the Christian aspect then.
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.
stormsasuke180

Con

Ok. I see your point. Normally divorce shouldn't be needed if the marriage is correct where both love each other and the child. However if they do not love each other, shouldn't they be able to end the marriage because what is the point of the marriage? If they do not have a child, then use they should be able to be divorced and a stronger marriage which is better. Things change when there is children. They don't have to love each other but they should be able to put aside this because of their love for their children. If one doesn't love the children, then can he be really considered a father figure? Biologically yes but as a role model, no. What is the point of a marriage with children when the father doesn't even care about the child? Well this was a good debate and I understand your points. I don't think the problem is divorce. The problem is people entering marriage when they don't even love each other. The root of the problem lies in marriage.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Pigney 3 weeks ago
Pigney
Thanks to the voter. My argument was actually meant to be simplistic to show how simple this problem really should be solved, and thus why divorce should stop. My main perspective from this debate was originally going to be a Christian one, but seeing that was not going to be easy for Con, i yielded it. The christian side would have been funner, but the civil side was just simplistic. I did intend that.
Posted by Pigney 1 month ago
Pigney
Well, i suppose you could throw the kids under the bus, but i would personally rather suffer than force my kids to suffer. Anyways, i think the "get to know them first" argument would basically eliminate this problem.
Posted by Salvador_Dali135 1 month ago
Salvador_Dali135
Honestly if someone has an abusive relationship and it is not going anywhere, then I believe that the party who is being abused should get out of that dying (if not already dead) relationship. Sure you could say 'get to know each other first' but many times the abuse starts a few years after the marriage. So tell me, what do you do then? How can you make someone stay in a marriage where their partner physically, emotionally and verbally abuses them everyday?
Posted by Pigney 1 month ago
Pigney
First, i would give preference to the kids (if there are any) and then i would go on to say that i believe such abusive relationships could be avoided if people would be 1 friends for a time, 2 date for at least two years, 3 be engaged for another six months, 4 and then get married. I think marriages are entered into so hastily that the women does not REALLY know the man she is marrying. (like the two week or two month courtships that are common now). In other words caution and taking time would MOSTLY eliminate such problems. I mean no disrespect to those in problematic relationships, but the hasty marriage is what usually brings on abuse and divorce. As i said, this is going to be a super controversial debate.
Posted by HGA 1 month ago
HGA
...And if a wife has an abusive husband?
Posted by Pigney 1 month ago
Pigney
Interesting thought, only then there would be no children. It comes to this, people should enter marriage for the right reasons, and then there would not be this divorce problem. It is more of a lck of intelligence than anything that causes all these problems.
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
stop marrige.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheShadeM 3 weeks ago
TheShadeM
Pigneystormsasuke180Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: 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.