The Instigator
Aliya_n
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Early marriage leads to the early divorce

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 13,867 times Debate No: 18131
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Aliya_n

Pro

Nowadays early marriages became a very actual problem, while in some Asian and African countries it is a tradition that has a harmful effect on the young women. To solute this problem it would take too long time in this countries, meanwhile in other countries it could be possible just to rise the marriage age. Unfortunately, it also would take a lot of time to create it. That's why lots of young couples at 18 years (often earlier) marry and begin to live as a family. From this side it is wonderful, but statistics shows that the vast majority of these marriages end with the early divorce. In my point of view it is just the consequence of young people's marriage problems.

For example, early marriage often leads to the early pregnancy that could have negative effect on young women. In addition, children it is a new responsibility. I think that at age of 18 people are like children themselves. That's why it would be hard to up bring children without any experience and adults help. Further, if the young couple has a baby, as a result mother would stay with the child at home. It means that education will suffer or she just leaves it. For those who don't have a child, it would difficult to study too. Another main point it is the financial problems, because every family needs to have a budget to live. To decide this problem it necessary to find a job, but the job that would be possible to combine it with the education. In addition it would be job limitation because of the lack of knowledge and unfinished education. As a result, young couple would face with financial problems. How you could imagine two married students, especially with a baby, that don't have enough money to live as a real family in their own home with all of the conveniences. In addition both of them miss the fun of teenage life and there is big responsibility shouldered on them. I don't think that this couple would live together for a long time. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are too rare and it would be incorrect to generalize all young couples by this example.

To sum up, I strongly believe, according to these facts that the vast majority of young marriages leads to the early divorce.

http://www.instah.com...
http://marriage101.org...
http://ezinearticles.com...
Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting topic, and hope that we both can have a lot of fun with it.

It should be noted that in the 50's and 60's, the USA was at it's lowest average age at first marriage (20.3 years old [1]). It should also be noted that the 50's and 60's also had the lowest divorce rate in US history (9 - 10 per 1,000 [2], compared to modern times at around 20 per 1,000). This clearly shows that divorce inversely tied to age. Now, I would accept that many other factors play a role and that this is nothing more than coincedence, that still would show that age does not effect divorce, and so that is still an argument for Con.

My opponent states that young marriages lead to young births, however, we can see that in the 60's, the US was at it's lowest average age at first baby (about 23.5 years old [3]). This still complies with the lowest divorce rate period.

Another thing to note, is that if we actually look closely at these graphs, we'll notice that in recent times, the average marriage age is going up, while divorce is going down. Some might suggest that this proves that divorce is tied to age, however, if we look back before the 70's, we'll see that the divorce rate was dropping WITH the marriage age, suggesting that they infact benefit each other.

These two piece of conflicting evidence only leads to one logical solution, that age is not a real factor in divorce.

Looking at other statistics, we find that people (both boys and girls) that get married when under 20 years old are not at the highest risk of divorce, but the 20-24 group is [4]. We can also see that 2nd marriages and 3rd marriages are more likely to end in divorce than 1st marriages, suggesting that personal issues, rather than simple age is the cause. Since if it was a person's age, then as they get older (you have to be older in your 2nd marriage than in your 1st), your odds would be better, not worse.

Also, to go back to people with children, we find that couples with children are less likely to get divorced [4], since they feel an obligation to tough it through for the sake of the kids.

I will allow my opponent to respond before posting more.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.infoplease.com...
[2] http://www.google.com...
[3] http://www.google.com...
[4] http://www.divorcestatistics.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Aliya_n

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for such interesting arguments and facts. However, I disagree with the statement that the vast majority of early marriages don't lead to the early divorce.

In my point of view, young people, they are still teenagers until 21, make decisions according to their feelings and emotions. If they feel that it is right they will do it and the marriage question is very easy for them. "What will go wrong if we love each other and want to life together forever?"- it is the most common argument for young couples and without any hesitation they create families. The most general problem for most of families independently of the age they married is the "house" problems, such as the housework duties, cleaning, cooking, etc. If "elder" families couldn't cope with it, what will the youngest do? Of course, there are many exceptions, but lots of families suffer from that kind of problem. In addition, young couples have difficulties with housework because of the lack of experience. It might be seemed that it is not a real problem, but, according to the statistics it is one of the main reasons for divorcing.

Another main point it is that "adult" life begins immediately for early married couples, because of the big responsibility and seriousness, and young people missing all the fun of student's life. Maybe they participate in different parties, but they are already married persons and they have duties in front of each other and to be faithful. However it is not a secret that young people, especially men, have a necessity to socialize with another-sex people and friends to be more confident in its attraction. That's why today more and more people prefer to marry closer to thirty, because to that time young people experienced their life, tried lots of things, had many love stories and now they really know what they want from life and future husband or wife.
Also, according to the statistics there are about 65% of new marriages end in divorce[1].
"Number of divorces within the previous 12 months per 1,000 women -- tends to be high in states where women marry young, such as Oklahoma and Idaho"- according to the Pew Research Center. (http://pewresearch.org...)
It becomes clear that young families are in the high risk to be divorced addition, "above-referenced article concludes that states with the youngest brides and grooms such as Arkansas and Oklahoma had higher than normal divorce rates in 2007 and 2008. Meanwhile, Massachusetts and New York had a higher percentage of older first-time married couples and a corresponding lower rate of divorce".
Social scientists even go as far as saying that early marriage is the" No. 1 predictor of divorce", according to a recent column by David Lapp in The Wall Street Journal."(http://online.wsj.com...)

But why? Mr. Lapp attempts to answer this question by quoting a group of unnamed Penn State sociologists:

"In industrial countries, young people age 18 to 25 are expected to explore their identity, work and love by delaying marriage and parenthood. . . . Those individuals who fail to postpone these family transitions miss out on better career opportunities, make poor choices on partners, and may experience problems..."
Further,according to the researchers at the University of Texas who found that people who married between the ages of 22 and 25 had the best prospects for a lasting marriage.

That's why it is better to wait for convenient time and marry when you are morally strong and mature; consequently it is less advantageous to marry at young age, because it is a high risk of being divorced soon.

[1]- http://www.divorcereform.org...
http://pewresearch.org...
http://chicagofamilylawyersblog.com...
http://www.theologicaleditions.com...
http://www.divorcereform.org...
Ore_Ele

Con

Ore_Ele forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Aliya_n

Pro

Let's turn to the final pert of the debates. My opponent said that according to the statistics early marriages are tend to be stronger that 22-25 marriages. However, they are mostly too generalized and we could't use it as a certain exaple or evidence.

It is well known that marriages lead to the wedding and its organization.According to The Wedding Report, a Tucson, Ariz.-based research firm, "the average amount couples are spending on a wedding is expected to drop in tandem with the economy, decreasing at least 10% in 2009. In 2008 the average price for a wedding rang in at $21,814. (That's down from $27,490 in 2007.)"-by Maggie Overfelt, CNNMoney.com contributor. Despite the fact that the number of money spend on the weddings decreaases slightly, it is still a big amount. it is obvious that young family doesn't have such money. Even if their parents would pay for wedding, it would't be a solution, because young people first of all want to show their independence. In addition, this family wouldn't feel themselves confident and able to supply themselves.
Also, according to by Graeme J. Davidson, March, 2003, number one factor of divorces is the end of thr honeymoon period, that lasts approximately 2 years. It means that young people should have relationships for about a year in order to know more things about each other and about habbits. After that the marriage is really possible.

Norval D. Glenn, the Ashbel Smith Professor and Stiles Professor in American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, headed the research project and wrote the report. The Office of Survey Research at the University interviewed, via telephone, a representative sample of 1,503 Americans over the age of 18.
...
According to the findings of the survey, it appears that for both men and women there may be a "peak marriage age" in the mid-twenties. People who get married between the ages of 23-27 are much less likely to get divorced than those who marry as teens; they are also much more likely to be in high-quality marriages than people who marry in their late twenties or later.
...
69% of respondents said their marriages were very happy.
88% said they were completely or very satisfied with their marriages.

That's why eraly marriages are unstable and young people could meet a lot of diferent problems. Consequently, it is better to marry when you are not very young for it.

http://o53xo.orugk33mn5twsy3bnrswi2lunfxw44zomnxw2.biglu.ru...
Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent again for allowing me to post my last round in the comment section after missing my deadline. Since this is the final round, I will address my opponent's arguments and provide a summary.

The first thing my opponent says is that the real numbers I provided back in Round 1 are "too generalized and we could't use it as a certain exaple or evidence." My opponent provides no reason or logic why the real world numbers should be dismissed, as such, they still stand.

The second thing my opponent brings up is the average cost of a wedding. While average costs are high, they are not an obligation, and poorer people tend to have cheaper weddings. This is a basic fallacy of averages [1]. Just because the average is high, does not mean that all weddings are expensive.

The third thing my opponent brings up is that according to Graeme J. Davidson, the #1 factor of divorces is the end of honeymoon stage. This is not true. While the #1 listed reason for divorce is "irreconcilable differences," only 15% of marriages will not make it their 3rd year [2]. This means that 70% of divorces (the vast majority) occur after the honeymoon period has worn off. And 60% of divorces occur after 5 years, well after the honeymoon period is long over.

Finally, my opponent brings up a phone survey by Ashbel Smith. There are two things wrong with this. 1) Apparently his survey found a large number of people that were "very satisfied" with their marriages but were not "happy," at least 19%. Second, his "survey" suggests that people that marry in their mid-twenties are the least likely to get divorced, however (as pointed out in R1) the reality has shown from actual divorce records, that, for both men and women, getting married in your mid twenties has the highest probability of divorce.

In summary, my opponent has not been able to provide any reasoning against the real divorce statistics that getting married in your teens has a lower divorce rate than getting married in your twenties. Nor have they provided any reasoning against the real statistics that in the 50's and 60's, when average age of first marriage was at its lowest, the divorce rate was at its lowest.

Although different surveys say different things, the real world statistics are clear. Early marriage does not lead to early divorce.

[1] http://www.ise.ncsu.edu...
[2] http://www.pobronson.com...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
and sleep time. :P
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
@F-16 my work is not time intensive. I work when work is put on my desk, get it finished as fast as possible, then wait for the next load of work. Also, much of the time is spent waiting for reports to run.

I don't get on DDO at home because home is family time. :)
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
@Ore_Ele, you only post at work? Why not at home? And how do find the time to type arguments at work? I'm surprised you are allowed to do that at work.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
I would like to thank my opponent for allowing me to post my R2 argument in the comment section. As many members already know, I am not on DDO on weekends (I only log on while at work, not at home, at all). The 3 day weekend means that I was unable to get on on Monday, and so missed the deadline for this debate. Regardless, I concede the conduct vote for my forfeit and my opponent earns conduct for allowing me to make this post.

I will go over my opponent's response here. In their opening argument paragraph, starting with, "In my point of view…" they restate their personal experiences, but do not provide any sources or counters to my arguments last round. So I will skip that and move on to the rest.

My opponent links to [1] to suggest that "65% of new marriages end in divorce." However, that source clearly says about that number, "This must be a misprint or out of context. It may mean 2nd or 3rd marriages." Because that number is so far off from reality. That same source also says that 43% of new marriages fail; it also shows that over the last 20 years, the divorce rate per capita has dropped 23%.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Moving on the source of the Pew Research group, this cherry picks data, only looking at states that support what it has already determined. What it doesn't show, is that red states have, on average, a lower divorce rate [1], and a lower age of first marriage. It is true of any data set that there will be outliers, and that if we cherry pick those outliers, we can make data say whatever we want.

Next, we have an op-ed by Mr. David Lapp. His opinion on the matter goes against what the cold numbers show [2]. Mr. Lapp suggests that 22 – 25 years old is the best age to marry. However, statistically, people that marry in the 20 – 24 (statistically close to 22 - 25) have the HIGHEST divorce rate of any age group, even higher than the under 20 years olds. This can be explained that many people, while in college, learn to be independent "free-spirits," such a mind set is not conducive to a strong lasting marriage. It takes a while for them to get out of that mind set to where they can actually live for another person (into their late 20's to early 30's). People that marry young, never grow into the "free-spirit" mindset and instead grow together as a couple (which is why they have a lower divorce rate).

[1] http://www.divorcereform.org...
[2] http://www.divorcestatistics.org...
Posted by Aliya_n 5 years ago
Aliya_n
I think it would be great, thank you.
Posted by Aliya_n 5 years ago
Aliya_n
I think it would be great, thank you.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
If you want, I can post an argument in the comments, so you have something to respond to in your R3.
Posted by Aliya_n 5 years ago
Aliya_n
That's a pity that you missed your turn, however you could show all your best in the third round.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Damn these long weekends.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Aliya_nOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments and sources and effectively turns what could have been a cause-correlation fallacy to his advantage. Conduct to Pro for allowing Con to post in the comments. SG to Con because Pro had some not so insignificant errors such as "solute" instead of solve/solution. Overall good debate.