Early marriage leads to the early divorce
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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 ). 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 , 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 ). 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 . 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 , 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.
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.
"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.
Ore_Ele forfeited this round.
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.
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 . 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 . 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 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years 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:||1||6|
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.
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.