The Instigator
Debatestigator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Envisage
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Interracial relationships/marriage are moral.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Envisage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,952 times Debate No: 56598
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

Debatestigator

Pro

There is nothing immoral about interracial relationships/marriage as it causes no harm. People have the right to marry/have a relationship with whoever they want.
Envisage

Con

Thanks for the open challenge Pro.

My arguments are twofold.

1. Marriage itself is immoral

The argument is stated as follows:
P1) All forms of marriage are immoral
P2) Interracial marriage is a form of marriage
C) Interracial marriage is immoral

I don't think P2 needs more explanation, nor that it will be disputed by Pro, so I will defend P1.

In defence of P1, marriage inherently promotes possessiveness of one's partner, and jealousy. Moreover marriage frequently places an enormous economic stres in both the married partners and their respective families,with weddings costing in the region of tens of thousands of dollars. Moreover a large portion of these end in divorce anyway, which carries significant stress involved in the separation process.

Furthermore marriage promotes within society the breeding of children, who will lead a sufferable existance, and hence should be prevented at all costs.

2. Interracial marriage inhibits human evolution

If we want to survive as a species, then we need an increasingly diversifying gene pool, with multiple sub-species which can carry on our genetic lineages. When humans were separated, with Asians, Caucasians, Africans etc. Largely geographically separated and interbreeding, then we had genetic drift occurring. Had modern transportation not ever been available then very conceivably these racial groups would have speciated, and become unable to breed with the other groups, leading to a new species capable of carrying on our lineage.

However, by promoting interracial marriage, we are encouraging the 'mixing of the gene pool', and thus largely stopping this process of speciation.

Therefore the argument can be summarized:

P1) Anything that inhibits the evolution of the human family is immoral
P2) iInterracial relationships/marriage inhibits the evolution of the human family
C) Interracial relationships/marriage is immoral

Case closed. Back to pro!
Debate Round No. 1
Debatestigator

Pro

Thanks for taking my challenge.

Here are my counter arguments:

1.) Marriage itself is not immoral:

Marriage does not promote possessiveness of one's partner and jealousy by itself. Most relationships in are not open relationships. Many people in a relationship that are not married do not want their partner to cheat on them. Most human relationships may promote possessiveness of one's partner and jealousy, but they are not immoral. Cheating would cause emotional distress to many, so cheating is immoral. If an open relationship is wanted, then both members of the relationship should agree to avoid emotional distress.

Marriage can be carried out at minimal cost or at least at a cheaper cost, so financial stress can be avoided. It is true that a large portion of marriages end in divorce, but many relationships end as well. The end of a relationship not involving marriage can also carry stress. However, people can deal with the stress in a healthy way, and the majority of people get over the stress. You could argue that human relationships are immoral due to the possibility of stress, but not being in relationships could also cause stress as loneliness could occur. Stress is just a normal part of life, but stress can be dealt with in an effective and healthy manner.

Marriage does promote the breeding of children, but the majority of children, as well as people in general, do not live a sufferable existence as the majority of people are overall happy in their lives. Breeding has to occur for the human race to survive. If breeding does not occur, then the human race cannot survive, and then the human race would not be able to survive and be happy.

2.) Interracial marriage does not inhibit human evolution:

The human race will still evolve even with more people of mixed races. The human race will survive regardless whether or not races mix. There are many people of mixed races today, and the majority are healthy and are surviving just like people of one race. Studies have shown that people of mixed race may actually have genetic advantages. Inbreeding is genetically bad, so it makes sense that the mixing of different races is genetically good.

My counter arguments can be summarized:
P1) Marriage is not immoral.
P2) Interracial relationships do not inhibit the evolution of the human race.
C) Interracial marriage/relationships are not immoral.
Envisage

Con


Thanks Pro.

I. Rebuttals

Please note the BoP is on Pro for this debate, he needs to demonstrate that interracial marriages are moral. So far he have given literally just two sentences to support his conclusion:

"There is nothing immoral about interracial relationships/marriage as it causes no harm. People have the right to marry/have a relationship with whoever they want."

Which I must say, are fantastically weak arguments in the face of it. First interracial marriages cause no harm, which is a premise he has not supported whatsoever. I would like to apply Hitchen's Razor to this argument, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I can make a similar argument by just asserting that interracial marriage does cause harm, I in fact went a step further and supported this in my first round.

Moreover it assumes that all things that do not cause harm are not immoral, please see the formulation of this argument:

P1) ??
P2) Interracial Marriage causes no harm
C) Interracial marriage is not immoral

For this argument to work we need to fill in the missing major premise. For which the most obvious is:

P1) All things that cause no harm are not immoral
P2) Interracial Marriage causes no harm
C) Interracial marriage is not immoral

This premise is not stated and is assumed, and again we have no reason to believe this. Indeed there are many moral philosophies which divorce themselves from harm, such as utilitarianism which sees actions that maximize utility instead of well-being, or theological systems which also divorce themselves from harm.

Pro's second argument/bare assertion/sentence is that we have a right to marry who we want. Again I challenge this assertion, first it assumes our rights are automatically moral, which is flatly false. We have a right to free speech but that doesn't make my ability to curse the next person (as per my rights) is moral.

Please note that even if Pro tears down all my arguments against marriage (which he hasn't), he actually needs to present his own case to win this debate.

II. Counter Rebuttals

IIA. Marriage
Please note the first portion of my opponent's rebuttal to my "marriage is immoral argument".

"Marriage does not promote possessiveness of one's partner and jealousy by itself."

Which is a bare assertion but then he undermines his own position in the very next sentence!

"Most relationships in are not open relationships. Many people in a relationship that are not married do not want their partner to cheat on them."

This is EXACTLY my point! Why do people not want their partners to 'cheat' on them? What rational reason is there for this? Please note that the word 'cheat' is a loaded concept, and is really just another way of stating 'have non-platonic relations with someone else'. Indeed by allowing your partner to have relations with other people you grant them freedom, and hence do not claim possessiveness over their sexual and emotional faculties. Marriage is the institution of this very thing, by making it substantially more difficult, socially unacceptable and punishing to indeed pursue relations with other people. It institutes possessiveness!

In a relationship would be acceptible to stop your partner from going to a cinema they like, or to any other source of entertainment? Clearly not, indeed marriage is almost exclusively an instrument for controlling your partner's sexual & romantic commitments.

If cheating causes distress to many, then it clearly is important to see why cheating indeed causes distress, I would argue that it all boils down to preconceived possessiveness motions. My opponent argued that marriage could be cheaper, and some marriages end well and that stress can be dealt with. But that in no way undermines the measurable negative effects that Pro attempts to cover up, stating the damage cause is not too large doesn't mean that the damage isn't there, it clearly is. And it's completely unnecessary damage, and very much arguably immoral.

IIB. Human Evolution

Pro is right that the human race will still evolve with the mixing of the human gene pool. The argument was however that by keeping segregated populations of humans, then they will eventually speciated and hence form separate species. Each of these species will have significant biological and anatomical variations, much like how Homo sapiens are different to the Neanderthals. Which means that if any one of these species suddenly finds themselves in a challenging/unfavourable environment, then it is likely we will still have a separate species left to propagate the Homo- gene line.

Remember the Neanderthals actually went extinct, and were comparably intelligent to Homo sapiens today, albeit with several differences. If the Neanderthals and the ancestor of Homo sapiens did not differentiate, then it is very possible that the common ancestor would have died out due to the changing conditions (the last ice age being a significant factor).[2]

So while it is true there is (significant) genetic variation in humans, these genes will soon become mixed and the significant variations will reduce if we allow interracial sex/marriages.

Therefore for the benefit of the homo- gene line, interracial marriages should be prohibited, and are immoral/selfish.

Note that Pro misconstrues what inbreeding means, which usually refers to incestual sexual relations. There is usually enough genetic variation within races for this not to be a problem, and is mostly because of a high chance of pathogenic genes being "doubly alleled".

III. Conclusion:

Back to Pro! I strongly encourage him to make his own arguments in the next round, because as it stands his existing arguments are virtually non-existent.

IV. References

1. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
2. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Debatestigator

Pro

I am sorry, I will try to make my arguments clearer this time.

1) Marriage
When I said marriage does not promote jealous and possessiveness by itself, I meant that your assertion of marriage promoting those emotions should not be a reason to not allow marriage because non-platonic relationships in general promote those emotions. Most non-platonic relationships are not open. Not allowing marriage would not make sense if we still allow non-platonic relation that are not open.

Many people do not want others to cheat because they just do not like their partner having non-platonic relations with others. People just like and dislike certain things. People do not choose what they like and dislike. Some people are fine with their partner having non-platonic relations with others, but many are not. Open relationships just are not for everyone. For many, an open relationship would cause worry and emotional distress. Many are more comfortable with a non open relationship. When two people want to be in a relationship, they should agree on whether to make their relationship open or not. This establishes trust, which is a very important aspect in a relationship. Agreement on the type of relationship will prevent worry and emotional distress that could be caused from a disagreement on the type of relationship later if not established beforehand.

The issue of having non-platonic relations with others when both partners did not agree for the relationship to be open is dishonesty. Trust is important in a relationship so both partners can rely on each other.

I am sorry if it seemed like I was attempting to cover up the negative effects. I was not, and I meant that marriage is no different from other non-platonic relations that are not open in the sense that they both promote jealousy and possessiveness.

2) Human Evolution
I understand that having more variety is good in the gene pool in case of a need for the formation of a trait that would be beneficial for an unfavorable or challenging environment. You assume that allowing interracial marriage will eventually lead to the end of different races thus decreasing variety. That is not necessarily true because the majority of people reproduce within their own race. According to Pew Research, about 15% of marriages in the U.S. are interracial. At this percentage, there are and will be plenty of people of different races for more genetic variety. Plus, having sizable mixed races will provide even more variety in the human gene pool. Allowing interracial marriage is not immoral because it will not lead to the end of different races. If too many interracial marriages/too much reproduction occurs, then we can limit it.

I did not misconstrue the meaning of inbreeding, and I was referring to incestual sexual relations. However, my statement involving inbreeding was not supported by evidence, and I apologize for that.

Conclusion:
1) Marriage
Marriage is not immoral because it is not diferent fron non-platonic relations that are not open in the sense that they both promote jealousy and possevieness of partners. There is no use in not allowing marriage if non-open relationships are allowed. Whether a relationship is open or not should be established to avoid future emotional distress that could be caused from a disageement on the type of relation if it is not established beforehand.

2) Human Evolution
Interracial marriage/relations are not immoral because, at the amount of interracial marriages today, they will not lead to the end of different races, which would decrease variety in the gene pool. Having sizable mixed races will provide more variety in the human gene pool. If too much interracial marriage/reproduction occurs, then it can be limited to provide more variety in the gene pool.

Thanks for debating with me. It made me do a lot of thinking, and I enjoyed it.

References:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...
Envisage

Con

I. Preface

Thanks for the debate Pro, in all honestly I didn't expect such stiff competition. Since Pro didn't offer a substantial first round I will use this round just to summarise my arguments and insert a handful of key rebuttals.

II. Burden of Proof
Please more the burden of proof is on Pro for this debate, so for him to win this debate his own positive arguments need to stand on their own two feet. Pro has spent most of his time this debate attacking my arguments, but does not defend his own.

By doing so he has failed his burden of proof.

III. Marriage
Marriage legally institutes such emotions of possessiveness and jealousy. I argued against non-platonic relationships too, as the same things occur. Marriage just takes this another step further.

Just 'liking' and 'disliking' things is not a good enough qualifier for something to be moral. I like Ferrari's, does that make to moral for me to go steal one? I dislike Mitt Romney, does that make it moral for me to assassinate him? No.

I would also argue that the institution if 'trust' after being married is a false one. Why would marriage make you more trusting of your partner? There is no logical reason except for social/pragmatic reasons rather than genuine emotional attachments.

To summarize, marriage and monogamous relationships promote harmful behaviour and emotions, and therefore all such relationships, including interracial ones are immoral. Pro has simply not refuted my previous points on this matter.

IV. Human Evolution

Pro does not contest that prohibiting interracial marriages/relationships would be beneficial for Homo sapiens speciation, mind this human evolution. I have already provided evidence they geographical isolation is a very powerful method for causing such changes, and a mixing population is bad for this.

Pro contests only 15% of US marriages is interracial. This is an ENORMOUS number in light of evolutionary timescales (where thousands of generations are needed), especially when compared whit the near 0% interracial marriages that occurred before international travel was possible. This is devastating for human evolution.

V. Pro's Positive Arguments

Pro has not defended his only two positive lines of argumentation, and therefore appears that he concedes these.

VI. Conclusion:
Thanks Pro for this debate, the resolution is negated. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
If it is hard to vote then don't vote.

Of you do vote actually provide a RFD...
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
I would take this, but I'd need a lot more time to research. You really should define morals.
Posted by Poiyurt 2 years ago
Poiyurt
Mind defining moral more specifically?
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Haha, I reckon if I had a spare second or two, I'd be able to bring out the inner Stormfront in me and glorify the perfect Aryan race.
Posted by inaudita 2 years ago
inaudita
Morals are only a hindrance to human development.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
If one wants to try debating a topic that interferes with his/her own morals, could that actually be a good test-my-skills-debate.
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
Only actions can be moral or immoral. Getting into the interracial relationship/marriage is moral if people who are entering into it don't have rule that forbids it. What is debatable here?
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
No issues with morality or rights. Pro should reference the following debate:

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by inaudita 2 years ago
inaudita
I still don't think my argument is strong enough, both races have regional advantages.
Posted by Debatestigator 2 years ago
Debatestigator
Yes @inaudita
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
DebatestigatorEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: unfullfilled BOP
Vote Placed by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
DebatestigatorEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: The resolution of this debate is difficult to argue because it comes down to a disagreement of definitions. Without an explicit definition or standard, whether something is "harmful" is really a matter of opinion. Possessiveness and jealousy may be "harmful", or they may not be. An existence may be "sufferable", or it may not be. The evolution argument was closer to hitting the mark, because there is a physical standard by which harm can be judged. However, I felt that neither Pro nor Con sufficiently proved their sides of this argument. In the end, arguments go to Con simply because Pro could not support his resolution with having established definitions and standards for "moral" and "harmful". I am happy to clarify my RFD.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
DebatestigatorEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: At best, PRO showed that marriage is amoral; he did not demonstrate his resolution.