The Instigator
mahamsiddiqui
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Logic_on_rails
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Love after marriage is much better than love before marriage

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Logic_on_rails
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,261 times Debate No: 19545
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

mahamsiddiqui

Pro

What I think is that love after marriage is a better option because out of 100% ,80% "love marriages" failed to keep their relationship smooth. As far as "love after marriage" is concerned,its mostly beneficial because partner expect less and get more where as in love marriages people expect more and get less because of their sky reaching expectations......U.S is having highest divorce ratings....and sadly speaking U.S have majority people having love marriages...

http://www.pagalguy.com...
http://thadisan.blogspot.com...

visit the site to have a better explanation
Logic_on_rails

Con

Resolution Issues

Con’s first round and sources imply a desire for a discussion on arranged marriages, yet this is not what the resolution entails. The resolution is questioning the value of love at different points in time, indeed it presupposes love. Based on this interpretation Pro has done nothing to argue for her side of the resolution.

However, I will argue against the concept of arranged marriages (pro states love after marriage is better due to the failures of ‘love marriages’ ; negating this point negates pro’s argument) , in the spirit of a proper debate.

Nevertheless, I urge Pro to clarify the resolution, and attempt to fulfil the BOP

Con Case

I’ll split this into 2 main sections – arguing based on the different points in time interpretation and then about liberty as opposed to arranged marriages.

After or before?

Pro argues that “As far as "love after marriage" is concerned, its mostly beneficial because partner expect less and get more where as in love marriages people expect more and get less” .

Pro gives no evidence of this whatsoever. Also, even if this were proved, it doesn’t mean that love after marriage guarantees more. Imagine this hypothetical example:

Marriage type

Expectation

Result

Love Before

100

80

Love After

50

70



Clearly, even if I were to concede this truth of Pro’s unsubstantiated claim, it is quite possible to still end up with more with love before marriage.

Pro also argues points about divorce, which are all unsubstantiated claims. Pro states there’s an 80% divorce rate, there’s not. Based on http://www.nationmaster.com... , there’s a weighted average of 38.9 divorces per 100 marriages. No country breaks the 60% mark and some are quite low. Pro’s incorrect here.

Also, based on our time interpretation we need only consider happiness for that time. I contend that if people are expecting great happiness (as my opponent seemed to believe was the case with love before marriage)there is a reason for this. The greater the expected happiness the stronger the reason. Since this reason is likely past experience, we can conclude that the experiences of love prior to marriage are of greater enjoyment than those following. It should be noted that divorce can only occur once one is married, a severe hampering issue to happiness...

Also, let’s have some fun here and state that ‘love’ can be objectively defined, hence love is the exact same at any time, meaning some is not better at any one time (such as after) than another time (say, before) .

I think these points are enough for a first round given this might not be my opponent’s intended resolution.

Liberty in marriage or arranged marriages?

First point of note is that of a false dichotomy. Indeed, phenomena such as ‘self-arranged marriages’ are developing in India (Susan Christine Seymour, Women, family, and child care in India: a world in transition, Cambridge University Press, 1999) , which reflects a move towards liberty away from arranged marriages.

Obviously, one should be allowed to do what one wants unless there is sufficient reason for another party to intervene. For example, if a man wants to shoot people of his own volition he is prevented as there is sufficient reason (safety and so forth) for said prevention. However, if I wish to say ‘by George!’ then I should be allowed to do so, as there is no good reason to prevent my action (not to mention the waste of resources if my action were to be policed) . Using this logic, if people want freedom (such as the case in India) , shouldn’t they be allowed it?

Also, there is good reason to believe freedom in marriage benefits the economy - http://glassvisage.hubpages.com... :

“In traditional arranged marriages, parents prefer that daughters be less educated so they can have more control over household affairs, but if more women hold college degrees, they can provide for themselves and help redistribute resources more evenly in society (The Agenda, 2008, p. 31)”

Furthermore, the world’s richest economies are generally those without arranged marriages. Note in the previous source that Japan had a 70% rate for arranged marriage half a century ago, yet today less than 10% are arranged marriages?

Also, on the point of ‘stability’ in arranged marriages, we must ask some serious questions. Firstly, given the nature of ‘arranged’ marriages one isn’t meant to prize liberty. Ie. Arranged marriages disregard personal preference and are intended as a solution for life. Secondly, go back say, 100 years, and although arranged marriages weren’t found in places like the USA there was a far lower divorce rate. This suggests the possible hypothesis that increased lifestyle expectations (like perfect marriages) result from greater development, technology and wealth. Surely though pro isn’t going to argue that these advances are bad?

Conclusion

I think I’ve given pro enough points to consider for R1 given an unclear resolution. Pro doesn’t provide a case for her side (under either interpretation) in R1, and I’ve shown economic and social arguments against Pro. I’ve also shown that even if we were to accept pro’s flawed logic that Pro would still not have a case!

Resolution negated.

Sidenote: Sorry for the slow response; I’ll try and be quicker next time.
Debate Round No. 1
mahamsiddiqui

Pro

mahamsiddiqui forfeited this round.
Logic_on_rails

Con

It would seem Pro is being quite understanding in not disagreeing with anything I said...

Pro's account is closed, so there's little to say. Resolution negated, arguments extended.

It's a shame we couldn't have a deeper discussion.
Debate Round No. 2
mahamsiddiqui

Pro

mahamsiddiqui forfeited this round.
Logic_on_rails

Con

Pro forfeited again, leaving my arguments standing and so forth. Clearly, Pro also loses conduct, and maybe S&G as well as sources. Voters can vote as they wish, but there's no reason to vote for Pro.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by mahamsiddiqui 5 years ago
mahamsiddiqui
just think at the topic once to have a better decision....
Posted by mahamsiddiqui 5 years ago
mahamsiddiqui
just think at the topic once to have a better decision....
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
mahamsiddiquiLogic_on_railsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
mahamsiddiquiLogic_on_railsTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: A kickass argument from LoR. RFD is obvious.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
mahamsiddiquiLogic_on_railsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: A great round of ownage by Con. Not sure Pro would have been able to fight back based on her R1, though it would have been fun to see her try. Though it ended with just forfeits.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
mahamsiddiquiLogic_on_railsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy decision is easy