Marriage should be privatized
Debate Rounds (5)
Definitions: Marriage Privatization is the idea that the State should have no role in the institution of marriage. I am arguing in terms of a Democratic State that values separation of church and state.
First, let's look at this from a religious perspective. To all religions, marriage is a spiritual ritual. Therefore, why do religious couples need the State to approve of their entirely spiritual contract? After all, the State has no role in religions (we are assuming that separation of church and state is a premise), and the legitimization of marriages are done in temples/mosques/churches, for to the religious, you are married when you perform a religious ceremony, not when you sign a government paper. Government involvement seems to be a holdover from a time when religion was ingrained in politics, but since this is not a value of democracy, tradition isn't a legitimate reason to continue State marriages.
Next, from a secular standpoint, how does society benefit from government-sanctioned marriages as opposed to private marriages? I don't believe it does. Marriage is essentially a legal contract, which could easily be replicated outside of the government. Even better, the contract could better serve a couple's personal needs. In terms of benefits the State gives married couples, what is the purpose? From what I can think of, the tax-breaks that married couples get is to allow couples to have more money to spend on raising kids. If this is the case, then marriages should only be given to those who are committed to having kids. Since this is not the case, marriages are hypocritical in a sense. Another reason that marriages could be an interest of the State is that it promotes social stability by allowing one individual to live off another individual. Yet, how does this increase social stability, for when a divorce occurs, which is likely statistically, then the dependent spouse will be screwed. Of course, marital contracts somewhat mitigate this issue by requiring alimony, but this can be replicated in a private contract.
Next I will argue in terms of pragmatism. Even though the State may have no reason to regulate marriages, that doesn't mean that it would be better if they didn't regulate marriages. The reason that it will be better is because privatization would reduce marriage as a symbol for commitment, which is an arbitrary cultural construct. It would also reduce the tension against homosexuals seeking State marriages. Also, in terms of marriage as a social symbol, it is in fact less idealistic as opposed to non-legal long term relationships. That is, the practical reason of marriage is that it makes the process of divorce less hectic. In a long-term non-legal relationship, there is no contract that will reduce break-up tensions. Therefore, it seems that subconsciously marriages assume that there is a possibility of divorce, while long-term relationship doesn't (i.e. if a couple buy a house and they are married, their property will be "fairly" divided at a divorce trial. However, if an unmarried couple buy a house, they have to assume they will be together forever since they don't think they will have to deal with splitting property up after a break-up).
Sorry if my views seem scattered or full of logical flaws. I do better arguing against points since I intuitively think my views are rational (of course, I know this isn't always the case, so I need to hear opposing arguments first in order to see which of my views aren't rational).
I would like to thank blueberry_crepe for instigating this thought-provoking debate. I will argue that marriage should not be privatized. My opponent argues for a "Democratic State that values separation of church and state," but I disagree with this premise and will argue in favor of a state in which religious practices are valued and accomodated by the law. Before addressing the issue of church/state, I will briefly respond to my opponent's arguments.
My opponent's arguments
1) My opponent's first argument is that, because marriage was a religious institution, marriage should not be a political institution. This argument is flawed for three reasons. First, my opponent's argument depends on the premise that church and state should be completely separate (I will address this later).
Second, my opponent's argument is a circular argument. It begins with the assumption that marriage is a religious institution, and then argues that because it is a religious institution, it should remain a religious institution. I see no reason to not allow a religious institution to become a political one if it also fulfills a political or legal role.
Third, my opponent points to "tradition" and "history" as reasons that marriage is religious, but "tradition" is the very term my opponent is contesting. As such, not only is my opponent's argument circular, it is contradictory: if my opponent is contesting tradition, there is no reason that my opponent should be opposed to changing the institution of marriage such that it becomes a political/social/legal institution as opposed to a stricly religious one. My opponent argues marriage is religious because of tradition, and then in the next breath, argues against "tradition."
2) My opponent argues that society does not benefit from "government-sanctioned marriages as opposed to private marriages." This argument fails because my opponent's position is incoherent and rests on faulty logic.
My opponent says the only benefit of marriage is that it helps couples who are raising kids. This is not true - but even if it were, this is enough of a benefit for it to be in the government's interest. The government has a vested interest in child-rearing (that is why it requires public education), and to ensure that children are raised properly, it does everything it can to ensure children will be raised well. It cannot force people to raise children, but it can provide a framework that grants benefits to those who do decide to have children.
My opponent argues that if this were the case, marriage should only be given to those "committed to having kids." This is false - marriage, as I suggested, is more than simply about child-rearing - it is about signaling a committed relationship to the community, as well as creating the proper frame for having children. It is a preliminary step, but once people take that step, we cannot force them to have children.
My opponent states that the other benefit of government-sanctioned marriage is social stability. I agree, marriage creates social stability and therefore should be government-sanctioned. My opponent argues the social stability engendered by marriage can be replicated by a private contract, but this misses the point: the government has an interest in social stability, and therefore, there is no reason for the government not to sanction marriage. In fact, because the government has an interest in social stability, the government has an interest in marriage. As such, it is imperative that the government sanction marriage because it is a government interest.
3) My opponent's third argument is a pragmatic argument: things would be better off if marriage would be privatized. Or so it is argued. I disagree. My opponent claims that privatizing marriage would "reduce marriage as a symbol of commitment," but why should we want to reduce the government-sanctioning of committed relationships? Commitment is a positive social value that encourages social stability (as my opponent admits) as well as encouraging healthy families and healthy child-rearing. There is no reason that the government should not encourage committed relationships as the proper way relationships should work.
My opponent argues that privatizing marriage would reduce the tension between the state and homosexuals. I don't see how that is relevant to this debate, as the interests of a minority are not necessarily the interests of the state. The state makes decisions based on the values of the majority.
My opponent argues that long-term relationships without marriage are more practical? I'm not sure how this point is relevant, as the discussion of this debate is whether marriage should be privatized or not. The question is not whether marriage should be illegal (as is implied by my opponent's argument that long-term relationships without marriage are more practical). Actually, my opponent's argument supports the Con position, as my opponent's argument implies marriage should not be legal.
As to the issue of whether long-term relationships without marriage are more practical, they certainly are not. Long-term relationships in which property is shared work fine (not better than marriage), but what happens if the relationship ends (as often happens)? How is the property split up? What about alimony? What about children, who are left with the mother and with no support from the father? These things happen all the time. Marriage, as a legal contract, helps alleviate these problems. Thus, state-sanctioned marriage is more practical.
Against the separation of church and state
One thing is clear: my opponent's arguments depend on the premise that the separation of church and state should be valued by a democratic state. I disagree. I believe a democratic state should not value the absolute separation of church and state.
My argument rests on two premises: first, that religious truths are possibly true; and second, that a serious religious believer takes their belief seriously. The implication here is that, when the religious belief of a true believer conflicts with the law, the religious believer should be accomodated (there are exceptions, but the principle is a general rule of accomodation).
The reason for this is relatively clear: if a religious believer is forced to choose between a religious truth that they truly believe and an arbitrary political order embodied by the law, what is the religious believer going to do? Given the fact that a democratic state recognizes that religious truths are possibly true, it would force a true believer (someone who believes their religious truths) to act against the state. The option is accomodation or civil disobedience.
There is no reason to force a religious believer to disobey the law. Most of the time, these are good people, outstanding moral citizens of the state, but their belief sometimes conflicts with the state's interest. Their beliefs should be accomodatd to avoid unnecessary civil disobedience. The issue here is pragmatic. If the state mandates public education, and it is against someone's religious beliefs to be publicly educated, their beliefs should be accomodated. Hence, the principle of pragmatic accomodation should be preferred to the principle of absolute separation.
All of my opponent's argument depend (as my opponent notes) on the principle that there should be a separation between church and state. I have argued that the principle of accomodation should be preferred to the principle of separation, and therefore, that my opponent's arguments are flawed.
Aside from the issue of separation/accomodation, I have also pointed out flaws in my opponents arguments (circularity and incoherence) that undermine his or her case. There are good reasons for the state to sanction marriage (child-rearing, signal of commitment, social stability). My opponent notes them. Government-sanctioned marriage is thus in the state's interest, and is is more pragmatic. The resolution is negated.
1) You attacked my premise that Church and State should be separate. That is the premise of the debate, so it is not debatable. Thus, there is no logical flaw. Let me provide a syllogism:
P1: All black things are cats
P2: I am black
C: Therefore, I am a cat
This may not be true, but it is logical based on the premises. Since I initiate the argument, I choose the premise. Perhaps a theocracy has benefits, but that is for another argument. And yes, in a theocracy, I would support State marriaages.
Your second argument doesn't apply anymore because I have established that separation of church and state is an undebatable premise for this particular argument. Also, if you examine anthropological history, marriage is a religious institution that has secular symbolic relevance only because of humanity's history rooted in religion.
I did not point to tradition as the reason that marriage exists, but as the reason State's have taken a role in marriages. I am saying this is wrong, but I still recognize the origins.
You said I am "opposed to changing the institution of marriage such that it becomes a political/social/legal institution as opposed to a stricly religious one." No, that is the status quo, so nothing is changing. Again, I believe that marriage is traditionally religious, but that it is a State-sactioned institution because of the State's tradition of including religious elements in it in the past.
2) I don't know how your child argument is relevant. What is the benefit of marriage to the State then? If a married couple does not have a child, then how do they benefit society? You also mention that it is a symbol of a committed relationship. Well, as anthropology teaches, symbolism are arbitrary, so this same kind of symbolism could be created from a personal contract or an arbitrary religious/secular ceremony devoid of government intervention. Furthermore, with the widespread use of divorce, marriage is not a committment anymore because it can be broken easily, as it has been countless times in modern history.
You argue that since the government has a stake in social stability, it should be involved in marriages. Well, since you didn't counter that such a contract could be replicated in a private contract, I assume you don't disagree. Therefore, there should be no difference between a State-issued contract and a personal one. In this case, we must examine the negatives of each scenario. As I argue later, State-issued contracts lead to issues of gay rights, which already presents a negative externality. I also only mentioned this because I wanted to see the other side; I have yet to see evidence that marriage correlates to social stability. And IF the argument is that it creates dependence among individuals, then the government could replicate this dependence relationship through widespread socialist policies (e.g. instead of giving tax-breaks to families so they can live off each other's health insures, just adopt socialized medicine).
3) I may have worded myself incorrectly. I am not saying that committment is impractical, but that marriage as a the only acceptable symbolic method of commitment is. If marriage as a state institution were abolished, then committment would manifest in privatized ways, such as in personal discourses between couples rather than a government paper. Isn't it more ideal to have people legitimize their own committment rather than having the government accept it?
The homosexual argument is relevant because the gay-marriage issue creates a social schism, in which the majority subjugates the minority by denying them the same rights. Instead of contending with the hard-right religious conservatives, which I think is impossible because their views are based on irrational emotional faith, they could end the issue by removing marriage altogether. Furthermore, it is contradictory to prevent gays from marriage in a Democratic society. Democratic society's are not purely utilitarian, but they also adhere to democratic principles, such as equality for all. Therefore, it is to the State's interest (their interest in following their democratic principles) to abolish marriage in order to quickly resolve the same-sex marriage issue.
I didn't say long-term non-marital relationships are more practical, but more ideal (i.e. more romantic). Again, I'll pose the same question with the change in terms: is it more romantic for a couple to buy a house in a marriage, in which their marriage contact will resolve disputes in a divorce, or is it more romantic to buy a house in a non-married relationship, in which you don't think about future problems and assume you will always be together, so there is no need to make a legal contract? This scenario is only relevant if the couple is this idealistic, for in a non-married relationship, the couple could also use private contracts, which would resolved all the break-up issues you posted.
4) As I said, I didn't say separation of church and state should be valued, but that for this argument, it is the accepted premise. Yet, since arguing is fun and I do believe it should be present, we could have this secondary debate for humor.
After reading that argument, I don't think we have the same definition of church and state separation. What you mentioned is separation in my definition since the government is allowing a religious person accomodation, and are not forcing a doctrine onto them.
1) My opponent claims that the separation of church and state is a "premise" and is therefore not debatable. Why not? Many arguments are wrong (and have been proven so) because of faulty premises. What's more, in the opening round of this debate, my opponent said he is not here to "win," but to discover the "truth." If my opponent is interested in the "truth" (and not winning), then my opponent should take this as an opportunity to better understand the value of accomodation as opposed to seperation.
2) My opponent defines marriage as a religious institution, and then proceeds to use that definition to argue that marriage should be a religious institution. That is a circular argument. Why limit the legal role of marriage to its religious function? The point is, even if we were to accept the separation of church and state, it does not follow that marriage should be privatized because marriage can be defined as a secular and legal institution.
3) As it is currently exists, marriage is a state-sanctioned contract between two people that grants a number of legal benefits. From the perspective of the state, the institution of marriage is not religious and contains no religious elements. If my opponent truly values the separation of church and state, wouldn't it make more sense to define marriage as a state-sanctioned secular institution instead attempting to contest tradition (marriage as a state institution) while simultaneously appealing to tradition (marriage as a traditionally religious institution)? My opponent's position - that marriage should be privatized - is not consistent with its premise (separation of church and state) because it implicitly depends on a public appeal to religious tradition. It is for this reason that I argued, in the previous round, that my opponent's argument was both circular and contradictory.
4) The act of creating and raising a child deserves legal recognition because it is required for society to continue existing. Marriage provides the legal framework for procreation and child-rearing. As such, the government has a compelling secular reason to recognize marriage as a state-sanctioned legal status between two people.
5) My opponent claims "symbolism is arbitrary" and therefore marriage could function as a symbol "devoid of government intervention." This argument fails because this debate is not about what could be, it is about what should be: the government has an interest (namely, for the sake of child-rearing and social stability) in granting its citizens a legal status allowing them to signal commitment to another person. My opponent also claims that widespread divorce proves that marriage is not a symbol of a commitment. Divorce is a sign of human error, and it is completely irrelevant to what marriage signifies. When two people are married, they signal to their community that they are committed to each other. The looming possibility of divorce does not change that fact: until they publicly announce a desire to get divorced, the community interprets marriage as a legal symbol of their commitment.
6) I did not agree (as my opponent claims I did) that the positive effects of marriage can be replicated in a private contract. The government has a public interest in social stability, and sanctioning marriage is a way that the government signals that interest to its citizens. This is an important effect that would be lost if marriage is privatized.
7) My opponent claims that marriage should be privatized because the government can replicate the effects of marriage through various socialist policies. But advocating socialist policies while arguing that marriage should be privatized is inconsistent. If socialist policies are supported, so should state-sanctioned marriage.
8) In private, people are allowed to legitimize and signal their commitment to others in whatever way they choose. But none of these private forms of commitment grant legal benefits. If marriage is privatized, citizens would lose out on the large number of legal benefis that are associated with marriage. This makes privatizing marriage impractical, as it takes away one form of legitimizing a relationship (though legal means), whereas allowing state-sanctioned marriage would allow private forms of commitment while also giving citizens access to the legal status. Privatizing marriage is the equivalent of imposing a legal disability on everyone, as it prevents people from accessing the legal benefits that make marriage a valuable institution in the first place.
9) My opponent argues that privatizing marriage would resolve the same-sex marriage issue. Actually, it woudn't. The people against same-sex marriage would still be against same-sex marriage.
10) My opponent characterizes religious conservatives as "impossible" to contend with because their "views are based on irrational emotional faith." I believe my opponent is unfairly characterizing conservatives. Their beliefs are based on a different set of assumptions, but this does not make their beliefs more "irrational" or "emotional" than other competing sets of beliefs. There is no independent or neutral mechanism for establishing one set of views as better or more correct than another set of views. My opponent's appeal to anthropology is evidence of this: according to the same anthropological studies my opponent refers to, different beliefs and views are arbitrary, socially constructed, and therefore, no better than competing sets of beliefs.
11) My opponent argues marriage should be privatized because it would make marriage more "romantic." Marriage has nothing to do with "romance," it has to do with procreation, child-rearing, commitment, and social stability. Completely transforming one of the most important and rich political institutions we have because you think it makes things more "romantic" misses the point of marriage - commitment.
12) My opponent clearly does not understand the separation doctrine. If there is a separation of church and state, the government's laws overrule competing religious laws. An example will help clarify: in Goldman v. Weinberger, the Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting a military pilot from wearing a yarmulke while on duty was constitutional. The question at stake is the following: do air force regulations (government law) overrule the religious dictates of judaism (wearing the yarmulke)? From an accomodationist perspective, the Supreme Court should have ruled that the religious practice should be accomodated as long as it does not interfere with the religious practices of others. There is a clear difference between the accomodation principle and separation principle.
blueberry_crepe forfeited this round.
I will extend my arguments, as my opponent forfeited the previous round.
2) I never said marriage should be a religious institution; I only said that the origin of marriage is in religion. I said: "his same kind of symbolism could be created from a personal contract or an arbitrary religious/secular ceremony devoid of government intervention." My use of the word "secular" shows that I extend marriage to non-religious purposes. I am not arguing that marriage should be privatized because because it is a religious institutions; secular and legal institution is not synonymous with government institution.
3) Ahhh, I understand the confusion now. Ok, I think ideally that the State's definition of marriage should diverge from say a Christian's definition. So a real life application of this idealism would be: A gay couple gets married, but a Christian says, "oh well under my definition of marriage, their State marriage isn't a real marriage. Therefore, I don't really care if they get "married."" However, as contemporary events show, this is not the case. Christians still equate State marriages with religious marriages. In order to break this arbitrary connection, the State should either rename their sactioned-marriages to some other term, or abolish marriage altogether. The reason that abolishing marriage is preferable to changing the name is that the State doesn't benefit from issuing marriages (which I've argued for in other parts of my argument).
4) Yes, I agree that child-rearing is in the interest of the State. However, the State doesn't require a couple to have children before they get benefits. Wouldn't it be better if the State only assisted both married couples and non-married couples who have children, since they actually contribute to society in a familial way?
5) Your first position seems to be based on preference. You say the argument is about what should be, not what could be. Well, I think marriage SHOULD function without government intervention. You argue that the government has a stake in marriages. Well, my #4 disproves that. Then you mention social stability; what evidence is there that married couples provide social stability as opposed to non-married couples?
Next you say that I said that divorce shows that marriage is not a symbol of commitment. I didn't say divorce makes it not a symbol, but that divorce shows that marriage isn't really a commitment. Symbolically, it is, but the reality shows that it is not, so why allow people to continue living this false hope?
6) Again, where is the evidence that marriage creates social stability. Furthermore, the government could signal their interest in other, more efficient ways. For example, instead of granting tax-breaks to married couples, which might or might not be used to help that family raise children, the government could just grant tax-breaks to mothers. Or the government could employ progressive tax policies or provide socialized medicine.
7) You essentially argue that government sanctioned-marriages are socialist policies, so if I want socialist policies, I should advocate marriage. I don't see the connection in this argument; marriage isn't a socialist policy...Tax-benefits for marriage help a great deal of people who aren't having kids, and thus not contributing to society. On the other hand, things like socialized medicine would help all sick people.
8) You claim that that: "Privatizing marriage is the equivalent of imposing a legal disability on everyone, as it prevents people from accessing the legal benefits that make marriage a valuable institution in the first place." This statement is false because of two things:
a) since you say that the legal benefits is what makes marriage valuable in the first place, then you are stripping marriage of any romantic symbolism, for the intent of marraige becomes practical, not ideal. Thus, State-marriages are bad since it eliminates romanticism.
b) Marriage isn't valuable because of legal benefits; marriage existed long before the State was involved.
9) Well, if the State didn't issue marriages, then what would gays be fighting for? Conservatives will argue against religious same-sex marraiges, but gays never demanded this in the first place; also religion doesn't conform to the same rules as democracy, but follow religious texts that can't be deviated from.
10) You are right; I misspoke. What I mean to say is that religious conservatives are more likely to resort to what anthropologist call "secondary elaboration," in which once their worldview is shown to be false, they rationalize it to make it true. This is opposed to those who follow science, where once a science discovery disproves another one, they follow the new study (of course there are exceptions). And let it be noted that I'm not saying one approach or the other is better.
11) I disagree; I think marriage represents a spiritual connection between two individuals that should be devoid of practical rewards. That is, marriage is a unity of two elements of the whole: the male and the female. I feel like our differences here can't be debated. This may also be the root of our disagreement.
12) Oh, well I guess i defined separation of church and state as what you called the accomodation approach. Because in the example you showed me, I think the Supreme Court was wrong in that it prohibited a religious law, thus showing that they are involved in religion. I agree with your accomodation thing, though I simply call that approach seperation of church and state.
1) The resolution of the debate - marriage should be privatized - does not imply or require the separation of church and state as a condition for acceptance. As such, it is a debatable premise.
2) My opponent concedes that marriage should be secular. My opponent's premise (the separation of church and state) is thus irrelevant, as the point of invoking the separation of church and state in the first place was to establish a separation between a religious institution (marriage) and the state.
3) My opponent falsely claims the state doesn't benefit from issuing government-sanctioned marriage contracts. My opponent is well-aware of the legal benefits granted by marriage, so let me go through a list of extra-legal benefits established by marriage:
4) The benefits of marriage produce a more stable household. This is why marriage is the best framework for child-rearing, which my opponent has conceded is a legitimate state-interest. The state thus clearly has an interest in giving its citizens marriage contracts, as marriage produces benefits that coincide with the interests of the state, including physical and pyschological health, prosperity, and a more stable and nurting household for child-rearing.
5) Other studies have shown that marriage reduces crime, increases social stability, and reduces antisocial behavior such as drug use .
6) My opponent suggests two alternatives to marriage: to provide tax-breaks solely to mothers, or to provide socialized medicine. Socializing medicine would not lead to any of the above-mentioned benefits save for increased physical healthy. As for providing tax-breaks to mothers, that would be sexist, as it completely excludes fathers from the child-rearing process. My opponent is, at least in effect, arguing for a patriarchal, male-dominated society. Government-sanctioned marriage contracts seems far more practical, as well as better for the perpetuation of a society that values equality among men and women.
7) My opponent continues to insist that marriage should be privatized so that the government can have the justification to socialize. The logic here is bizarre and contradictory. It creates more social programs, and uses the abolition of marriage as a justification for these programs. Why not preserve or reform state-sanctioned marriage, since it obviously fulfills the legal and social role of all the programs my opponent advocates in the place of marriage?
8) My opponent claims that state marriages strip marriage of "romanticism." According to the studies I cite, married couples report greater sexual satisfaction. This is evidence that, if anything, marriage is more romantic than not. In fact, historically, socially, and culturally, marriage is an institution that is considered extremely romantic. A quick look at most of the romantic books (Jane Austen, for example) and movies feature marriage as a romantic institution.
9) My opponent claims marriage isn't valuable because of it's legal benefits. I disagree, the legal benefits of marriage are valuable, as they provide a better environment for raising children, they help young people settle down in stable relationships, and they provide as many people as possible (through the context of a legally-binding family) with caregivers. The legal benefits are enormously valuable.
10) My opponent claims that marriage is a spiritual connection. I agree, but notice that people can have a spiritual connection without marriage. Marriage embodies this spiritual connection publically, so that it can be communicated and signalled to the larger community. This is a valuable social function of marriage, as it allows a couple to establish its spiritual connection and signal it to the public sphere. If the spiritual connection remained fully private, it would invite romantic advances from strangers and would pose constant threats to the connection. I argue that being able to signal a spiritual connection publically is a benefit of marriage that is valued by the government and is, a such, yet another reason for the government to give out marriage contracts.
 Christopher F. Scott and Susan Sprecher, “Sexuality in Marriage, Dating, and Other Relationships: A Decade Review,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 62, No. 4 (November 2000), pp. 999–1017.
 Allan V. Horwitz, Helene R. White, and Sandra Howell-White,“Becoming Married and Mental Health: A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Young Adults,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 58(November 1996), pp. 895–907.
 Corey L. M. Keyes, “Social Civility in the United States,” Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 72, No. 3 (2002), pp. 393–408.
 Thomas A. Hirschl, Joyce Altobelli, and Mark R. Rank, “Does Marriage Increase the Odds of Affluence? Exploring the Life Course Probabilities,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 65, No. 4(November 2003), pp. 927–938.
 Scott J. South and Kyle D. Crowder, “Escaping Distressed Neighborhoods: Individual, Community, and Metropolitan Influences,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 102, No. 4 (January1997), pp. 1040–1084.
 Kate Antonovics and Robert Town, “Are All the Good Men Married? Uncovering the Sources of the Marital Wage Premium,” American Economic Review, Vol. 94 (May 2004), pp. 317–321.
 Stephanie A. Bond Huie, Robert A. Hummer, and Richard G. Rogers,“Individual and Contextual Risks of Death among Race and Ethnic Groups in the United States,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior,Vol. 43 (2002), pp. 359–381.
blueberry_crepe forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.