The Instigator
bsergent
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
Fenrir
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Monogamy is generally bad.

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,898 times Debate No: 620
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (17)

 

bsergent

Pro

First of all let me state right from the beginning that I don't expect to lose or win the debate because of my skills or lack of them. I expect to lose or win this debate because people will not read the debate unless they have no opinion on the subject.

I will lose or win this debate because when we reach the voting stage, people will choose whomever represents the side they already agreed with. That being said let me make another qualification.

This debate will not be my last, it is merely my first. I intend to start separate debates for each and every entry on the list I'm about to publish. Please try to refrain from making this debate about any single part of the list.

I assure you, you'll have a chance to go specific on me. This debate is about the general impact of monogamy.

Monogamy, as opposed to polygamy in my opinion is/does or contributes to…
•Child abuse
•Corporate greed
•Cruelty
•Degrades men and women
•Forces needless sometimes lethal competition
•Domestic violence
•Encourages pettiness and vindictiveness
•Environmental abuse
•Formation of enemies, Termination of friendships
•Increases net global suffering
•Neuroses
•Pedophilia
•Political Apathy
•Racism
•Reduces innovation
•Religious corruption
•School shootings
•Social apathy
•Subpar education
•War

And to repost the guts of a debate i won only because the opponnent user closed his account...

Polygamy is illegal only because it is a threat to primarily negative aspects of government, religion, and commerce.

The idea that love is given to a person in unlimited amount for family, country, children, and ideals, but in extremely finite supply for lovers and potential mates, is sold to the American and, any other susceptible public, for reasons of profit, and control.

Monogamy is the tool of choice for dividing a population into its smallest productive parts while keeping them from really knowing each other and thus at each other's throats. Monogamy is the wall built around the human intimacy which allows one to see their fellow humans and citizens as "them" and not "us". It is used to keep us distracted, complacent, and sad, such that we will be less resistant and more agreeable.

Virtually all American social evils can be attributed at least in part, directly or indirectly, to the practice of restricting one's choice of mate to a single individual, from such personal horrors as domestic abuse for both spouses and children, to vague social issues such as general political apathy and obesity.

Every aspect of society that would benefit from increased intimacy among the population (true intimacy, closeness, and empathy, not excluding, but not limited to, sexual intimacy) would be served by groups of socially tolerated polygamists better than disparate binary monogamous units. Groups of people connected and united by polygamous families would serve as a much needed social counterpoint to corporations, churches, and government agencies, which currently amount for nearly all tasked human groups.

Thank you for your time and sincere effort.

If I do win, I want to earn it.
Fenrir

Con

First, I will say that I will not address the moral aspect of polygamy, and encourage others not to mention it in their comments in this debate. I believe the morality of polygamy is entirely irrelevant to this debate and has no bearing in the nature of argument the instigator has made. So, please, if you want to discus the moral implications of polygamy, do it somewhere else.

I will begin by conceding that, intrinsically, polygamy is not a bad thing. However, I also believe that communism is not intrinsically bad thing, either. For polygamy, as communism, the problem lies in the application thereof. I believe that human nature is what corrupts it, if you will, polygamy, and that ultimately its practice would cause more harm than good.

One of the significant problems with polygamy I believe would be jealousy among partners. Of course, one could argue that polygamy would eliminate competition by allowing one person to be with multiple people, and thus not have conficts of this sort. However, I'm not sure how realistic this would be. I know that a lot of people, instinctively, would not want to be one of many for their partner. In my relationships, certainly, I know I would have a problem if my girlfriend was not happy with just me, and wanted another guy in addition. And while this may not necessarily mean that I--or anyone else in this situation--am not "adequate" for her, it could easily be taken that way. Or, even if on feels initially complacent in a polygamous relationship, I don't doubt feelings of competition may arise to try and be the "favorite" partner.

Now, I'll make a point to study up on polygamy in various cultures during the course of this debate, so as to obtain as much of a well-rounded knowledge on the subject as I can, but for now I will reference the polygamist culture I am most familiar with, and one certainly riddled with problems--Fundamentalst Mormons.

I know this is a rather dramatic example, but it still does illustrate problems that may arise from polygamy. One of the problems is a mathematical one: roughly an equal number of boys and girls are born, yet most polygamist cultures would involve one man with multiple wives. Of course polygamy can also be one women with multiple men, but for two reasons I believe one can assert that most likely it would be the other wy around. First, according to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies detailes, only four were polyandrous. Second, even if polygamy was to be applied nowadays, one cannot deny that, typically, it is more socially acceptable for a man to be with multiple women than one woman with multiple men.

So, this would ultimately lead to too many men and not enough women to marry. Among the Fundamentalist Mormons (FLDS), this leads to frequent banishment of men and boys to allow more women to be available for the other men. If a married man is banished, his wives will then be assigned to others. About 100 boys are driven out of the Colorado City and Hilldale areas, which are the predominant areas the FLDS line in, often for "crimes" such as listening to CD's or wearing short-sleeve shirts.

Again, I know this is definitely a dramatic example, and not one that is representative of what happens in every polygamist society. Still, it is an actual example, and not just a hypothetical speculation.
Debate Round No. 1
bsergent

Pro

"I believe that human nature is what corrupts it, if you will, polygamy, and that ultimately its practice would cause more harm than good."

Hmmm. Am I to understand then that you're going to lay the evils of any institution at the feet of human nature and leave the institution itself unscathed? Surly not. Human nature isn't at issue so much as our honesty with regard to it. I'm content with my nature, this is a door to millions of other issues. I'll try not to bring them up here.

Further, how do you define harm? I take a rather broad view. Harm is pain of any sort that could have been prevented or can be removed. Given our level of intellectual advancement this is a wide net indeed.

"I know that a lot of people, instinctively, would not want to be one of many for their partner."

I think you're confusing instinct with learned response. There are many anthropological studies that shed light on the nature of base human mating behaviors and very rarely are they truly monogamous. Genetically, and instinctually, the consensus appears to be that we are polygamous by nature, or serial monogamists at most, which to me is merely a dishonest form of polygamy.

"In my relationships, certainly, I know I would have a problem if my girlfriend was not happy with just me, and wanted another guy in addition."

I think that attitude again is a learned insecurity and stems from potential loss. I.E. You are afraid that the other man do what you could not and convince her to be with just him. What if that was not the goal of either of you and you both knew it? This attitude is doomed from the start anyway as it's based on a lie, or at least a statistical near impossibility. Nothing is permanent. Including love. (this is part of another debate lol) In a mature society, one honest with itself about its nature and thus not sex obsessed, this insecurity would evaporate or be directed where it belongs, at the direct participants. This brings up an issue of responsibility.

We often blame outsiders for our own relationship ‘failures'. The idea of the ‘home wrecker' being a perfect example. Great studies have been done on who women typically blame when a relationship ‘fails' and the partner ‘cheats'. The majority of the time women blame outside women and men blame women as well lol. My theory is that women get the blame because they are the chooser sex, and they have the power, but this is also based on a lie because unless it was rape, it takes two to tango. But again, in a mature society, this would not occur as the dishonesty itself would be at issue, not merely the sexual act that signified it. I.E. "Why weren't you honest with me? Why didn't you tell me you had desires for this woman?" That question cannot occur in our society, because an honest answer or solution is punished. In fact its clich´┐Ż for a woman to say "You can be honest, do you think she's pretty?" and then punish the poor sap for believing her.

I simply advocate the dissolution of barriers, and while I may personally be polygamous by nature, I am not trying to force others to join me, because I feel I don't have to. If they had the free option I think by and larger they would side with me by choice. Thus, allowing for that option is my goal.

"I don't doubt feelings of competition may arise to try and be the "favorite" partner."

Yes but in a polygamous society (of the type I'm advocating) this would not have the devastating emotional consequences it does in a monogamous society and thus the reaction to it would be mellowed accordingly. Further, while the formation of a favorite may be possible it is far more probable that favorites in given areas would develop instead. I.E. "This one is my favorite lover, and this one is my favorite conversationalist." etc. This in fact would help in making the persons feel special instead of valueless. "Look at all the people who love me for who I am." Instead of "Out of 6.6 billion people, you alone love me."

Any rational person realizes that there is statistically always going to be someone ‘better' than you at any given category. (1 in 6.6 bill odds) This attitude that you can be a person's favorite in ANY field is absurd, let alone the infinitely more insane idea that you can be in ALL fields. Again the problem is not polygamy, but the stubborn refusal of the culture to face facts due to a lie being sold to us from the start. ( For reasons of raw greed. ) In this case that lie being the "one perfect mate" theory. In reality, we all settle, largely to avoid the stigma of being ‘not good enough for anyone'. And we will continue to do so until we learn to share, or fabricate our mates to specification from scratch.

"Now, I'll make a point to study up on polygamy in various cultures during the course of this debate.."

That's awesome and I encourage and congratulate you for doing so, however, I want it clear that I am advocating a wholly new form, and it has not been tried in history because no culture has been mature enough to try it, much like my direct democracy governmental model. But of course you may find general flaws to the freedom I'm suggesting, and I'm willing to hear them if you do.

"…typically, it is more socially acceptable for a man to be with multiple women than one woman with multiple men."

Social acceptance (or rejection) is the issue exactly. I plan to approach this as the abolitionists approached slavery. I will annihilate my enemy with patience, human nature, and education. For one, I'm advocating that humans be allowed to marry/date/sleep with any human capable of consent that will have them. I'm not going to discriminate along gender or sexual lines at all. I want the word "s*ut" or at least its negative connotations, banished from the language. Being free to enjoy sex to me is a human right.

"So, this would ultimately lead to too many men and not enough women to marry. Among the Fundamentalist Mormons (FLDS), this leads to frequent banishment of men and boys to allow more women to be available for the other men."

This is a problem with polygyny, not polygamy. In fact the Mormon version of polygamy is worse than monogamy on every front except perhaps the adolescent male, harem fantasy, one. So just to be clear, if you persist in attacking polygyny I'm going to cry straw man. :)

Thank you for a well thought out response, this is priceless to me.
Fenrir

Con

So, a lot of your argument is that monogamy is something imposed by institutions and that it keeps us "sad" and "at each other's throats."

First, you make it sound as though monogamy is something currently, continually, and deliberately reinforced by institutions with the specific intent of controlling us. I see this as a considerable stretch. For one, being in a monogamous relationship does not keep us isolated from others. While it may restrict sexual intimacy to a significant degree, sexuality is not the only way we may beome close with others. Marriage is not an isolation or a cage. Yes, those in a relationship may initially recede a bit as they become more involved with each other, but this is typically just a phase that passes with the fading of standard romantic infatuation.
Now, to deal with those domineering institutions. For now, unless you want to introduce others, I will divide institutions into two groups: government and religion. The government does not restrict polygamy in any sense except for marriage, but marriage is truly more of a religious aspect than governmental. And while religion--especially Judeo-Christianity--is opposed to polygamy, this is for moral reasons, as opposed to controlling.

Looking over your argument, you also seem to deal a lot with a very hypothetical, "mature society." However, I don't think you need to be an angsty emo kid to claim that our society is anything but. Creating an ideal polygamist society would require a significant exclusion of most people. You say that you while "annihilate [your] enemy with patience, human nature, and education." Personally, I don't think people will be able to be educated into supporting polygamy, especially not the stubborn religious folk. All of this just seems, to me, to be too hypothetical.

Most importantly to me, I want to address the "Mormon version of polygamy." What I was discussing was not Mormon polygamy, it was Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy. Trust me, the one word makes a huge difference, and I would prefer that the two terms are not used interchangeably.

And, just in my defense, my attack of strictly polygyny was reserved just for that first argument, and I did give a sound explanation for why I was focusing on that at that point.

Lastly, I would just ask that you expound a bit on your claims of the evils monogamy leads to. While I certainly do believe that you have sound reasoning, I am not sure exactly what it is, and this makes it somewhat hard for me to refute.
Debate Round No. 2
bsergent

Pro

"For one, being in a monogamous relationship does not keep us isolated from others."

Yes it does, it institutes a whole range of new rules and restrictions imposed on every facet of social life. It becomes like being on a Disney show, suddenly you have to make sure everything you say is ok. For example. Let's say you want to have a conversation about men and women. If you talk to a single man or woman you are much more free in terms of what you can acceptably say. But if you talk to a married couple each is going to consider what the other wants to hear, and the typical result is lies or exaggeration. This is so obvious to me I'm having trouble coming up with defenses. Married couples are totally different than singles. They are absolutely more distant and restricted. Hell they even require different seating when you entertain. You claim that nothing changes is absurd to me in the extreme and I'm at a loss.

"The government does not restrict polygamy in any sense except for marriage, but marriage is truly more of a religious aspect than governmental."

Except that polygamy is a crime. And monogamy is a tax break. Power over subsistence is power over the will. You may not have poor friends but I do, and I know at least one couple personally that got married primarily for the tax break.

"And while religion--especially Judeo-Christianity--is opposed to polygamy, this is for moral reasons, as opposed to controlling."

Heh. Moral reasoning *is* control. Morality is a list of rules, how is a list of rules not control? Especially considering that these rules arbitrarily change depending on political climate.

"Creating an ideal polygamist society would require a significant exclusion of most people."

Explain to me how merely lifting a prohibition forcibly excludes people.

"Personally, I don't think people will be able to be educated into supporting polygamy, especially not the stubborn religious folk."

I agree 100%, I'm not fool enough to think conversion occurs because of reason, or is even practically possible. I'm not debating for the existing people. I'm establishing argument for the next generation. I simply want to give them the option. Human nature will take care of the rest, as I explained before. Don't straw man me, be sure you know what my position is before you attack it. Assumption is not a good thing to do with regard to my views.

"Lastly, I would just ask that you expound a bit on your claims of the evils monogamy leads to."

I have a 2 blogs and a book on the subject. What would you like em to do, go down my initial list and explain them all? I assume yes, so here we go, this will be the extremely short version.

• Child abuse: Monogamy contributes to child abuse from many different directions. 1. Low number of parent means low number of watchers, this opens the door to both intimidation and stealth supported abuse. The first step in abuse is isolation. The more people in the child's life that are intimately connected (intimacy does not mean sexuality, get that clear please) the more potential defenders a child has. It also makes some people feel as though they are trapped and have no choices, many women allow men to abuse their children because they feel they are worthless without a man, or they are afraid of the one man they can find.

• Corporate greed: Monogamy allows you to sell products dozens of times, and discourages sharing. The sexual tension caused by monogamy's monopoly, allows corporate interest to use sex to sell everything. You show me a single advertising campaign and I can find for you some reliance on monogamy to sell the product.

• Cruelty: Monogamy gets women used to the idea that they are withholding something free to them that could make other people happy for the express purpose of self interest, and it gets men used to destroying other men for the same reason, "All's fair in love and war."

• Degrades men and women: Men are reduced to income and definition, women are reduced to cup size and "vital statistics" which really aren't vital.

• Forces needless sometimes lethal competition: how many men and women have died as a result of murder over domestic issues, how many people have died as a result of greed that is ultimately inspired by competition for mates? If you can't see the link between girls and money and greed, I don't know where to begin.

• Domestic violence: As explained before, in limiting the family unit to its smallest possible number you encourage the isolation that breeds abuse.

• Encourages pettiness and vindictiveness: In demanding that one person embody everything you'll ever want out of a mate, tiny worthless matters become over inflated. Like say the position of the toilet seat. Sometimes these matters get so blown out of proportion they trigger domestic violence.

• Environmental abuse: In being totally distracted by the quest for money/sex attention towards things of vital importance like the health of our life support systems is totally over looked.

• Formation of enemies, Termination of friendships: Self explanatory.

• Increases net global suffering: Via the points above.

• Neuroses: Again, isolation breeds problems.

• Pedophilia: In the quest to appear ever more sexy to lure an ever more powerful handsome and affluent mate, emphasis on youth has steadily increased. This coupled with the greed inspired by monogamy encourages men to seek younger and younger mates. If I'm gunna be stuck with one and only one my whole life for reason of sex since I can't just go buy sex when I need it I'm forced to play this BS game I might as well make sure I get one as hot as I can find that will be hot for as long as I can manage. This is why we have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the world. Not so in Japan where you can go buy sex with your lunch. This I have volumes on.

• Political Apathy: again, total focus on the mate race, and concern for what your girlfriend thinks makes one totally ignore the outside world. Maslow has shown clearly that one cannot be concerned with higher issues until base animal needs are met, sex being so controlled keeps people from looking beyond their own doorstep.

• Racism: Again the social isolation implicit causes one to rank and stratify everything as either a potential tool, or a potential competitor. Just look at the stereotypes and their obvious sexual nature.

• Reduces innovation: By keeping us isolated and focused on our genitals we fail to exchange ideas as efficiently as we could. Also we go for the money/sex, instead of the knowledge. I have several chapters devoted to this in my book.

• Religious corruption: The pope usta sell sexual indulgences, and de sade very bluntly pointed out the real purpose of convents.

• School shootings: Rank wars over who gets the girl are what cause 99% of bullying, which in turn causes school shootings. I've had 4 broken bones, 3 occurred at school, I know all about this one.

• Social apathy: via the conditions above.

• Subpar education: Via the rampant sexual distraction.

• War: Via the macroscopic consequences of these small scale problems.

Each of these is a potential debate. And I'm happy to have them in due course. Please do not try to pick one, or answer them. I will simply not have room to reply.

P.S. I agree with your comment. The addition of the option of Polygamy being good is equal to monogamy being bad for purposes of debate. I should have added the word enforced, or monopoly to my original argument.

P.P.S. Monogamy is basically based on surrender to the edicts of jealousy. Why choose to surrender?

P.P.P.S. I had to trim each one to come in under the limit. Please don't attack them as if they were my definitive arguments, that would be cheating.
Fenrir

Con

"You claim that nothing changes is absurd to me in the extreme and I'm at a loss."

Indeed, it would be entirely absurd to make the claim that when one enters into a monogamous relationship (or any relationship, in fact) that nothing that changes. Fortunately for my defense, this is not the claim that I made. I simply stated that "being in a monogamous relationship does not keep us isolated from others." And, to be fair, I even conceded to the fact that oftentimes, especially in the beginning of a relationship, a couple may withdraw a bit and become more isolated, as you put it.

"Except that polygamy is a crime."

Again, polygamy is only a crime in the marital sense. There is no legal punishment for someone being involved with multiple partners, so long as they are not married.

"Explain to me how merely lifting a prohibition forcibly excludes people."

Lifting the prohibition against polygamy itself would not in itself require exclusion, but to ensure an ideal society, such as the one you are describing, it's hard to believe that simply anyone, in any ideal society, would be able to be involved without conflict.

Now, this is perhaps a key point for me:
As I expected, your arguments about the potential dangers of monogamy are indeed sound. However, it is far from the case that any of these will necessarily happen in a monogamous relationship. Certainly one could list all of the evils that may and do come from polygamy, yet this does not mean that they will happen in an intelligent society, especially the type such as you are describing. As such, I believe one could apply the same to monogamy. You speak of re-education the public—I do not think they need to be taught against monogamy as much as the additional behavioral issues that are not controlled: violence, abuse, etc.
Debate Round No. 3
bsergent

Pro

"…this is not the claim that I made."

Indeed, my apologies, I must have been confusing you with someone else.

"There is no legal punishment for someone being involved with multiple partners, so long as they are not married."

Kind of like there is no legal punishment for being gay so long as they are not married? Your point sounds overly apologetic to me. For many people the logical conclusion to love is marriage, to outlaw that conclusion is as invasive as outlawing sex. Marriage is a deeply personal thing and the state should stay the hell out. All the same arguments that can be used to defend mixed race marriages and gay marriage can be used to defend polygamous marriage. Mixed race dating was never officially illegal to my knowledge either but they found a way to suppress it.

I want attacking the mere option to be seen for what it is, a form of bigotry.

"I do not think they need to be taught against monogamy as much as the additional behavioral issues that are not controlled: violence, abuse, etc."

The attitudes caused by monogamy give birth to these forms of violence and abuse. What you are suggesting is like saying that national socialism isn't the problem, racism is, when in the relevant context, one caused the other.

You're advocating the treatment of the symptoms, I'm advocating the treat me of one of the causes. This approach will not cure the condition, which is why social program aimed at them (anti violence anti domestic abuse etc) are money pits with no appreciable effect.

I'm not saying close all battered women's shelters I'm just saying that in addition to a symptomatic approach we must look for a causal one as well. And maybe eventually we won't need them anymore.

Monogamy and it's mother Puritanism, actually gave birth to serial killers and sex crime. It is not argued that serial murder for sexual reasons is a relatively recent phenomenon. If you seriously want to end half these problems and a whole slew of other legalize and deregulate prostitution. Criminalize the sale of sex when you have an std of course, but otherwise stay the hell out of it.

And I gotta say, the debate is not polygamy is good, the debate is monogamy is bad, I know one is a direct result of the other, but still...

"As I expected, your arguments about the potential dangers of monogamy are indeed sound."

...should be the death knell of your whole point.
Fenrir

Con

Perhaps it is indeed true that the government should not have laws againt the practicing of polygamy. However, this was not the point I was trying to make, and as it does not deal directly with the main argument, I will address it as quickly as I can. My point was not of whether or not it was right for the government to do so, but that their influence by doing so was, wrong or right, not overly oppressive or controlling.

As for all these negative effects being scions of monogamy, one could argue that polygamous or open relationships are the causes of many of our social ills. Because a significant cause of people being involved in open relationships is preganancies and, thus--in that there is no specific tie for the father and mother--resulting in many fatherless homes, as the mother is stuck to rear the children. This is something which has been proven again and again to provide unstable environment for children, and has also been proven to have a direct tie to significantly increased crime levels.

Of course, your argument for a more educated society would seem to prevent something such as this. However, if we will deal with hypotheticals, it is equally fair to suppose that proper education about monogamy etc. would also prevent many of the problems we see now. It cannot be denied that if every person entered into a sound, lasting relationship then many of these problems of crime, in which -polygamy- is the cause, would be done away with.

This in turn creates a defense for my point that your arguments are sound: while they may indeed point to logical conclusions, we cannot deny either that polygamy poses similar threats as I have just described.
Debate Round No. 4
bsergent

Pro

"However, if we will deal with hypotheticals, it is equally fair to suppose that proper education about monogamy etc. would also prevent many of the problems we see now."

True.

"…one could argue that polygamous or open relationships are the causes of many of our social ills."

And one could argue the earth is 6000 years old and every species lived within walking/swimming/flying distance of Noah's boat, but one has to abandon certain elements of logic. But this is a false dichotomy because my argument against monogamy is reasoned. Since deregulation of mating plus has never been tried, which is what I mean when I suggest the option of polygamy, no argument can be made about what crimes it has caused, only what crimes it could maybe cause.

"We cannot deny either that polygamy poses similar threats as I have just described."

I can , and do.

Monogamy is a systematic submission to general jealousy. And most anytime one submits to a negative emotion, there is a negative result. Monogamy is the idea that jealousy is ok and we should do what it says. That's bad.

You're going to have to show that monogamy is not what I've just described, or show that jealousy is a good thing generally. And that's just the core point, there are hordes of others, stemming from my list.
Fenrir

Con

Fenrir forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bsergent 6 years ago
bsergent
Well actually I've started every debate I've been a part of here, I think, and it would be nice not to have to come up with an opening argument.

How about you make a debate about monogamy causing child abuse and take the con position and invite me?
Posted by bella214 6 years ago
bella214
I did not vote based on that premise. Actually my vote was premature. I am torn as to which way to vote. While I agree that monogamy itself can create alot of things, child abuse is not one of them. One could argue that blaming monogamy for so many things is allowing people to be unaccountable for thier own actions, by introducing a "reason" for them to behave they way they do.
Posted by bella214 6 years ago
bella214
Sure. Shall we? I am new to the site, so you can you start the ball rolling :0)
Posted by bsergent 6 years ago
bsergent
Hey bella want to debate that specifically?
Posted by Yrael 6 years ago
Yrael
Wow this debate was very neat. Your views on love and relationships remind me very strongly of C.S Lewis.

I personally believe that monogamous relationships were created by the church and reinforced by the state as influenced by the church. And yes I feel human nature leans more towards a polygamous spectrum, to say that there is only one person out their that one could ever love is horrifyingly Disney idealism.

But my opinion doesn't matter when judging a debate round, judging is not some random poll as you said it is who I feel has done the better job of refuting arguments and proving their point. Thus I must give Pro side the vote as I feel the Neg has strayed from the resolution and his ideas on polygamy hold no bearing on this round.

By the way Bella..... Firstly I would argue that whether you believe monogamy can cause child abuse or not you must still concede the fact that if there are more people in the relationship then there is a higher likely hood that should child abuse occur someone will report it. Secondly I really hope you didn't vote based off of that premise....
Posted by bella214 6 years ago
bella214
I am having a hard time beliveing that anyone can even think that Child Abuse can be the result of monogamy. Thats outrageous!
Posted by kvaughan 6 years ago
kvaughan
bsergent: this is a really interesting topic and I would love to debate you on it if you want a redo.
Posted by Fenrir 6 years ago
Fenrir
What!? I didn't post within the allotted time? That's crap. It said I had half an hour left, and it only took me about ten minutes to write my finishing argument. There's no reason it would have been late, unless the timer was off. Tch...
Posted by kels1123 6 years ago
kels1123
bsergent, I am not telling you how to live , I personally do not care who you are with. Obviously the chances of STDs increases when the number of partners a person has increase. Thats not calling anyone dirty, thats common sense. I dont care if you get married or not, as for the tax break , the real tax break is actually when you have kids , thats where the money really comes in. Now you are the one that started this debate as monogamy is bad, you were the one stating that the way I live is bad. If you attack monogamy then people are going to question you. Now It would be a different story if you had said polygamy is good , you didn't you stated monogamy is bad. So therefore you brought up the way I live as do countless others so you are obviously opening yourself up for the same things in return.
Posted by bsergent 6 years ago
bsergent
"..you dont want to commit , dont. "

I'm required to. The tax break for married couples forces me economically to desire marriage which in turn forces me to accept monogamy.

I should not have to pay more taxes for being polygamous. I should be allowed to marry whomever will marry me. If they don't like my views then they can reject my proposal. This is a basic civil rights issue.

I am not telling you how to live, I am telling you how I want to live and how your society won't let me because of people like you telling me how I should live and what I should want with no reason behind the advice what so ever.

You simply cannot argue for the lack of this freedom without using bigoted arguments. Are you ok with that?

Your questions merely illustrate the problems with state involvement in marriage in general, and basic human responsibility, not polygamy in and of itself.

STDs don't care if their victim is married. You realize that you basically just called me and those like me dirty and disease spreading, right? I don't think you meant to, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you should be aware that you did it.

If you're too stupid to practice safe sex, a tax break and a marriage license isn't going to change that.

I'm happy your happy but you have no right to tell me how to live until how I live directly hurts how you live. Stop stepping on my toes.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TonyX311 6 years ago
TonyX311
bsergentFenrirTied
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 
Vote Placed by mrmazoo 6 years ago
mrmazoo
bsergentFenrirTied
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 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 6 years ago
blond_guy
bsergentFenrirTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by solo 6 years ago
solo
bsergentFenrirTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Fenrir 6 years ago
Fenrir
bsergentFenrirTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Vlast 6 years ago
Vlast
bsergentFenrirTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by emchie 6 years ago
emchie
bsergentFenrirTied
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 
Vote Placed by kylenovak 6 years ago
kylenovak
bsergentFenrirTied
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 
Vote Placed by bsergent 6 years ago
bsergent
bsergentFenrirTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by liberalady 6 years ago
liberalady
bsergentFenrirTied
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