The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

No Fault Divorce means there are no legal Marriages

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 414 times Debate No: 62531
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




The Pro position, (mine) is that if a contract entered into by two parties can be nullified at anytime for any reason or for no reason at all by either party at anytime-

That contract is meaningless. It is not worth the paper it is written on. Furthermore, since the marriage contract is the basic building block on which government is based then there are no contracts of any real value. Even the Constitution of the United States is a worthless contract if there is No Fault Divorce.


I would posit that the contract is not meaningless if it has value to those who sign it. Marriage is still viewed as a big commitment by society, regardless of the actual ramifications of the contract signed. It also signifies a level of effort put towards a relationship, and a point of progression in a relationship.

A useful analogy is when a person swears to God that they will/won't do something. To an atheist, this means nothing, as they don't believe God to be real, but to a religious community this means a lot, as they do believe God to be real.

I am unsure as to how you reached the conclusion that the marriage contract is the basic building block on which government is based (and further how that invalidates the entire constitution), however that is not relevant to the question being debated, and there is no point addressing it until it is actually applicable.
Debate Round No. 1


In the 'No Fault' situation it can be said simply that the marriage contract is voidable. The only difficulty in voiding the marriage contract would be the division of property, (here property means financial assets as well as human assets, with human assets meaning children if any). You see, Con can pretend that marriage is not the foundation upon which all and every society everywhere is built but when human assets are involved, i.e. children, then Con's position is nonsense. Children are the building blocks of the future. The union between a man and a woman is the way children are procreated. The union of the man and the woman that leads to the procreation of children is by definition- Marriage.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman that leads to children. If by chance there are no children produced that does not void the marriage contract in and of itself.

Homosexual marriage is a lie. It cannot lead to children, therefore it is not a marriage. (But if someone wishes to believe in a lie that is no big deal. It happens all the time. Entire societies have been built on lies. It is no big deal.)


I think perhaps you have mis-defined or mis-understood the point we are debating in the title upon reading your statements. The point being debated is "No Fault Divorce means there are no legal Marriages". In your opening statement you spoke of the meaning of marriage in the event of no fault divorce, not the legality, then concluded (irrelevantly) that marriage is " the basic building block on which government is based" and that the Constitution of the US was invalidated if there is no fault divorce. This argument was not related at all to the legality of no fault divorce and marriage, but I argued in my opening statement against it, thinking perhaps you had mis-defined the point. Upon reading your rebuttal I am forced to question what it is you want to debate about here, given the lack of connection between your title point, opening statement and rebuttal.

Please redefine the question more clearly and try to actually make relevant points, as I have now wasted my rebuttal outlining the irrelevance of both of your statements. Are you talking about legality, value or something else entirely?
Debate Round No. 2


Looking at the history of Dictatorships one cannot help but see that repression is a theme.

1 The Dictator represses freedom.
2 The Dictator represses the freedom of movement.
3 The Dictator represses the freedom of movement from one marriage to another marriage.

The Product of all these No Fault divorces are not obligated to continue the farce because the Product has rights. The Product of all these No Fault divorces has the right to remove the form of Government that enforces contracts that have no foundation. The Product has the right to do this through the installation of the Dictator.


I have no response. You poorly defined this argument, and seem to be focused on a completely unrelated topic. You have addressed none of my arguments and have argued not the point but a number of other irrelevant points. Voters, do not vote on this debate, it was rubbish.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate began with a very promising resolution but Pro descended into what I can only call gibberish. For this irrelevance, and for wasting Con's time (Con was clearly attempting to make sense of the nonsense in Pro's arguments) I award conduct to Con. Pro began talking about repression and dictatorships, which was weird. Also, Pro irrelevantly decided to deride homosexual marriage categorically, calling it an institution "based on lies". This was uncalled for, and this is part of why I award conduct to Con. Arguments of course to Con. Neither used sources. I wish both debaters luck in future debates.