The Instigator
ZenoCitium
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Polygamists should be granted the right to a civil union with rights similar to marriage

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 5 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,345 times Debate No: 59633
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (5)

 

ZenoCitium

Con

This is a continuation of a recent debate challenge that expired. I am arguing as CON,

The BOP will be shared: Con must prove why Polygamists shouldn't have the right to the legal entitlements that would accompany a civil union type arrangement. Pro will have to demonstrate why they should.

(note that no one is arguing in favour of extending the definition of marriage to Polygamists)

Accepted Definitions:
- "Civil Union Type Arrangement": A legally recognized form of partnership similar to marriage that grants the legal and social benefits of marriage to those partaking.

- Polygamy: The practice or custom of having more than one wife at the same time.

- 'Right': A legal entitlement.

Debating Platform
- Round 1: Acceptance
- Round 2: Pro argues, Con argues rebuts
- Round 3: Pro rebuts, Con rebuts. New arguments can also be introduced.
- Round 4: Pro's final rebuttas conclusion, Con's final rebuttas conclusion. No new arguments in this round.

Any variation from this platform by either party in the debate results in immediate forfeiture.

If you don't meet the acceptance criteria, make a comment and I'll extend the invitation to you.

Good luck to whomever accepts!
Debate Round No. 1
ZenoCitium

Con

Proposed Definitions (Wikipedia):
Legal Rights: Rights that are bestowed onto a person by a given legal system.
Natural Rights: Rights that are not contingent upon laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.

Premise 1: There is no natural right to have a polygamous civil union.
Premise 2: The disadvantages would far out way the advantages if the government were to grant this right legally.
Conclusion: Polygamists should not be granted the right to a civil union.

P1
There is no recognized civil or human right that gives a citizen the freedom to enter into a partnership, similar to marriage, with how ever many spouses that they wish. The sources searched are found in: [1][2][3]. In fact, both the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women have condemned polygamy because of their conviction that it discriminates against women. [4]

The first amendment of the U.S Constitution is limited and it cannot protect rights to polygamy based on religious duty. This was evident when it came before the U.S Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States. In this case the Supreme Court, quoting a document written by Thomas Jefferson, ruled "that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order". [5] In layman"s terms, freedom of religion protects a citizen's opinion but not their actions.

In actuality, polygamy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution as well as the U.S obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to "ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." [4] A husband is able to take as many wives as he wishes while the wife is limited to one husband.

P2
Whereas the right to a polygamous civil union is not a natural right, should it then be a legal right? The decision solely rests on the government to grant this right. To make this decision, we should measure the advantages against the disadvantages. I welcome my opponent to break out the advantages, but I could only list one: allowing religious groups to follow their charter and customs without interference from the government. However, the disadvantages are abundant. I"ll list them below (some disadvantages were established previously):

D1) Overturn established laws.
In order to do, the government would have to overturn the Morril Anti-Bigamy Act and the Edmunds Acts as well as countless court cases. [6]

D2) Violates civil rights.
A polygamous civil union would violate the Equal Protection Claus of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as established in P1.

D3) Dereliction of obligation to children.
A study completed by Dr. Henrich, an expert witness in the case against polygamy in the British Columbia Supreme Court, found that children were at a higher risk of having diminished nutritional status, poor health and mortality. One study found that when compared to monogamous households, children under age 10 in polygynous households were 7 to 11 times more likely to die. [7] This is a consequence of having married men remain continually in the marriage market, choosing to invest their resources in acquiring additional wives rather than investing in their children.

D4) Dereliction of obligation to wife.
Only a fraction of the husband's time and emotional attention are available to each wife and associated children since his resources are spread across several adult-child pairs. In addition to this, when death or divorce comes each wife gets a smaller portion of the estate than the typical succession when a man has only one wife.

D5) Increase in crime.
A similar study by Dr. Henrich found that marriage reduced a man's likelihood of committing a crime by 35%. The same study found that crimes rates not only decreased when those men were married, but increased when their marital status changed again. The rise in crime is a consequence of polygamy creating a pool of unmarried low-status men. Low-status men would find it difficult to acquire a wife and would be "incentivized to take substantial risks so they [could] eventually participate in the mating and marriage market."[7]

D6) Decrease in age of marriage, increase in age gap.
On the flipside, polygamy would also create an increase demand for brides. This would undoubtedly lead to a decreased age of marriage for women and an increased age gap between husbands and wives (even in monogamous marriages). [7]

In conclusion, it is rather obvious that the disadvantages in allowing polygamous civil unions far out-weigh the advantages. In fact, the government has already decided this partly in the Reynolds v. United States Supreme Court case. Therefore, this resolution should not pass.

[1] (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) http://www.un.org...
[2] (U.S Bill of Rights) http://www.archives.gov...
[3] (Civil Rights acts of 1866, 1871, 1875, 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1991)
http://www.ourdocuments.gov...
[4] http://www.americanbar.org...
[5] http://supreme.justia.com...
[6] http://memory.loc.gov...
[7] http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca...
Wylted

Pro

INTRODUCTION

My belief is that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. Marriages should be privatized and between individuals. Of course contracts could still come into play, if people wanted some legal protection for financial reasons and maybe a few other reasons that I haven't considered.

I want thank Con for instigating this debate and I look forward to offering some rebuttals my next round. I won't accept an extra round of rebuttals, in the name of fairness.

Also on another note. I keep experimenting with my debating style and exploring different arguments, because I'm more concerned about continual improvement than winning. I sincerely hope the readers and judges enjoy this debate, and give me feedback on the style change. The syllogisms aren't a part if the style change, but just there to help the argument flow better.

THE HIGHEST GOOD

P1- Freedom is the highest good.

P2- The governments primary concern should be the highest good.

C1- The government maximize freedom.

P3- Prohibiting polygamous equal rights restricts freedom.

C2- The government should allow polygamists equal rights.


This is a formal valid argument and my opponent must prove a premise unsound (untrue), in order to prove my argument wrong. If he doesn't do this my argument stands and I should either tie or win this debate.

DEFENSE OF P1

Freedom Is The Highest Good

It's no mystery that people love freedom. People have fought and died for freedom through out history, and when a revolution is fought the goal is typically to free it's people.

Governments and revolutionary leaders already know that people aren't willing to die for any other cause. We all innately know that freedom is the highest good. It's why all social engineers have to do is spin something as being for freedom and people will put their life's on the line to defend or take it.

The revolutionary war was for freedom from a tyrannical despotic government. The civil war was unquestionably about freedom. Both sides of that war would agree to that. All the communist revolutions used freedom as it's flag. People were tired of being slaves to the capitalistic system. Even the recent war with Iraq was spun to be about freedom. No other value has moved men so much.

Did you know it's something psychological studies have proven as well. http://m.psychologytoday.com...

Pretty much every study on the matter agrees. People value autonomy over everything. Unless we can prove an objective morality that extends outside of the minds or souls of man than we must conclude that freedom is the highest good.

Now for the purposes of this debate, I'm defining freedom as autonomy that doesn't come into interference with the autonomy of others. The purpose is because this is what the psychological studies, I've been looking at are ones that verify this is the highest form of good according to almost every individual.

DEFENSE OF P2

Role Of Government


The government is a tool of man. Created by man, for the purposes of man (or women). In a naturally arising form and not in the form of power hungry individuals it should exist to preserve freedom first and foremost and a far far 2nd should be security. Artificially creating equality other than in terms of equal rights of autonomy isn't what the purpose of government is or should be. Neither is social engineering for some imagined greater good.

That's where Republicans and Democrats primarily get it wrong. They are trying to use government for the greater good. It's not the greater good we should be focused on, but the greatest good. I know I just annoyed most of the voting pool, but that's cool. The voters on DDO are actually pretty good and get it right probably over 95% of the time.

DIALOGUE FOR C1

The Government Should Be Primarily Focused On Maximizing Freedom


If my premises are correct than my conclusion follows. The highest good is freedom, and the government is a tool of man for the purposes of man. I urge the voters to consider this for a while.

IN DEFENSE OF P3

Prohibiting Equal Marriage Rights, Prohibits Freedom


Autonomy being the greatest good, people should be allowed to marry as many people as they want. The government restricting the rights of polygamists and making them criminals quite obviously interferes with their freedom. P3 is pretty much self evident.

DIALOGUE ON C2

The Government Should Grant Polygamists Equal Rights


The conclusion naturally follows from the premises. The government restricting the freedom of Polygamists directly contradicts what the role of government is and should be. Anytime the government restricts equality of autonomy, they are acting in violation of their duties and intended role.

CONCLUSION

I'll move on to rebuttals in the next round. I'm trying to minimize the massive advantage a debate with what amounts to basically 2 rounds gives me. I'll try to keep counter rebuttals to a minimum, but won't promise anything. I advise my opponent to consider more rounds in future debates or at least immediately present arguments in R1. Even if he wins, I still encourage him to consider doing that.

Good luck Con, I anxiously await your rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
ZenoCitium

Con

Since this will be my final round, I will thank my opponent for an excellent debate and I look forward to future debates with him.

Preface:
My approach for this round will be, first, to offer my criticisms to Pro"s premises and conclusions and second to provide a preemptive defense of my original arguments for Pro"s future rebuttal.

Let"s keep in mind that Pro has defined freedom as "autonomy that doesn"t come into interference with the autonomy of others". Autonomy here, I believe, is defined as free from the influence of the others (specifically the government). Here is a summary of the syllogism my opponent presented in Round 2:

P1 " Autonomy is the highest good
P2 " The government"s primary concern should be the highest good
C1 " To provide the highest good, the government should maximize autonomy
P3 " Granting polygamists the right to a civil union with rights similar to marriage would be maximizing autonomy
C2 " The government should give the rights to a civil union to polygamists

Attack on P1, P2, and C1
I don"t necessarily agree with P1, P2 and C1, but for the purpose of my rebuttal I will not refute P1, P2 and C1. This will help keep the debate grounded to the resolution rather than straying off topic and debating the role of government.

Attack on P3
This is the key premise that ties my opponent"s views on the roles and responsibilities of government and his opposition to my resolution. It is the link between C1 and C2 and it has several fallacies.

I have shown in my Round 1 arguments several disadvantages with allowing polygamous civil unions. These disadvantages have advanced to Round 3 with no rebuttal or contradiction from Pro. Several of these disadvantages also influence the autonomy of others and therefore prevent the greatest good. Here are the effects on autonomy each disadvantage has:

D1) Overturn established laws.
There is no effect.

D2) Violates the Equal Protection Claus of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
There is no effect as long as Pro is arguing for group marriage instead of solely polygamy (allowing for equal rights to both women and men). This is conceivable since this would meet Pro"s argument for maximum freedom.

D3) Dereliction of obligation to children.
I"ve shown that polygamy is detrimental to children because it increases cases of malnutrition and unnatural death. This was the conclusion of Dr. Henrich during his testimony for the Canadian Supreme Court. [7] He found that unlike in monogamous families, polygynous households contained a father that was likely to expend resources to acquire additional wives rather than investing in his children. This was a consequence of having married men remain continually in the marriage market. If Pro is indeed arguing for group marriage, then we can deduce that allowing group marriage would actually increase the severity of this disadvantage since both the father and mother would remain in the marriage market. I hope I"m not setting up a straw man, but the truth is that either D2 has no effect and we can conclude the D3 is made worse or both D2 and D3 remain. Either way, this dereliction of children creates a strong influence on the autonomy of children since it would violate their right to life. Therefore, this is the first case where giving the freedom to "marry as many people as they want" would not constitute the "highest good".

D4) Dereliction of obligation to wife.
No obvious effect on autonomy.

D5) Increase in crime.
Dr. Henrich"s report also predicted an increase in crime based on the polygynous households that he studied. [7] An increase in crime would certainly influence the autonomy of others. Among other reasons, it would constitute an increase in attacks on a person"s right to life and property. It would also require an increase security from the government. This is another case where giving the freedom to "marry as many people as they want" would not constitute the "highest good".

D6) Decrease in age of marriage, increase in age gap.
No obvious effect on autonomy as long as age restrictions remained on civil unions to prevent harming children.

Keep in mind that I have not conceded any of the disadvantages of polygynous civil unions to Pro. In fact, every point I"ve made has progressed to the final round without remark. Instead, I have found that not every disadvantage I listed influences the autonomy of others. Several did, however, and looking back at this exercise we can see that the argument that Pro proposes fails. Granting polygamists the right to civil unions would not provide the "highest good" because as Pro defines the "highest good" as "autonomy that doesn"t come into interference with the autonomy of others", we clearly see that polygynous civil unions would interfere with the autonomy of others.

Coincidentally, Pro"s argument fails further when we look at its effect on my resolution. As my opponent has defined the "highest good" as maximum autonomy (from the government) we can conclude that the maximum autonomy would actually be no government involvement in the personal relationships of its citizens. This would dictate that the government would not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. [8] Therefore, my opponent is actually arguing against civil unions in general since civil unions are licensed by the state government. We can conclude that either pro supports my resolution or, in the very least, we can conclude that his arguments don"t pertain to this debate.

In defense of future rebuttal
Since this is my final round, I"d like to mention that the sources I"ve presented are extremely well established. This is especially the case in the testimony presented to the Canadian Supreme Court by Dr. Henrich, shown in [7]. There were several expert witnesses that supported the case against polygamy but Dr. Henrich"s report was the most conclusive. In fact, he completely devastated the opposing expert witness. In most cases, he reversed the opposing expert"s finding in support of his own. In the end, the ban on polygamy endured as the Supreme Court found in favor of those opposed to polygamy. I have confidence that the judges of this debate will reach the same decision.

[8] http://www.lp.org...
Wylted

Pro

I didn't realize this until just now, but my opponent is using a very narrow definition of the word polygamy. He is specifically using it to mean a man with several wives. Here is what the definition of polygamy is.

Polygamy- marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time.
http://i.word.com...

You can look at just about any dictionary and it will give you the same definition. He's actually confusing it for the word polygyny. http://i.word.com...

I might touch on some stuff my opponent said this round, but I will mainly focus on rebuttals as opposed to counter rebuttals. This is in the interest of fairness.

Premise 1: There is no natural right to have a polygamous civil union.

My opponent's premise one doesn't really match the premises he provided, so I'll just take this point by point.

"In fact, both the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women have condemned polygamy because of their conviction that it discriminates against women."

My opponent doesn't say how allowing polygamists to be granted the same rights as monogamous couples discriminates against women. He just merely asserts that the UN human rights group says this is so. He really needs to elaborate on this before I can offer a rebuttal. I'd say that controlling the dynamics of a relationship a woman chooses to engage in is discriminatory. Women should be free to be in a polygamous relationship if they choose to be. As I've already explained Freedom is the highest good. My opponent has agreed with my P1, P2 and C1 so this should be treated as fact.

"In actuality, polygamy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution"

This is just foolish. The equal protection clause in layman's terms basically says all people should have equal rights and protections under the law. Giving polygamous couples less protection and rights than monogamous couples is a clear violation of the equal rights clause.

It's a violation of the constitution to give more rights to Monogamous couples than polygamous couples. My opponent is advocating for polygamists to have less rights and is therefore advocating for violating the 14th amendment of the constitution.

"A husband is able to take as many wives as he wishes while the wife is limited to one husband."

Nonsense, just because men would be allowed to marry several women with polygamy legalized, doesn't mean that women shouldn't or wouldn't be granted the same rights. If polygamy was legalized in the United States, you can bet it wouldn't be gender specific

"In order to do, the government would have to overturn the Morril Anti-Bigamy Act and the Edmunds Acts as well as countless court cases."

So what. It had to overturn laws when they outlawed slavery. The government needs to do the right thing even if it means overturning a few unjust laws. In fact I say overturning laws that hurt our freedom is a good thing not a negative.

"A polygamous civil union would violate the Equal Protection Claus of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as established in P1."

Nope, giving polygamous people the same rights as people in monogamous actually helps to uphold the equal protections clause.

The rest of my opponent's arguments cite his source labeled #7. The relevant part of the document (for this debate), is completely uncited. It just lists a bunch of harms caused by polygamy. I can't even argue against them. It shows that polygamy increases poverty and crime, but doesn't cite the studies or where it got this information. Without citation it's just some expert (in god knows what) making bare assertions.

You can find experts on every side of an issue, so quoting some facts the spout out isn't good enough.

Here is the biggest problem with most polygamous studies. They focus on the effects of polygamy on a polygamous society. If in America we give polygamists equal rights (instead of persecuting them), we won't all of a sudden become a polygamous society. The effects of polygamy in a predominately monogamous society is unlikely to cause crime rates to increase and cause old men to start dating young women.

Polygamy is something that would be extremely rare in urban environments due to the high cost of such a family unit. They do well in farm communities and we're clearly not all going to become polygamists should we give them equal rights.

http://m.psychologytoday.com...

In fact, like my last source stated. Polygamy can actually be quite good for women involved in areas with more women than men.

I won't go into counter rebuttals here, though I want to. I'll do this in fairness to my opponent. I'll just say that he agreed for the purposes of this debate with my first and second premise as well as the first conclusion. The only thing up for debate in my argument is premise three and conclusion number two.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Yeah, I agree that a fourth round would have clarified this debate pretty well. It was a pretty good debate all the same. Glad you appreciate my feedback, and I'm always happy to explain any piece of it that's not entirely clear.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
Thanks for the analysis whiteflame. I feel much better about the votes now.

I'm not sure how that odd definition got there, I pulled this from a previous debate that died but it looked like I changed the definition myself. Most likely I changed the definition without changing the term or resolution. It's too bad as I think it created much of the confusion and basically led to PRO and CON arguing two different cases.

You know, I actually was kicking myself for not bringing up the burden of proof in the final round right after I posted. Perhaps if I did I would have had a better chance. I think this debate really deserved a fourth round, which PRO pointed out early.

Thanks again.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Yeah, I got that, it wasn't all that clear.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I didn't even notice his odd definition until the final round.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Good point. I'll do that in the future.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
From my first post, I realize I made a mistake:

"I'm not sure why *Con* made the effort to do this"...

And by the way, looking back through the comments, I don't buy Con's argument that Wylted accepted the definitions upon accepting the debate. You can't just fabricate a definition and force your opponent to accept it. He should have covered it in R1 or R2, admittedly, but that's not a basis for stating that he doesn't have a case when it is brought up.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
You'd be surprised how many times a single burdens argument can make all the difference in determining the outcome. Sometimes those arguments are poorly made, but they're helpful to make and, since they can be established as early as R1, they don't necessarily take up any character count.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I kinda half assed the arguments here, but I know I need to work on my role of government arguments. That's why I've been introducing all of them in relatively safe places. It's kinda frustrating that I put in a lot less effort in this debate and am winning and in the videogames debate I was strapped for time, but tried extremely hard and am losing.

I don't talk about burden, because as a judge I typically ignore debaters arguments on who holds what burden. So I thought that I should just leave the matter up to the judges to figure out. I'm starting to learn not to do that as a debater, though.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

I'm going to start out by going through each of the arguments in turn and explaining how I see them by the end of this debate. Then I'll summarize the pertinent points and provide a decision.

Before I do, though, I'd just like to get two things straight that were confused in this debate.

1) Polygamy is as Pro defined it in R3 and not as Con defined it in R1

I'm not sure why Con defined polygamy as polygyny in R1, and admittedly the response comes a little late, but it's well taken and cited. I'm not sure why Pro made the effort to do this, as it doesn't do much to bolster his case. He could have talked about how polygyny is far more common than polyandry and likely would remain as such, and that would have been enough. But it's not discussed, so I toss out this definition, and therefore believe that both will be relatively equal.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
2) Burdens

I'm always surprised at the lack of analysis here, and I really don't see much of it in this debate. Beyond a brief statement from Con in R1, there's really no evaluation of whether anyone has met their burden in this debate, and I think that's to both debaters' detriment. It seems to me that this should be weighed on balance and that the impact analysis of each debater is therefore paramount in determining who wins this debate. It would have been nice to get more of that analysis from each of you.

Now, with that out of the way, let's get to the points.

Pro's contentions:

P1: There is no natural right to have a polygamous civil union.

I'm so lost here. I read Con's definition of natural rights, "Rights that are not contingent upon laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable." And then I read this contention, which proceeds to talk about rights that are elucidated by legal bodies. There's something missing here. Pro is essentially affirming this entire premise on the basis that everyone agrees that it's a right, but never actually states why it's a NATURAL right. If it is actually natural, then you shouldn't have to cite the U.S. Constitution or other bodies of law to support it. It should stand as obvious without seeing them. Yet that is all I see here. This premise is never actually affirmed in any sense of the word. What's being affirmed here is that legal bodies, by and large, find that there should be no legal right to have a polygamous civil union. Thus, the premise is altered. It doesn't sink your case, but it makes me do the work for you, which isn't good.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
ZenoCitiumWyltedTied
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: Conduct, S&G, Sources - Tied. Neither gave me reason to award or take away points in any of these categories. This debate boils down to arguments. It seemed to me that Con had a very specific definition of polygamy but was, in fact, arguing against polygyny the entire time. This greatly hurt his arguments as a majority of them were based on equality for women and the damage it would cause on the so-to-speak 'marriage market'. When taking polygyny out of the picture and understanding that polygamy allows for women to also have multiple spouses, as Pro pointed out, Con's arguments were nothing short of destroyed. At that point, the only thing that Pro had to do was show that by pursuing the greatest good i.e., freedom, was the job of the government. Con made a simple error, but it was enough for Pro to see the opportunity of difference and defeat all contentions raised by Con. For this, Pro wins arguments and therefore wins the debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
ZenoCitiumWyltedTied
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: Argument points have to go to Pro in this debate as it seems that Con was debating against polygyny and not polygamy. This is evident even in the citation so heavily relied on by Con where DR Heinrich talks exclusively about polygyny. Additionally, I would like to point out that in my opinion Pros rebuttal was far stronger than Cons. However, this is not even necessary to go into as I have already shown that Con was arguing against the incorrect resolution. I would also recommend that Con uses Pros suggestion of increasing the amount of rounds or start the debate in the first round as two rounds is impossible to really argue. Granted I think this may have been an error as in the opening round it shows 4 rounds. I wont award other points as not much in them.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
ZenoCitiumWyltedTied
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: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
ZenoCitiumWyltedTied
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: However we came to the four-round-rules and the three round debate is non of my business but it's obvious that it's the only reason that the confusion over polygamist relationships being open for both genders was not resolved earlier. Con's arguments relied on the use of (too many?) sources that were used for their obvious words but less for their logical relevance. I also fail to see how arguing about the lack of legal backup is actually fulfilling the claim in P1 about natural rights, considering the given definition of natural rights. I agree with Con that all the sub-points of P2 D3-D6 are standing on weak sourcing, but I would have wished for some logical argumentation why they can't hold. Still, they can't possibly be research from a country that has a representative western society, as polygamy is not legal in about all of them. It's a poor source that weakens the arguments overall and that made the decision how to award the argument points easy.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 2 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
ZenoCitiumWyltedTied
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: Con's case heavily relied on the premise that polygamy discriminates against women, but as Pro pointed out, polygamy allows either sex to marry multiple spouses. There's no reason to think women are getting a raw deal if this new law is applied equally. I also looked into the relevant part of Con's source 7 (228-233), and Pro is right, it's entirely unsourced, and therefore carries no impact.