The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Tied
21 Points
The Contender
tmhustler
Con (against)
Tied
21 Points

Polygamy and/or Incest is morally permissible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 9/30/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,021 times Debate No: 9583
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (7)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

I am of the opinion that neither of these relationships - even when they come to fruit via sex - is not morally impermissible.

[Polygamy]
[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

"Marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time."

[Incest]
[http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]

"Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom."

This is 4 rounds, so I will allow my opponent to choose what he wants to debate on for his first round. Either you choose polygamy or incest, or you choose both. Once this done, we shall continue on with a normal 3 round debate.
tmhustler

Con

I would like to thank the skeptic for posting this debate and I hope we can both have fun with it.

I believe many of the argument for both polygamy and incest will be similar. Because of this we should have both of these up for debate.

To start I will define morality according to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

morality 1 descriptively to refer to a code of conduct but forth by a society or
A. Some other group, such as a religion or
B. Accepted by an individual for there own behavior or

2. Normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specific conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.

http://www./plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

There is one thing I think needs clarification which is the definition of polygamy. I believe the word mate should be substituted for spouse.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this open debate.

I agree with my opponent's definition of morality, and I'm fine with his rendition of polygamy. The way I will play out this round is simple: I will first clarify my reason for supporting polygamy and incest, then I will supply a brief background of reasons why. By supplying such a background, I'll make it both clear and easy for my opponent to find where he disagrees. If he can't successfully refute my stance, or find a fault in any of them, then obviously the vote goes to PRO.

====================
Clarification on polygamy & incest + Rationale for supporting them
====================

To make a quick note, I should make it obvious that I support polygamy and incest that are 1. consensual and 2. between adults. Obviously, if my opponent was diligent in accepting this debate and not hoping for an easy win, he would probably agree that it's common sense for me to support relationships that are consensual (otherwise it'd be coercion/rape/etc.), and those between adults. Even though I actually believe using "adult" as a limit to relationships is erroneous, that best serves for another debate as it can get complicated.

My rationale for supporting polygamy and incest is a simple case. I take inspiration from the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment[1], which states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Of course, the important key to note here is that the 14th amendment will allow exceptions if there is a rational and secular reason. For example, children are not treated as equally as adults for the mere fact that they are not on average as adequately psychologically developed as adults. Incarcerated criminals are obviously not given the same rights as others for time being because of their crime(s). Likewise, I agree that though we should treat everyone equally, there is many times the case in which we shouldn't due to some other reason.

I then turn the tables on my opponent to supply give me an appropriate reason as to believe why polygamy and incest is immoral. I argue that they are "morally identical", one can say, to heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The presence of more partners or a close bloodline does nothing to sway the moral value of such relationships.

---References---
1. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
tmhustler

Con

It seams that my opponent has yet to make an argument other than giving the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and then did nothing to elaborate on it with regards to his position. I hope he will be making an argument in the next round and not just rebutting my points. Given the definition above morals come from society,a group or the individual. The American society or group has largely decided that polygamy, and incest are not morals permissible. This is shown in to ways first the laws we have agenct them, and second because of how rare these types of activities are. This is shown in a poll that shows that 91 percent of the American population consider polygamy to be wrong. http://www.usnews.com...
I would assume that the number would be much higher for incest but I could not find any statistics on it.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for responding, but I'm disappointed at the lack of any coherent arguments. Since there's not much to respond to, I'll use a format of quoting my opponent's round line by line and responding it and then summarizing the issue in my conclusion:

====================
My opponent's claim that I have yet to put forth an argument
====================

"It seams that my opponent has yet to make an argument other than giving the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and then did nothing to elaborate on it with regards to his position. I hope he will be making an argument in the next round and not just rebutting my points."

----> It seems you have to read my arguments more clearly. I stated the Equal Protection Clause as a clear example of what I'm advocating: that human beings should be treated equally unless given a valid, secular (since this is in the jurisdictions of a government) reason otherwise. While this may seem very uncontroversial, it still serves a purpose to ground my argument. If you want to refute any part of that argument, SURE! But since you have yet to do that, my arguments stand because I argue -- and I quote -- "[polygamy and incest] are "morally identical", one can say, to heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The presence of more partners or a close bloodline does nothing to sway the moral value of such relationships."

====================
My opponent's argument for moral relativism
====================

"Given the definition above morals come from society,a group or the individual. The American society or group has largely decided that polygamy, and incest are not morals permissible. This is shown in to ways first the laws we have agenct them, and second because of how rare these types of activities are. This is shown in a poll that shows that 91 percent of the American population consider polygamy to be wrong. http://www.usnews.com......
I would assume that the number would be much higher for incest but I could not find any statistics on it."

---->There are some key things wrong with this passage, so I will list out the problems with it in numerical fashion:

1. Your definition does not entail cultural relativism, which you explicitly state it does. It states that morals are a code of conduct PUT FORTH by a society/group/individual/ etc. This doesn't mean said morals are correct, but are proposed to be correct (how we can differentiate between incorrect normative theories and correct normative theories is exactly the purview of ethics).

2. Even if we are to assume your interpretation of the definition is correct in determining the meta-ethical status of morality (which in itself is a ridiculous concept, but whatever let's assume it so), you find yourself in a logical contradiction. Because under your interpretation, the definition would state that morality is determined by society/groups BUT ALSO individuals or religions that are minorities (since they are still religions). This means that even if the majority believe X is moral and it thus is moral, which is cultural relativism, your same definition allows for an individual to believe X is immoral and yet still be correct. If this is so, then we have a contradiction. Since moral truths are still truths, then what you are implying is that X can both be moral and immoral. A logical impossibility.

====================
Conclusion
====================

There isn't much to say about my opponent's argument. He fails to read my simple and clear argument, of which he denies exists, and then he captures himself in a logical impossibility stemming from a wildly inaccurate interpretation of his own definition.
tmhustler

Con

tmhustler forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheSkeptic

Pro

Extend my arguments to this round. My opponent is going have to do a good job for this round is he wants to win.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
Per tmhustler's request in round 4, I grant the skeptic 7 points. Of course, Pro also had better arguments.
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
I would like it noted I did not give myself a 7 I actually voted for pro gave him arguments, and sources
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
No problem, if you want another debate just message me anytime :).
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
Would not be right to post arguments in the last round. I would like to apologize to the skeptic for my lack of attention to this debate, had 2 research papers and a live debate to prepare for. sry
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
I agree, but I just wanted to create more options for my opponent ;).
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Either is permissible but both is even better.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Incest is morally permissible? Good luck with that. ;)
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Haha yeah, I see it now. ^^
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Yeah, it's "neither of these relationships...is not morally". Haha, that was grammatically ugly of me, but hey I wrote this debate topic in a few minutes, late at night, and playing Halo :P
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
double negative neither not morally
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 10 months ago
dsjpk5
TheSkeptictmhustlerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
TheSkeptictmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
TheSkeptictmhustlerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
TheSkeptictmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
TheSkeptictmhustlerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
TheSkeptictmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkeptictmhustlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70