The Instigator
snelld7
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
asiansarentnerdy
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Polygamy should be allowed in the United States.

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...
asiansarentnerdy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,482 times Debate No: 8370
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

snelld7

Pro

It's obvious what I'm for so.
Polygamy- Having more than one spouse at a time.
Is there a viable reason against it?
asiansarentnerdy

Con

Polygamy should not be allowed in the US.

To start off, I will use my opponent's definition of polygamy, which is having more than one spouse at a time.

First and foremost, we must look at polygamy as a social policy, simply because marriage is a social issue. A marriage license is a state grant, therefore polygamy, which implys the right not only to love others but also marry many others, is a public issue, not one of personal preference.

The next two words that we must pay attention to is "polygyny" and "polyandry". Polyandry refers to one women marrying several men and polygyny is the exact opposite. Polyandry is very uncommon, therefore our debate should be centralized around polygyny, which is one man marrying several women.

Most libertarians support the issue of polygamy. Since no societys are truly and purely a liberal democracy, as we progress with innovations and come into a new society where everything is centralized around equal rights, then we will also gradually progress out of polygamy and leave that behind.

I will also bring up an idea by Jonathan Rauch. In his article, he notes that if polygyny is being practiced, then more people lose their right to marriage. If one man takes three women, then two other men would be left without wives. As quoted by Jonathon Rauch, "When one man marries four women, three other men don't marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others." I agree with this quote above.

In a study published by Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer, they noted that in polygamous societies, crime rates tend to be higher than that of normal societies. Looking at the example proposed above by Mr. Rauch, many young men are left without wives due to polygynous marriage. Because of this, many single men engage in otherwise destructive manners. As written by these two authors, "In 19th-century China, where as many as 25 percent of men were unable to marry, these young men became natural recruits for bandit gangs and local militia which nearly toppled the government. In what is now Taiwan, unattached males fomented regular revolts and became entrepreneurs of violence."

Lastly, I will quote the last section of the article by the same article by Jonathon Rauch.
"Hudson and den Boer suggest that societies become inherently unstable when sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females: in other words, when one-sixth of men are surplus goods on the marriage market. The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives, and 2 percent took four wives — numbers that are quite imaginable, if polygamy were legal for a while. In particular communities — inner cities, for example — polygamy could take a toll much more quickly. Even a handful of "Solomons" (high-status men taking multiple wives) could create brigades of new recruits for street gangs and drug lords, the last thing those communities need. Such problems are not merely theoretical. In northern Arizona, a polygamous Mormon sect has managed its surplus males by dumping them on the street --literally. The sect, reports The Arizona Republic, "has orphaned more than 400 teenagers ... in order to leave young women for marriage to the older men." The paper goes on to say that the boys "are dropped off in neighboring towns, facing hunger, homelessness, and homesickness, and most cripplingly, a belief in a future of suffering and darkness."

For all these reasons I support the fact that polygamy should not be allowed in the US.

======
Sources
======

1) http://www.reason.com...
Debate Round No. 1
snelld7

Pro

>>>"First and foremost, we must look at polygamy as a social policy, simply because marriage is a social issue. A marriage license is a state grant, therefore polygamy, which implys the right not only to love others but also marry many others, is a public issue, not one of personal preference."~ asiansarentnerdy

--That's the point! It's been deemed a harm to society (illegal), and not a personal preference that doesn't hurt anyone. What we're arguing is why...

>>>"Most libertarians support the issue of polygamy. Since no societys are truly and purely a liberal democracy, as we progress with innovations and come into a new society where everything is centralized around equal rights, then we will also gradually progress out of polygamy and leave that behind."~asiansarentnerdy

--If this is an attempt, by you, to throw out libertarian views because we aren't a full libertarianist government, save it. We are founded based on individual rights. If we through out everything our entire society wasn't fully for, nothing would be ok. We are a diverse people. This said, we throw out not what isn't supported by our party, but what is unjust and an infringement upon rights. Being that polygamy is neither, it is unwarranted.

>>>I will also bring up an idea by Jonathan Rauch. In his article, he notes that if polygyny is being practiced, then more people lose their right to marriage. If one man takes three women, then two other men would be left without wives. As quoted by Jonathon Rauch, "When one man marries four women, three other men don't marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others." I agree with this quote above.

Really....
If this was the case, money, competition of any sort, and anything that isn't 100% equal all of the way across, wouldn't exist. you fail to realize that even if the one man doesn't have the 3 wives, she may still not want the other man. If someone is willing to be a 3rd wife oppose to being the one and only of another, it isn't the fault of the husband. The person who's left out may not be a good or attractive enough person to get a wife. Also, you fail to realize that the man-woman ratio on earth isn't the exact same number, and not all men like women.

This argument is silly and is not considered a viable reason.

>>>"In a study published by Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer, they noted that in polygamous societies, crime rates tend to be higher than that of normal societies. Looking at the example proposed above by Mr. Rauch, many young men are left without wives due to polygynous marriage. Because of this, many single men engage in otherwise destructive manners. As written by these two authors, "In 19th-century China, where as many as 25 percent of men were unable to marry, these young men became natural recruits for bandit gangs and local militia which nearly toppled the government. In what is now Taiwan, unattached males fomented regular revolts and became entrepreneurs of violence."~Asiansarentnerdy

--You will find it impossible to prove that these men don't have women and that's why they do this, oppose to them not having women BECAUSE they are destructive this.Correlation does not mean causation and unless you have a poll that says CLICK HERE IF YOU ARE DESTRUCTIVE BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A WOMAN... (with at least a few thousand votes), i suggest you drop this point.

>>>>Lastly, I will quote the last section of the article by the same article by Jonathon Rauch.
"Hudson and den Boer suggest that societies become inherently unstable when sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females: in other words, when one-sixth of men are surplus goods on the marriage market. The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives, and 2 percent took four wives — numbers that are quite imaginable, if polygamy were legal for a while. In particular communities — inner cities, for example — polygamy could take a toll much more quickly. Even a handful of "Solomons" (high-status men taking multiple wives) could create brigades of new recruits for street gangs and drug lords, the last thing those communities need. Such problems are not merely theoretical. In northern Arizona, a polygamous Mormon sect has managed its surplus males by dumping them on the street --literally. The sect, reports The Arizona Republic, "has orphaned more than 400 teenagers ... in order to leave young women for marriage to the older men." The paper goes on to say that the boys "are dropped off in neighboring towns, facing hunger, homelessness, and homesickness, and most cripplingly, a belief in a future of suffering and darkness."~asiansarentnerdy

--This says nothing about polygamy, but EVERYTHING about the people. Those were just destructive people, polygamy didn't drive them to be insane. They were already unjust imbecilic, injudicious people before they were polygamist, and this is why they were doing that.
asiansarentnerdy

Con

I thank my opponent for responding to my debate. I will organize the following debate according to the arguments that he made.

1) My opponent never indicated this in Round 1. I just wanted to make the issue clear.

2) In this argument, I am not attempting to throw out libertarian views. I am, in fact, supporting libertarian views. What I am trying to say in this round is that we progress with more societal innovations, we will progress into a libertarianan government, and leave issues like polygamy behind.

3) While it may be true, as my opponent states, that the man is not attractive or good enough to get a women, his chances still shouldn't be lowered. Using my opponent's example about money, if a person earns 3/4 of the profit of a certain amount, then that would be considered unfair, correct? It would be correct to assume that this person is is "hogging up" all the money, right? Same thing with the wives. We should make everything fair and equally accessible for everyone.

4) In fact, this point was already made clear by the published study by the two authors that I have made above. It was a study conducted by two authors. And correlation does mean causation. For example, if I practiced two hours of violin, the number of incorrect notes I played would decrease, would they not? But if I practiced zero hours of violin, the number of incorrect notes that I played would increase, correct? Therefore, correlation does mean causation. Now referring back to the poll, if in fact they noted that people are more violent in a polygamous society, then that would obviously have something to do with the polygamy going on right?

5) Being a polygamist influenced these people to do these negative things.
Debate Round No. 2
snelld7

Pro

1) Yes, I do. The resolution is "Polygamy should be allowed in the United States." In my opening words I said, "Is there a viable reason against it?" Clearly, this means that it has been deemed wrong and I want an answer as for why. What else can it mean? Just simply stating it's wrong because it's wrong is not a viable reason, nor is it properly addressing the question at hand.

2) How, on earth, is polygamy against libertarianistic views? Would this not allow for more personal rights opposed to the government limiting what you can do? Is that not what the party is for?

3) No, it's not correct. Bill gates could be considered to be "Hogging up money." Is what he's doing unjust because of it? Of course it isn't. Saying that one man would hog all the wives is completely fallacious. Like I said, you must take into account too much that would take this FAR out of topicality (homosexual, man:woman ratio, attractiveness, etc.

This, also, is not a VIABLE reason.

4) Yes correlation CAN be causation, but in this situation it isn't even close. It is not the result of not being with a woman that makes you destructive, as many gay men will tell you, it's more so of your uprising in your home, your mental state, etc. This is like trying to tie in dying out of Yo-Yos with scarcity of polar bears now days. It doesn't add up, and is completely untopical.

5) No, being psychotic, crazy, insane, injudicious, imbecilic people influenced them to do these things. These people wouldn't all of a sudden be rational well thought out planners and perfect citizens without polygamy. They'd just have a different method to there sadistic madness.
asiansarentnerdy

Con

1) In this point, I am merely addressing an issue and setting the standards for the round accordingly. My opponent never set any round standards, as the Affirmative is supposed to do. I simply pointed out the issue of polygamy and defined how we should debate it. I list the reasons of why polygamy is wrong in my following points.
Therefore, my point 1 still stands.

2) I think that my opponent must have not read my rebuttal correctly. In Round 2, I clearly stated, "In this argument, I am not attempting to throw out libertarian views. I am, in fact, supporting libertarian views. What I am trying to say in this round is that we progress with more societal innovations, we will progress into a libertarianan government, and leave issues like polygamy behind." From this point that I have clearly made, I don't know how my opponent could have come to the conclusion that I have stated that polygamy is against libertarianistic views.
Therefore, my Point 2 still stands.

3) While we could not call Bill Gates's actions unjust in the rebuttal provided by my opponent in Round 3, we could definitely label them as unfair. There is a fine boundary between what is unjust and unfair. We can now come to the conclusion, therefore, that in my previous example, it would in fact be unfair for a person to "hog up" money, in the same way as it would be unfair for a man to "hog up" many wives.
I have properly upheld this point by rebutting my opponent's only rebuttal; therefore, this point still stands.

4) Since my opponent himself concedes that correlation does, in fact, mean causation, why should the same not be true in the issue of polygamy? I have successfully proved in my opening round why in this situation correlatoin does mean causation from the study that I included by the two authors.

5) It is true that there are many crazy people out in this world; however, I have proved that in polygamous societies, rates of violence and crime are higher than that of normal societies. My opponent denies this but never proves that the crime rate in any society remains the same. Through my argument, I have proved that polygamy influences a person to commit more crimes; "influence" is the key word here. Being polygamous doesnt change what you do, however, as I have proved, it "influences" what you do.

Because I have successfully proven my case to be true and successfully proven my opponent's to be wrong, I successfully uphold the fact that polygamy should not be allowed in the US. Vote Con. :)
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
All the comments are the same... Well, I know what I need to work on. lol
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Pro was very dismissive, and I'm not sure why. I saw no need to be. Con presented the case and provided logical arguments; Pro dismissed them out of hand. Grammar was tied for the most part. Neither side presented the point that the US does not prevent cohabitation with multiple partners, just the legal benefits of marriage. Spousal privilege would take on a whole new meaning. I voted Con, with a tie for grammar
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Arguments and sources to Con, rest a tie. Con made a case and supported it with a good reference. Pro denied it unconvincingly.

The debate missed several important points. Polygamy as a social institution is currently allowed. People can have any sort of communal arrangement they want. What is not allowed is legal marriage, which conveys financial benefits such as Social Security spousal payments and non-citizen immigration benefits. One could have a business marrying large numbers of non-citizens to confer benefits.
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
+ Conduct is a tie, but I should warn PRO to limit his use of second person. He comes off as hostile at times.

+ English is a tie. There were minor fumbles on both sides. In particular, CON should review semicolon use. (Often times, where she uses a semicolon, I would have used a dash or comma. She should take note: both sides of a semicolon should be complete sentences.) But there were no major problems.

+ Argument goes to CON, because she was the only one to provide a case. As both the instigator and PRO, snelld7 should have known that under almost all interpretations of BoP, he holds a burden. That said, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but when the study CON cited says that the correlation does indeed imply causation, PRO has to counter the study with more than just "oh, well I don't think so." He should have provided a counter study, or criticized the study's accuracy/methodology.

+ Sources goes to CON, as she was the only one to provide a source whatsoever.
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
But reading onwards...
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
You'll notice, PRO, that CON never uses the second person in her R1 or R2.
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
I just finished R2. PRO: It isn't advisable to excessively use the second person (e.g. "I suggest YOU drop it"). It's a style preference, but using excessive "you"s makes a debater come off as hostile, which is exactly the opposite of what a debater should appear as.
Posted by asiansarentnerdy 7 years ago
asiansarentnerdy
to Clockwork....that is kinda creepy....
but shouldnt the male that conceived the child actually be the one to raise it?
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
lol... Never heard of it like that, might have to do some research and come back
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
Fun (kinda dark) facts:

(1) A woman is significantly more likely to conceive during an episode where orgasm is achieved by the female.

(2) A majority of women very rarely (if ever) achieve climax by vaginal stimulation, and many speculate that this is a product of evolution to encourage females to marry creative and intelligent males.

and (3) The seminal material of other males is toxic to human sperm.

This means that humans are biologically hardwired to include three main individuals from the conception of the child to the death of the parents: one female, one "alpha" male to actually create the child and one "beta" male to assist in raising it. A turn away from the tradition of most polygamous societies where men had many wives, as it seems that nature intended it the other way around.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
snelld7asiansarentnerdyTied
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 Checkmark1 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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
snelld7asiansarentnerdyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
snelld7asiansarentnerdyTied
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 Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
snelld7asiansarentnerdyTied
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 PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
snelld7asiansarentnerdyTied
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