The Instigator
mr_Debater1993
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
xafuschia
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved: People should marry for love and not financial security

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,604 times Debate No: 27228
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

mr_Debater1993

Con

I am arguing against this Resolution, should you accpet this debate the rules will be as follows:

1) Acceptance
2) Argument/Rebuttal
3) Rebuttal/Argument
4) Rebuttal/Argument/Conclusion

N.B. I will like my opponent to go first
xafuschia

Pro

I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
mr_Debater1993

Con

Sorry for the delay I had a lot of assignment and course work doing.

Before we understand this debate there are some key words in the moot which we should adequately define and they are:“Marry” “Love” and “Financial Security”

Marry: to take as an intimate life partner by a formal exchange ofpromises in the manner of a traditional marriage ceremony. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Love: sexual passion or desire. http://dictionary.reference.com...

There is no definite definition for financial security so I will define security in terms of finance.

Security: freedom from financial cares or from want. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Now the Resolution can be restated as such:

People should take an intimate life partner by formal exchange of promises in the manner of a tradition marriage ceremony for sexual passion or desire and not freedom from financial cares or from want.

Now before two people consider the act of marriage, there are some things that are to be taken into consideration. Where are they going to live, how are they going to provide the family, cover their expenses or in essence maintain themselves or financial stability. When we glance at the purpose for marriage it is mainly for procreation and raising children. Now we can deduce that no matter what people marry for, in some cases those purposes can be fulfilled. The fact is when persons marry for freedom from want that is better than just marrying for sexual passion or desire. In this world that we live in, we cannot do without food, clothing and shelter, as well as some other minor things but we can live without satisfying our sexual passion or desire as proof of this that is the very reason why we have nuns and eunuchs. If people marry only for sexual passion or desire what happens if the man is impotent? What happens if the man is too small? What happens when the desire for that particular person is diverted to somebody else? What happens if the desire or passion toward the partner is no more? But because both partners are satisfied in terms of want or finance it can keep the marriage going however this is not to say that love will not be an aspect of the marriage why did I say that? Careful observation of the resolution is that we are arguing the reason why they should marry in the first place as the word “for” denotes. With that said this leads me to specific type of marriage.

Arranged marriages

Many people are against this type of marriage, however it commonly done in India [1]. Studies have should that these marriages then to last longer than the so called “Love” marriages [2]. This type of marriage is based on societal status etc. hence people should marry FOR freedom of want and not sexual desire or passion.

1. http://berchmans.tripod.com...

2.http://www.yourtango.com...


xafuschia

Pro

xafuschia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
mr_Debater1993

Con

Ok kool seems my opponent has no time
xafuschia

Pro

xafuschia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
mr_Debater1993

Con

end of debate
xafuschia

Pro

xafuschia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by mr_Debater1993 4 years ago
mr_Debater1993
I am new as well but all you have you is accept the challenge and then post your argument
Posted by MauBM55 4 years ago
MauBM55
I would like to take this challenge, but I am new in the website and at debating. This said I may not know how to respond or what to write in each round.
Posted by mr_Debater1993 4 years ago
mr_Debater1993
its not about round its just the rules... take it as rule number 1, 2, 3, etc... k
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
Marauder
you post in the rules the first round is just for acceptance, but you leave a note you want your opponent to go first. sooo.....do you want arguments from your opponent in the first round? or are you going to waist your half of round 2 waiting on arguments from your opponent?
Posted by mr_Debater1993 4 years ago
mr_Debater1993
the resolution is one opposite to the other love is love and financial security is financial security in a sense that both can stand by themselves
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
That sounds like a false dichotomy to me. After all, people can marry for a love of financial security. :-)
No votes have been placed for this debate.