The Instigator
drafterman
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
ComradVlad
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Resolved: The United States should offer Temporary 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 4 votes the winner is...
ComradVlad
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,880 times Debate No: 19195
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

drafterman

Pro

It is oft stated that, in America, 50% of marriages end in divorce. Whether or not this statistic is accurate, what is certainly true is that divorce takes a toll on the splitting couple, both emotionally and financially.


Financial:


The average cost of a divorce can range from $15k to $30k (1). Given that people are often encouraged to treat divorce as a punishment, hiring a blood-thirsty lawyer to rob the other party, divorced couples are often worse off than if they had never married (2).


Beyond court and attorney fees, the couple will now be singly taking on expenses that were shared while married (utilities, mortgage) and, in most cases, at least one person will have to find a new place to live. While taking on such things is no different than single people who do this every day, divorce can force a person into this situation suddenly and unexpectedly, without preparation and with less resources than if they were single and never married.


Emotional:


Except in a few rare cases, divorce is an emotional event for all parties involved. Marriage is a commitment and an investement, one that fails when it ends in divorce.


The emotional toll divorce can take on a person can result in a decline in one's health. A number of health issues can stem from the divorce process (3) which is also a financial concern when you factor in health costs.


The Solution:


Temporary marriages are a marriage with a set time limit. A couple applies for a marriage certificate as normal, but the marriage automatically ends after a set period, such as two years.


When the marriage expires, the couple can choose to extend the marriage for another two years, extend the marriage indefinitely, or dissolve the marriage.


How it fixes the financial toll:


Since the marriage ends automatically, there is no need to involve the courts (except to formally acknowledge the disolution of the marriage), and no need to hire lawyers. Such options currently exist with "divorce kits" that cost a mere $25 to $70 dollars and are ideal when there is nothing to dispute and there are no children (4). These temporary marriages would operate similarly. Since the end of the marriage is known to both parties, the odds that there will be a dispute are reduced.


Given that it is known the marriage can end in two years, the couple will probably be more likely to keep finances separate, which makes a transition to being single much easier (5).


How it fixes the emotional toll:


As stated, divorce can be a sudden and tramatic event, often times putting each party into the roll of a victim and perpetrator. Since a marriage is an investment, there is incentive to stay married. While this can cause some couples to work to overcome differences that could result in divorce, in other couples, it can cause those problems to simply pile up until they become emotionally unbearable for one or both to endure.


With a temporary marriage, the end is known and is in sight. Both parties are cognizant of that time line, and are given ample opportunity to consider the future with each other and to discuss and resolve problems. If there is a problem that seems irreconcilable, there is no pressure to attempt to live with it, but rather simply ride the marriage out until it dissolves, then go their separate ways. Without the incentive to endure problems for an indefinite period of time, stress is reduced.


In fact, it can be conceived that this could actually help save marriages. If there is a problem that one perceives could end the marriage, they may keep quiet about it, all the while becoming more and more miserable until they can bear it no more, and request a divorce. However, if the end is in a short period of time, and definite, they may feel free to open up about problems. Openning up results in communication, communication that could fix the problem, allowing a more permanent marriage to flourish.


Caveats:


Clearly a divorce can be of minimal financial and emotional strain when it is amicable, discussed, planned, and performed in cooperation. Divorce gets expensive and emotionally draining when those factors are not met.


It seems, then, that temporary marriages also require this type of cooperation. What happens if, at the end of the temporary marriage, the couple is split on what to do? Or there are significant shared assets? Or there are children?


Clearly the marriage should not be renewed unless both agree, but what about assets and children? Unless there is clear agreement, both will end up in court as if they were getting divorced.


Given this, it may seem that temporary marriages offer no benefit, but this is not the case. Firstly, given that the temporary marriage is deliberate, the chances the couple will find themselves in such a situation is reduced (even if not eliminated). Second, given that the temporary marriage is short term, there is less time to dig themselves into a situation in which it is hard to extricate. A marriage of 25 years with substantial shared assets and several children is much harder to dissolve than one of 2 years with significantly less assets and (most likely) only one child.


In the end, it is irrelevant if, in some cases, temporary marriages are as bad as a divorce. If temporary marriages are not better than traditional divorce in some cases, but better than traditional divorce in all others, then, over all, temporary marriages are better than divorce.


Clearly, temporary marriages should be an option, if not mandated.


[1] http://www.forbes.com...


[2] http://articles.latimes.com...


[3] http://www.divorcesupport.com...


[4] http://www.bankrate.com...


[5] http://www.divorcesupport.com...

ComradVlad

Con

First let me begin by wishing my opponent the best of luck. I trust this debate will be rewarding for the both of us.


Even though the 50% statistic provided by my opponent is more likely correct than not, I believe that temporary marriage would not have the positive repercussions he expects. In fact there is a higher chance of negative results. I will begin my portion of this round by addressing my opponents assertions about the financial and emotional superiority of temporary marriage. I will then follow up by offering my argument.

Financial:

"The average cost of a divorce can range from $15k to $30k (1). Given that people are often encouraged to treat divorce as a punishment, hiring a blood-thirsty lawyer to rob the other party, divorced couples are often worse off than if they had never married (2)."

"Since the marriage ends automatically, there is no need to involve the courts (except to formally acknowledge the disolution of the marriage), and no need to hire lawyers. Such options currently exist with "divorce kits" that cost a mere $25 to $70 dollars and are ideal when there is nothing to dispute and there are no children (4). These temporary marriages would operate similarly. Since the end of the marriage is known to both parties, the odds that there will be a dispute are reduced."

My opponent's numbers are once again correct, however there are several flaws in his reasoning. First he mentions divorce kits (which are a very valid option) but he fails to mention prenuptial agreements. The cost of these is much less than that of divorce, on average $2,500 - $7,000 for detailed work and a mere $250 - $850 for a simple contract(1). A prenuptial agreement would in fact be more effective because it can dictate everything from ownership of items to specific responsibilities of spouses whereas temporary marriage only covers a set end date.
The statement that that divorce is often treated as punishment is true, but misses the fact that it is often punishment for what occurred during the marriage. This fact wont change just because the marriage is temporary. The spouse can find numerous other way to exact revenge financially and otherwise. Realistically it would still be possible to enter litigation to argue the terms and outcomes of the temporary marriage. I would like to reiterate that there is no evidence to show that even if both parties know that the marriage will end, the odds of dispute are reduced. This is just and assumption.

Emotional:

"Except in a few rare cases, divorce is an emotional event for all parties involved. Marriage is a commitment and an investement, one that fails when it ends in divorce."

Once again I have to state that there is no evidence or anything else to suggest that temporary marriage (as you have presented it) would prevent divorces. So in effect temporary marriages wouldn't provide all the benefits to negate emotional stress that you described because the threat of divorce is still present. "No good marriage has ever ended in divorce" (Louis C.K. 3) This means that even though there there is a predetermined end to the marriage the emotional stress still exists because of the obviously failing relationship. A divorce is just the climax of a relationship filled with disagreements, incompatibilities and a host of other problems. So even if the temporary marriage theoretically prevented a divorce it would only alleviate small fraction of emotional distress if any at all.

My opponents contends that this plan could actually save marriages. I believe the truth to be the exact opposite. Marriage is considered to be the most serious form of relationship, in fact it is the last step of any successful relationship and an extremely serious commitment. These facts coupled with the problems of divorce force couples to think over their problems and work through their differences. If a marriage was temporary it wouldn't carry nearly the same weight as a "permanent marriage" and would not require nearly the same amount of preparation. This would result in a larger amount of hasty marriages, which in turn turn into hasty divorces.

To summarize the concept of short term marriages doesn't remove the possibility of divorce. This makes any point regarding the benefits of a marriage ending with a preset date rather than divorce moot. Even if divorce was avoided the decrease of emotional stress would be insignificant as most of it comes from a bad relationship not the act of divorce itself.


After rebutting Pro's points I can surmise the following:

*Temporary marriage doesn't offer anything different from regular marriage other than a predetermined end date. Pro bases his argument on assumptions that a pre set end would eliminate the need for divorce. There is nothing supporting this claim. In fact there are a multitude of examples were marriages last significantly less than a year making the proposed 2 year temporary marriage irrelevant. Some examples include Dennis Hopper (marriage lasted eight days) and Mario Lopez (two weeks)(2).

*The Pro assumes that the brunt of financial and emotional problems comes from the divorce. Unfortunately the majority of these problems come from the bad relationship. Whether the marriage is temporary or permanent and where it ends by contract or divorce doesn't mean there is no bad blood, hurt feeling, and evil intentions. Either party can still find ways to exact revenge and attempt financial litigation.

*If anything, temporary marriages would make the commitment less serious and increase the number of divorces. If everyone knows the marriage is going to end anyway, why not just finish it now?

In conclusion bad relationships are a result of differences and incompatibilities of the partners. It is not that the institution of marriage is flawed, its the relationship. In any case were temporary marriage would in fact provide an advantage, the same advantage could be provided by a prenuptial agreement. In all other situations temporary marriage would actually be worse if not the same.

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://fe1.omg.fy9.b.yahoo.com...
[3]http://www.livedash.com...


Debate Round No. 1
drafterman

Pro

I offer my thanks to my opponent for taking up this debate. I, too, hope that it will be a good one.

My opponents response can be divided into two parts: First, undermining and rebutting the points I made and second, offering a counter argument.

Con's Rebuttal:

Prenuptual Agreements -
Yes, I will admit that I did fail to acknolwedge prenuptual agreements as an element in marriage and marriage disolution. An encompassing view of marriage and marriage options should have included this, and I thank my opponent for bringing it to my attention. That said, the effect of its inclusion in the argument is minimal.

My opponent cites a minimum of $250 for a prenuptual agreement, which is almost four times as expensive as the most expensive cited price for a divorce kit. Now, I mentioned divorce kits by way of comparison, not to say that a temporary marriage would operate identically in all ways. But it stands to reason that, if you can get a cheap divorce kit to dissolve a marriage where there is nothing to dispute, then a temporary marriage that ends automatically where there is nothing to dispute should operate similarily. In fact, since the disolution of the marriage is factored into the original marriage license, then, all things being equal, we should expect it to operate more smoothly and more cheaply.

Prenuptual agreements are an option that already exists. Adding temporary marriages to the equation doesn't alter or affect this. However, temporary marriages are offered as a general option from the beginning, whereas prenuptual agreements are generally for specific cases, where there are already substantual assets to be concerned about. Only 3% of spouses have prenuptual agreements (1), so whatever benefit they may offer is mitigated by the fact that they are hardly used as an option.

As the source notes, resistance to a prenuptual agreement is primarily emotional. How can you start a relationship by formalizing conditions on what happens if it ends? Temporary marriages would not have this stigma as their end is not meant to signify a definite end to the relationship, as with prenuptual agreements, but rather to give the couple the opportunity to end or prolonge the marriage.

Divorce as punishment - My opponent correctly notes that temporary marriages will not eliminate all troubles that are associated with the end of a marriage. In fact, I noted this in my own argument. I specifically acknowledged this to demonstrate that at worse a temporary marriage could not be worse than a typical divorce. The benefit, them, comes from introducing the option to end the marriage before things get too out of hand.

No one wants to get a divorce in the sense that no one wants to go through the difficult divorce process. A desire to avoid a divorce could very understandably cause people to stay in a broken marriage. A prenuptual agreement would exacerbate this issue. This only makes things worse. While some people may be able to fix the marriage from within, a great deal would end in divorce anyway and the longer a broken marriage lasts, the more likely there will be things to dispute.

A temporary marriage fixes this by offerring an easy (or easier) out. There is no incentive to stay quiet about a broken marriage and the short time period reduces the odds of there being a dispute or, if there is a dispute, reduces its magnitude. My opponent may criticize me for lack of evidence, but this is simple reasoning. Take, for example, children. You cannot have 5 children in 2 years (excepting particularly extraordinary circumstances). Yet you can easily have 5 children in 20 years. So the odds of having to deal with a custody battle over 5 children is significantly less in a temporary marriage than a longer marriage that ends in divorce. More heartbreak, longer court battles, etc.

Lack of Evidence - I'm not aware of any place that actually enacts temporary marriages. I heard about it as a proposal in Mexcio, and that is it. However, I think there are merits to the idea and the fact that we don't have statistical evidence to demonstrate its efficiacy is not a problem. If it were, we would never commit to innovative ideas. Lacking tangible or statistical evidence should not hinder us; we still have our capacity to reason. I believe the reasons I first cited stand and where they have been rebutted, I have responded above.

Con's Counter Argument

My opponent suggests that, rather than save marriages, it will result in more failed marriages as people simply give up, rather than work out their differences. The motivating factor here, cited by my opponent, is the problem of divorce.

I counter in stating that the motivating factor in fixing a marriage should be love. Whether or not two people love each other is not affected by being in a temporary marriage or permanent marriage, or by being married at all. There are a great deal of long-term couples who are not married, yet love each other enough to work out their problems. My opponent's logic would suggest that such couples, with no fear of divorce (as they aren't married) would walk away at the first sign of trouble. The fact that they exist, and exist for long periods of time, renders this complaint invalid.

I will concede that there is a probable chance that the number of frivolous marriages may increase, but this is moot. How many people get drunk, go to Vegas, get married, and then have their marriage annulled? The goal here is not to preserve some perceived sanctity of marriage, but rather to offer an option other than a financially and emotionally draining divorce.

My opponent claims that temporary marriages won't eliminate divorce. I know they won't; I did not assert that they would. However, simple math can show that at least some divorces will necessarily be eliminated if a couple chooses a temporary marriage: divorces for all marriages of two years. So, if all other things are equal, all couples that engaged in a temporary marriage that would have otherwise gotten divorced after two years of a permanent marriage would not need to do so. They would simply let the marriage expire.

Summary

I will again restate my caveats that temporary marriages will not eliminate divorce or the problems associated with divorce. They will not eliminate the tolls of ending a relationship. They will not prevent people getting in bad relationships. They will, however, provide couples with an easier out then getting a divorce. An out that would save people time, peace of mind, and money.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com...
ComradVlad

Con

I thank my opponent for his reply and would like to point out that this has been a very engaging discussion. I would also like to acknowledge that my opponent has responded to all of my arguments without leaving out ones that might be inconvenient for him. I thank him for this as well.

I would now like to begin my portion of round 2 by doing a short recap of round one. In the first round I answered my opponents proposal with a variety of arguments but put a lot of emphasis on several in particular. To be specific these were that temporary marriage would not prevent divorce, that most emotional and financial distress comes from the bad relationship itself rather than the act of divorce, and that prenuptial agreements are a more viable solution in the small amount of cases were temporary marriage actually gives an advantage.
In round 2 pro actually reaffirmed my claims by saying "I will again restate my caveats that temporary marriages will not eliminate divorce or the problems associated with divorce. They will not eliminate the tolls of ending a relationship. They will not prevent people getting in bad relationships." So what then is the advantage of temporary marriage? What benefits does it provide over traditional marriage? In my opponents own words it all boils down to that temporary marriage will "... provide couples with an easier out then getting a divorce. An out that would save people time, peace of mind, and money."

Although on the surface Pro's assertion seems reasonable, it is not completely thought out. The basis for most of his claims comes from the assumption (and I emphasize assumption) that temporary marriage would somehow alleviates the difficulties that couples going through divorce face. However he didn't say how this would happen. So far the only way in which my opponents version of marriage is different from the tradition kind is the pre set end date. He says that the preset end date would reduce the amount of disputes regarding things such as finances and property ownership. How? Just because the date is set, the terms are not. Pro has not explained exactly how this end date would prevent arguments over everything from who gets the kids to who gets the couch. Whether the separation comes about spontaneously or based on a set date has absolutely no bearing on the conflicts that are created by the dissolution of marriage. Clearly temporary marriage, as presented by Pro, would not provide all the benefits he claims. He even said so himself "... don't have statistical evidence to demonstrate its efficiacy...". While i agree with his statement about innovative ideas, the lack of detail in his presentation doesn't really show temporary marriage as an innovative idea, just a different one.

That being said, even if the pros assumptions on the benefits of temporary marriage were somehow proved to be correct, I still believe prenuptial agreements would have the same benefits if not more. My opponent disagreed citing several reasons which I will now examine.


"My opponent cites a minimum of $250 for a prenuptual agreement, which is almost four times as expensive as the most expensive cited price for a divorce kit. Now, I mentioned divorce kits by way of comparison, not to say that a temporary marriage would operate identically in all ways. But it stands to reason that, if you can get a cheap divorce kit to dissolve a marriage where there is nothing to dispute, then a temporary marriage that ends automatically where there is nothing to dispute should operate similarily. "

My opponent contends that even the cheapest prenuptial would still be more expensive than his option. This simply isnt true. Pro says that a temporary marriage would operate similarly to a divorce kit, but as he himself stated this is only true when "there is nothing to dispute". So what happens when there is dispute. Separation, planned or not, is caused by dispute in the first place. This means that the majority of the time there would still be litigation, problems etc. Pro says that "...since the dissolution of the marriage is factored into the original marriage license, then, all things being equal, we should expect it to operate more smoothly and more cheaply." However this is the exact reason why prenuptials cost money. They take in to consideration all factors and outline all possibilities. Like what exactly does "all things being equal" mean. It costs money because lawyers take time drafting these documents. The same would still have to be done for the temporary marriage contract. Lawyers would still have to outline the terms of the dissolution. This means that the cost of a prenuptial would be similar to the cost of the temporary marriage contract, rendering my opponent's expense argument moot.

"...prenuptual agreements are generally for specific cases, where there are already substantual assets to be concerned about."

This statement is completely false. Assets can be just a small part of a prenuptial. A prenuptial agreement can cover everything from how many kids the couple will have to what responsibilities each spouse has(2). Prenuptials aren't just for the rich (1).

"Only 3% of spouses have prenuptual agreements (1), so whatever benefit they may offer is mitigated by the fact that they are hardly used as an option."

This is simply an ad populum fallacy. Just because the majority of people don't use them, doesn't mean they are any less effective. The number of people who use prenuptials has no bearing over its superiority to the proposed temporary marriage plan.

It should now be clear that temporary marriage is unnecessary and all its up sides can be achieved with a prenuptial agreement. Nothing temporary marriages offer can't already be achieved. In fact temporary marriage would not only be unnecessary but actually detrimental as well. First off, as I have stated previously, temporary marriage would actually increase the number of hasty marriages and therefore the number of divorces. My opponent agreed with this saying: "I will concede that there is a probable chance that the number of frivolous marriages may increase" However he then basically states that this point is moot because frivolous marriages already happen. While i agree with his first statement i disagree with the second. The argument that it already happens is severley lacking. Car crashes happen, does this mean we can make the roads less safe just because there is already the possibilty of an accident? Furthermore temporary marriage would just make it easier for people to abuse a system thats already being violated. For example, tax fraud. Cant pay all your taxes this year, or just wanna catch a break? Get a temporary marriage license for one year, problem solved. Don't have medical insurance but you're hurt? No problem marry your neighbor for a year and use her company insurance. Want citizenship? Marry any eligible bachelor with a temporary marriage contract and you're in. Obviously this is all possible with the current system in place but temporary marriage would just make it that much easier.

After all of this is taken into consideration I believe the right decision is obvious. There is absolutely no need for temporary marriage because anything it can provide has already been provided and the negative repercussions far outweigh any possible positive ones. Undoubtedly implementing temporary marriage would be like opening a new can of worms without closing the old one.


[1]http://www.cnweeklynews.com...
[2]http://www.sphinxlegal.com...
Debate Round No. 2
drafterman

Pro

Temporary marriages would not alleviate the difficulties that couples going hrough divorce face.

As I have stated previously, by placing a relatively short end date, which is known in advance, arguments over division of assets and custody of children will be reduced. In knowingly getting into a temporary marriage, couples of any reasonable intelligence will not be as quick to have children or combine assets. Certainly not all will have such foresight, but the only way this benefit will not be realized ever is if absolutely all couples engaged in a temporary marriage decide not to exploit its advantage. So which is the more reasonable assumption: that at least some couples will take advantage of the easy out offered by temporary marriage, conveying a net benefit (since causes where the advantage is not utilized is no worse than the status quo) or that absolutely no couples will take advantage of temporary marriage (and still be no worse than the status quo)? I assert the former is a more reasonable belief.

Furthermore, even if couples do not make use of this benefit, the short time frame limits the degree to which assets could be shared or children produced. In this sense it places a stop gap on how bad a bad relationship can ge.

Prenuptial agreements better than temporary marriages.

I will restate the refutation of this that, even if on a case-by-case basis they are better, the fact that they are hardly ever used negates any benefit. Temporary marriages would not have the same social stigma as prenups and they would cost less (if they cost anything at all above a normal marriage). Thus, temporary marriags would be more available.

Temporary Marriages not necessarily cheaper/better.

My opponent has repeatedly brought up instances where temporary marriages won't be an advantage. I have already conceded this. Temporary marraiges won't fix everything. They won't prevent all problems. The same could be said for chemotherapy. Chemotherapy doesn't prevent cancer. It doesn't cure all cancer. Yet would anyone refuse to take it on that basis? This is one option that has the potential to prevent some if not many nasty divorces by giving couples an easy early out. I cannot emphasize enough that temporary marriages can be no worse than the status quo, yet offer the possibility of being better than the status quo. My opponent has not refuted the former statement and can not offer universal refutation of the latter. To state that, in some circumstances, temporary marriage won't be better does not prove it will never be better.

I assert (with the provided reasoning) that temorary marriages offer a very likely benefit in many cases. The existence of this potential, combined with the lack of possibility of being worse, results in a net benefit. On this basis, temporary marriages should be made an option for Unted States citizens.
ComradVlad

Con

First I would like to say that's its been a pleasure debating with you. Second I'd like to wish my opponent luck in the voting period.

I will now present my closing statements. Even though this is my last post it will be the shortest. I believe at this point we have both stated our points adequately an Pro's latest response was mostly restating things he had said in previous rounds. Thusly discussing them any further would be redundant and repetitive. I think summation of the debate would be most satisfactory.

* I contended that prenuptials were better and listed several reasons (same cost, more options, etc.) yet my opponents response was that "are hardly ever used". I pointed out that this was a ad populum fallacy and would like to add now that my opponent cant even predict say how popular temporary marriages will be at all. In order to adequately show that prenuptials would be inferior because of the amount of people who use them, my opponent would have to provide a comparison to the number of people who would use temporary marriages. This is something he cant do.

* I have repeatedly stated that the there is no evidence that would suggest that temporary marriage should provide benefit and suggest ways in which they would actually do further damage. My opponent simply contended that they would provide benefits with no further proof or reasoning aside from the fact that the end of the marriage would already been known. This is simply absurd.

*Overall I believe I have provided adequate attestation that there are better, more viable ways to reproduce the desired effects of temporary marriage, and that the presentation of temporary marriage was provided by my opponent is inadequate and fool of holes and what ifs. My opponent meanwhile has failed to sufficiently disprove my counter arguments.

In the end the decisions seems obvious. My opponents proposition, as presented by him, has lot of potential to do harm and no evidence that it has potential to do good. Incorporating the fact that there are already existing tools to provide the kind of benefits my opponent describes it would be purely illogical to offer temporary marriage.

Thank you to everybody who followed this debate and I hope you found it interesting enough to vote on!
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ComradVlad 5 years ago
ComradVlad
Thanks for the tips and the clarifications, this was my first debate that proved to be a challenge on this site and Ive learned a few things from it. Thanks for the participation!
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
But congrats on the win, Comrad.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
First, CVlad - I did not make an argument ad populum. Argument ad populum fallacy says that it is a fallacy to say something is true just because people believe it to be true. This is not what I was saying. The benefits of prenups can only be actualized if people use them. If people don't use them, then there are no benefits to having a prenup. So the total utility of prenups to society in general depends on how many people use them.

Second, what I should have said in the debate in the response to your prenup point was that it doesn't matter. Temporary marriages wouldn't replace, or be an exclusive option to, prenups. You could have a temporary marriage AND a prenup, and get the benefits of both. Even if prenups were better than temporary marriages, that wouldn't be an argument against temporary marriages since you could have both.

Third, congratulations for convincing people that I was proposing that temporary marriages were going to fix all bad relationships and end divorce forever. I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that it should be an option, as it can provide an easier out than divorce. In short, having temporary marriage costs nothing. There is no cost to implement it, and using it has no drawbacks. So there is nothing to lose by using them and a potential gain. How is that a bad thing that shouldn't be done? Even if temporary marriages only helps in one case, the fact that it isn't worse than the status quo means that's a net gain. Sure, it's not much of a net gain, but a net gain is a net gain.

I think many of the readers missed that point, which is partly my fault for not making myself clear enough in the debate. I hope it is clear enough now.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
This is a difficult debate to judge, namely because they're no quantifiable data. Its basically conceded that temporary marriages will be a great option in some cases. But we don't know how often that is. Its also agreed to by Pro that temporary marriages will increase hasty marriages, but again we don't know how much that really is. So its hard to weigh the round directly.

I did have a problem with some of Con's statements though. She basically insinuates that Pro is trying to solve 100% of the problems with marriage. She brings up a lot of statistics about *certain* marriages being under 2 years and *certain* marriages not working under a temporary one. But Pro admitted that the temporary option wouldnt solve marriage problems in every case.

Anyway, the reason I vote Pro is because if temporary marriages would work in certain cases, then people should have the option of having one. The resolution is that the US should allow temporary marriages, not force them on people. This indicates that it would be an option people can pursue. if people agree with Con and think its a bad idea then more power to them. But if they think it provides benefits, then its their choice, whether there really are benefits or not.

6 points to counter imabench's lack of RFD.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Some good points, phantom, but for right now I have to let the debate stand. After voting has ended, I will address them.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Continued...Pro stated that only 3% of spouses have prenuptial agreements and says that the fact that they are hardly used supports his arguments. But what makes pro think temporary marriages would be used any more often? Con also points this out as a fallacy. Con makes the argument that with temporary marriages tax fraud would be easier as well as other ways people could manipulate it. This was a strong point and pro does not even respond to it. As said before pros solution would increase the amount of broken up marriages. Pro argues that divorced couples will sometimes hire a blood-thirsty lawyer to rob the other party as a sort of punishment. Con responds by pointing out former spouses holding a grudge, may still find a way to cause the other party to suffer financially. Con also had excellent conduct throughout the debate.
Posted by ComradVlad 5 years ago
ComradVlad
k, lets wait till the voting is over and comment away lol
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
I have some comments to make, but I don't want to influence the voting post-debate.
Posted by ComradVlad 5 years ago
ComradVlad
same here, good luck dude.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Thanks for the debate ComradVlad! I enjoyed it.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
draftermanComradVladTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
draftermanComradVladTied
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: When I read the opening argument, Pro had me convinced. In fact, I still think that there may be some benefit to temporary marriage. However, Con made convincing arguments, some of which Pro failed to refute. Mainly the points about citizenship, and health insurance fraud mentioned in Round 2 went unrefuted in Round 3.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
draftermanComradVladTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gives us a few problems with marriage but the question is, does his purposed solution solve these problems. It partially solves the financial one. I don't think pro proved at all that it would help emotionally. Pro started off by stated that 50 of marriages end in divorce. Pro attempts to prove that his solution would lower that ratio. The number of actual divorces might go down, but the number of split marriages would increase as con showed. More in comments...
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
draftermanComradVladTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: meh