The Instigator
s0nchriS
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

That only financially capable men be allowed to marry

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  
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: 1/15/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,863 times Debate No: 10853
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

s0nchriS

Pro

As the Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso once said, "If you don't have money, you'd better not get married. It is difficult to me for someone without means to win people's respects."

You know, this is a big issue in every culture. We know that real love and affection don't require a salary of five or 6 figures, but to institutionalize that love and start a family?

You hear about people having financial problems right? You hear about people giving up babies for adoption because they don't have enough money to support the child and want to give it a better life, or couples breaking up because one partner is a lazy bum or can't find a job, so they're not contributing anything other than themselves physically.

So why not establish yourself as a person, find a good job and save money before marrying? Love should be the reason for marriage but unfortunately it's not the only thing to sustain it. I ask you, is "love" going to ensure that you and your family have food and clothing? It might be nice to think so; but it's not true.

Fact is, as much as people hate to admit it, wealth is strongly related to a man's mate value. A wealthier man is more attractive to women. Why? Because Money makes men a better provider.

According to http://www.guidedones.com..., After tying yourself to a woman, a man assumes the full responsibilities of a husband. Typically, he becomes the head of the household, the breadwinner. He does not have to be confined by pregnancy; nor feed children from his breasts. He is therefore always ready to go out and search for sustenance.
According to B D SHARMA of http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com... "without living means, be it money, land or job, one should not seek the company of another dependent. Otherwise both will suffer. You may live in any part of the world, and still need money in any form to survive."

It's a good idea for poor people not to get married. That is, not until they are financially capable. Marriage can always wait. Don't just say that you'll wait until after you get married before finding a job. The more you wait, the more you won't get around to doing it. Besides, how can you earn the approval of the girl's parents if they can see that you plainly won't be able to support her? I think that actually a very good piece of advice and probably the most important wedding planning that you can do is the financial side of things.

As posted by just sayin in http://www.freemoneyfinance.com..., If you want to stay home with your children for a few years, you are better off marrying a man with money. If you want your children to have more opportunities, you are better off marrying a man with money. Even if you get divorced, your children will likely be taken care of.

Face it, we live in a 3rd world country, and as McCain stated in the book "Crocodile Tears" by Anthony Horowitz , money is the god of the 21st century. It divides and defines us.

Let's just put it this way: In this times love can't withstand money. Ultimately money wins.
Danielle

Con

I very much want to debate this, but I don't have the time to post an argument now before I'd have to forfeit the round (as I've been busy but have just a few minutes left before the round is due). So, with many apologies, I'm going to have to refrain from posting an argument until the next round. Pro can either continue posting and add to his argument, or just not post anything in the next round. In R2 I will make my case and respond to all of Pro's R1 and/or R2 contentions. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank my opponent for starting this debate and wish him good luck. Cheers!
Debate Round No. 1
s0nchriS

Pro

s0nchriS forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Well, once again I've waited until the last minute to do this debate so I only have about an hour to submit my response. Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited his past round and hasn't been online in awhile; I hope he can make it back for the final rebuttal. In any case, I'll provide a quick response to Pro, a summary of my position, and I'll wrap up all of my arguments in the final round. Good luck, Pro.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pro's Arguments:

- Love is not the only thing necessary to sustain a marriage
- Money makes men better providers
- After a man marries a woman, he becomes the primary bread winner, the head of the household, etc.
- If you don't have money, you can't impress your bride's parents
- If a woman wants what's best for her children, she should marry a man with money
- Finally, love can't withstand money; money wins

First off, while I don't entirely disagree with my opponent's first premise (I realize that you need more than love to make a marriage work... such as trust, respect and common interests), I don't think that you need money to make marriage work. Yes, you need money to sustain your life and to afford food, shelter and clothing amongst other necessities and luxuries, but as far as the marriage relationship itself, you only need money to make that work if the marriage is based on wealth alone.

Additionally, I am dismayed by my opponent's clear display of blatant sexism and prescriptive stereotyping. Both the resolution and his arguments assume that the man's duty and in fact role is to act as the family's provider. My arguments will negate this falsity. Moreover, he assumes that marriage is based on wealth and possessions rather than the other typical reasons people choose to marry, including to solidify a meaningful relationship by making it legal, to achieve a social norm, for emotional comfort and stability, or for spiritual and religious reasons.

Con's Arguments:

1. First and foremost, it should be up to the individual to decide if and when they are ready to marry. In our society, we typically expect an individual to be at least 18 years of age for legal reasons (that is when one becomes a legal adult, and is considered eligible to make legal decisions for themselves). For the government or any other entity to dictate when people make that personal choice would be wrong. That is not the role of the government. We can assume that the resolution is referring to the government by mentioning the word "allow."

2. The idea that men become the head of the household and the bread winners of a family is an out-dated and sexist ideology supported by my opponent's completely biased and unprofessional Muslim link. The government is secular; we do not rely on religious laws or ideology to dictate our laws. Similarly, whether the bride's parents approve of the groom or not is irrelevant. That is a personal issue amongst particular families and not something the government should regulate or be involved in.

3. Many times young people choose to get married before their career is stable or before they have become extremely successful or wealthy. Considering most people have to "work their way up" meaning they don't start out making a lot of money until later on in their lives, that would mean that Pro expects older men to marry. This can have several societal repercussions. For one thing, women typically want to have children before they reach a certain age, and if older men only marry younger women, it implies that a woman has to settle for an older man. This can cause issues such as a lack of attraction or compatibility.

Conclusion:

I think I've made most of my case for now. I will send the debate back over to Pro and allow him to make a rebuttal before wrapping up my final argument. Thanks, Pro, and again good luck to ya.
Debate Round No. 2
s0nchriS

Pro

s0nchriS forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

I combated all of my opponents arguments.

He didn't combat any of mine.

He forfeited two rounds.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Okay L...
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
I have no idea what you're talking about. Free will doesn't exist and it has nothing to do with your peace analogy :)
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Peace exist though it is not used that much, same as free will.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Koopin - Free will doesn't exist :)
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
That would take away free will.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
This seems to be quite easy to refute ...
Posted by s0nchriS 7 years ago
s0nchriS
Any suggestions as to how i would be able to strengthen my debate? t's just so hard for me to think up all of the things that are supossed to be there... and I need all the help I can get
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
Before the debate is accepted, you can still edit your opening argument, as the instigator. You can click the "Edit My Debate" button, and space out your paragraphs.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Put it in quotes or it's plagiarism.
Posted by s0nchriS 7 years ago
s0nchriS
Nags - sorry for posting such a shitty work. But FYI, i made this myself for our school debate. I was hoping to learn a few pointers, but thanks for the heads up. Now i know i'm a complete failure
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
s0nchriSDanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
s0nchriSDanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
s0nchriSDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by kaylitsa 7 years ago
kaylitsa
s0nchriSDanielleTied
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 Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
s0nchriSDanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05