The Instigator
HandsOff
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
actorgurl
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

With a few exceptions, spousal support should not be required as a result of divorce.

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: 3/19/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,392 times Debate No: 3299
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (13)

 

HandsOff

Pro

When a man and woman divorce many states require the primary income earner to continue to fork over monthly payments to the ex spouse above and beyond what is required for child support. This is wrong and should not be allowed to continue accept under very specific circumstances.

When a couple gets divorced, it is time for each party to begin taking care of him/her self. If anything, a thank you is in order from the spouse who has been been the fortunate enough to receive a free ride over the course of a marriage-- not a demand for more money. I realize there are some cases where a spouse sacrificed his/her time, money and personal career development to allow the other spouse to further his/her career, and those situations should warrant a commensurate amount of spousal support for a calculated length of time. There may also be other situations I have not considered which would warrant spousal support. But having been married to someone should not be cause alone for requiring spousal support when the relationship is over.
actorgurl

Con

One thing I think you have to think about is that the courts would not order one spouse to pay the other for no reason at all, unless you get a judge that is either biast, sexest, or is just crazy. But how do you specifically know the circumstances as to why this is going on? Not every divorced couple has to pay it though. I know for a fact about 5 divorced couples that do not have to pay any money except for their children involved. But as it were, not every aspect of someone's life is known, so you do not know the reason most divorced couples are having to pay this extra money. Some of the money involved is payed to actually go through the divorce because as we all know, nothing in this world is free. There is money involved to have a divorce, but like I said, the courts do not say anything to the effect of, "Well, you were married and now you are divorced so you have to pay money to your ex spouse simply because I said so." So basically what I am saying here is that there is some reason behind the money being exchanged to the ex spouse. They are not exchanging money just for the heck of it, but for a reason that you do not know.
Debate Round No. 1
HandsOff

Pro

Spousal support is typically ordered when one spouse has been making more money than the other for the last few years leading up to the divorce.

"courts would not order one spouse to pay the other for no reason at all, unless you get a judge that is either biast, sexest, or is just crazy"

Here in California and in many states it is simply the norm. The law provides that each spouse is entitled to approximately 50% of the total household income as is was reported in the two years prior to divorce-- regardless of who earned the greater percentage.

"I know for a fact about 5 divorced couples that do not have to pay any money except for their children involved."

Great. I have no problem with that. But were either made up couples who were equal contributors, or occured in sates where the law did not required spousal support.

"So basically what I am saying here is that there is some reason behind the money being exchanged to the ex spouse."

That reason in my state is simply because the law says so. That's it. And I believe it is the same in many other state. The law itself was no doubt based on some sort of faulty reasoning if you are searching for "some reason behind the law."
actorgurl

Con

"Spousal support is typically ordered when one spouse has been making more money than the other for the last few years leading up to the divorce."

This is true. Let's say for example, in this marriage, there is one spouse who was leading a mediocre life, making a fair amount of money, not rich or poor, but just plain old middle class. Then they marry someone who has had a better job than them and then the marriage went on for a few years or even decades, and then all of the sudden, the divorce happens. Bam, the one spouse is back to the old life, whereas they were used to all that luxury for years, then all of the sudden it was taken from them in amost an instant.

"Here in California and in many states it is simply the norm. The law provides that each spouse is entitled to approximately 50% of the total household income as is was reported in the two years prior to divorce-- regardless of who earned the greater percentage."

Good example. Take for example like my above argument. Say not even middle class, but if the person was lower class. They have been in the marriage for a few years and that is the only life they know about how to live seeing as that is how they have been living for so long. I ask you as the pro to please explain to me this. What if the circumstances were that the person from the lower class really could not survive because they have been used to the life they have been leading, and therefore struggle even more after the divorce to live. Even if for example they were just a little bit better off than when they started. Yes, maybe they are entitled to 50% of everything, in the marriage, but what if that would not be enough?

"Great. I have no problem with that. But were either made up couples who were equal contributors, or occurred in sates where the law did not required spousal support."

Could you please elaborate more on this statement? I'm sorry, but I am not completely clear as to what your point is on this statement.

"That reason in my state is simply because the law says so. That's it. And I believe it is the same in many other state. The law itself was no doubt based on some sort of faulty reasoning if you are searching for 'some reason behind the law.' "

OK, this may be so. But how exactly do you know that they did not simply start saying that was the law because of so many cases previously of divorces gone bad and it turned out to be more often than not that in that instance, one person was left off worse than what they started because the other spouse decided to be a total butt-head and not give the other fair share of what they were supposed to have. Every law have a reasoning behind it, or else it would have not been made.
Debate Round No. 2
HandsOff

Pro

"What if the circumstances were that the person from the lower class really could not survive because they have been used to the life they have been leading, and therefore struggle even more after the divorce to live."

Here you are falsely supposing that because something has gone on for a particular length of time, it must continue to or an injustice has been committed. That is like saying if someone has been receiving free government checks for 10 years, he is entitled to continue receiving them merely because he might struggle without them. When in reality, he should be thankful for the 10 years and move on. An honest person may even look for ways to repay it.

"Yes, maybe they are entitled to 50% of everything, in the marriage"

So now you are succumbing to the same faulty logic you condemned at the beginning of the debate-- where judges ordered spousal support "just because" it was the law. Now you can see the motives that would convince courts to abandon what is truly right in principle in exchange for what promotes a desirable outcome. This is their logic: "We don't want anyone to struggle, so make someone else pay even if it is not their responsibility." This is how liberals get away with all sorts of the unfair policies they promote-- taking one man's earnings to give it to one who did not earn it in the interest of doing something "good." Courts should not be do-gooders with other peoples money.

"but what if [50%] would not be enough?

Enough for what? Enough so the lower-income spouse does not have to face life like a responsible adult and get a job? If the spouse were able to secure more than 50% of the pre-marital total income, then the other (the one supposedly earning more) would be left with less than 50% and would obviously have to face even greater challenges-- since his current employment would take up most of the time needed to earn additional income. But I would not put this type of injustice past any divorce judge.

"But how exactly do you know that they did not simply start saying that was the law because of so many cases previously of divorces gone bad and it turned out to be more often than not that in that instance, one person was left off worse than what they started because the other spouse decided to be a total butt-head and not give the other fair share of what they were supposed to have."

Here again you are now defending what we both considered absurd at the beginning of this debate: A blanket arbitrary law that says one must pay spousal support, even though in fairness it would need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. And again, the trick here is deciding what is meant by "fair share" or what on is one is "supposed to have." If you support a slacker roommate for 3 years simply because you like her, and then later you decide you want to move out, should you be forced by a court to pay your roommate her "fair share" of what you voluntarily gave her in the past? Is she "supposed to have" that money or assistance simply because she had received it in the past? The objective and logical way to determine what one "should have" is to say one should have that to which he is rightly entitled. In the U.S., that has typically come to mean that which one has earned, been freely given, or inherited. And again, as I mentioned in my opening argument, there are some cases for spousal support where and argument can be made that the spouse "earned" a cut of his/her spouses future earnings if it can be proved that he/she invested greatly in the earning spouses career or education.
actorgurl

Con

"Here you are falsely supposing that because something has gone on for a particular length of time, it must continue to or an injustice has been committed. That is like saying if someone has been receiving free government checks for 10 years, he is entitled to continue receiving them merely because he might struggle without them. When in reality, he should be thankful for the 10 years and move on. An honest person may even look for ways to repay it."

There may have been a mistranslation, but what I was meaning was that fact that if someone gets a divorce for one reason or another, then the spouse who lives in the upper class style can stay living that life style, but the other spouse has to go back to living in basically poverty compared to the live they have been leading. Take for example if one was leading a pretty rich lifestyle and the other was leading a kind of poor lifestyle. They feel in love and got married, but then something happened and the got a divorce. If the one who was leading the richer lifestyle just moved away and left the other with nothing but half the income for that 2 years before the divorce, how would they be able to live off of just that? It's almost as if they are quitting life "cold turkey" in a sense. It would be the same as if someone was smoking for 2 solid years. Some people maybe could quit cold turkey, but most people have to be weaned off of it. It's the same with money in life. You can't just not get money for a while without a job so then the richer spouse gives the money to the other, at least until they can get back on their own two feet.

"So now you are succumbing to the same faulty logic you condemned at the beginning of the debate-- where judges ordered spousal support "just because" it was the law. Now you can see the motives that would convince courts to abandon what is truly right in principle in exchange for what promotes a desirable outcome. This is their logic: "We don't want anyone to struggle, so make someone else pay even if it is not their responsibility." This is how liberals get away with all sorts of the unfair policies they promote-- taking one man's earnings to give it to one who did not earn it in the interest of doing something "good." Courts should not be do-gooders with other peoples money."

I would just be repeating myself so see my above argument.

"Enough for what? Enough so the lower-income spouse does not have to face life like a responsible adult and get a job? If the spouse were able to secure more than 50% of the pre-marital total income, then the other (the one supposedly earning more) would be left with less than 50% and would obviously have to face even greater challenges-- since his current employment would take up most of the time needed to earn additional income. But I would not put this type of injustice past any divorce judge."

Like I have already stated, after living a lifestyle like that which has been stated, no one would be able to just go out, get a job, and earn enough money to live by themselves. Especially in today's society. You have to look at those who have jobs, especially high paying jobs are lucky, because of the economy, jobs are getting so scarce that a lot of people need more time to find a job so therefore it would only make sense if the higher payed spouse was paying the other at least until they could fully get back on their feet.

"Here again you are now defending what we both considered absurd at the beginning of this debate: A blanket arbitrary law that says one must pay spousal support, even though in fairness it would need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. And again, the trick here is deciding what is meant by "fair share" or what on is one is "supposed to have." If you support a slacker roommate for 3 years simply because you like her, and then later you decide you want to move out, should you be forced by a court to pay your roommate her "fair share" of what you voluntarily gave her in the past? Is she "supposed to have" that money or assistance simply because she had received it in the past? The objective and logical way to determine what one "should have" is to say one should have that to which he is rightly entitled. In the U.S., that has typically come to mean that which one has earned, been freely given, or inherited. And again, as I mentioned in my opening argument, there are some cases for spousal support where and argument can be made that the spouse "earned" a cut of his/her spouses future earnings if it can be proved that he/she invested greatly in the earning spouses career or education."

The only problem I see with this argument is just simply living with a roommate for 3 years is not a legally bound situation like a marriage is. Yes they are both legally bound is some ways, but in a marriage it is more so because of the fact that they are married, and not just living together. Do the courts make those who just live together pay eachother after they move? No they don't. Reason being is because in a marriage everything like you said is 50/50. That is not the case with people just simply living together. As I have said before I would just be repeating myself, so see my above arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Thank you yraelz I will read that soon.
Posted by actorgurl 9 years ago
actorgurl
I agree. I think there are a couple aspects of this debate that maybe both of us over looked. Although it was a good debate.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
actorgurl,
Yes, but Rob had a good point about the "pressure to stay in an abusive marriage" which would result from a dispartiy in income. That was something I had not considered, and I would have had some cleaning up to do.
Posted by actorgurl 9 years ago
actorgurl
Rob: It starts in my second argument, but in both my second and third arguments, I do bring up the facts about if a lower class person marries a higher class person and then get a divorce, they could be worse off because they have been used to the "luxurious" life for so long. Almost my entire final argument is about this.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
"I'm impressed with your very original theory that Satan could emulate Christ in every detail, which would make efforts to authenticate him futile"

Could you show me where this debate is? I would like to read it.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Actorgurl, I think you missed the main reason why this law exists in the first place (forgive me if you did mention it already, sometimes I scan the arguments too quickly). If one spouse makes a lot of money and the other doesn't, the one who doesn't has an incredible and artificial pressure to stay with the one who does. This means that even if there is incredible physical or emotional abuse, or if there are other similarly present negative attributes to the marriage, the one who doesn't earn as much is utterly dependent on the one who does and cannot do anything to save himself/herself. I am voting for handsoff unless you can show me where you mentioned this point... There is no way you can win this debate without this argument and your failure to do so is quite enough reason for you to lose this one.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
I left some comments for you over there. I'm impressed with your very original theory that Satan could emulate Christ in every detail, which would make efforts to authenticate him futile. So regardless of how well one knows the bible or how much one has dedicated his life to Christ, in the end it could still be a crap shoot.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
=) sounds pretty good. You should give me some input on my newest christian debate if you get a chance at sometime. Or have the incentive.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Who knows? I don't think the voting on this site is really indicative of who won. I know there are a few unbiased voters, but not enough. I learned a lot though. I use debate to discover undeniable truths, not so much to win. If I can stumble accross a few novel undeniable truths in each debate, I can put them in may bag and consider it a good day.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
HandsOffactorgurlTied
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 Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
HandsOffactorgurlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Handout 9 years ago
Handout
HandsOffactorgurlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by meells 9 years ago
meells
HandsOffactorgurlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
HandsOffactorgurlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
HandsOffactorgurlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
HandsOffactorgurlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Araku 9 years ago
Araku
HandsOffactorgurlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by liber-t 9 years ago
liber-t
HandsOffactorgurlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by bigdog 9 years ago
bigdog
HandsOffactorgurlTied
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:30