The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

polygamy is more natural for humans than monogamy

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...
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,008 times Debate No: 59697
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

linate

Pro

polygamy is more natural for humans than monogamy

polygamy is more widely practiced in human society now and historically, so that is an indicator, given we are part of the natural world.

polygamy is by far most widely practiced in the animal kingdom, even with closely related primates.

they did a study on primates, and concluded that the wider a species shoulder, the more polygamous that species is. humans are on the conservative, but polygamous side of things.
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

I accept this debate and thank my opponent linate for initiating it. :)




Now because my opponent did not bring up any definitions I will take it upon myself to do so to make sure we’re on the right page.

Definitions:

[1] “Monogamy is a form of relationship in which an individual has only one partner during their lifetime or at any one time.”

[2] “Polygamy is a marriage that includes more than two partners [at one time].”

[3] More: “greater in amount, number, or size”

[4] Natural: “usual or expected”

[5] Humans: “Of or characteristic of people as opposed to God or animals or machines, especially in being susceptible to weaknesses.”

I will be setting up the burden of proof and a resolution analysis, which means, I will be explaining this debate’s resolution is and what my opponent and I need to prove before the end of this debate.

Resolved: “Polygamy is more natural for humans than monogamy”

This means that my opponent needs to prove that you will find that a greater majority of humans have a group or conjoint marriage then a relationship with one spouse.

The Burden of Proof is on my opponent, what I need to do is negate the case he brings up.

I await my opponent’s case.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

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

Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

linate forfeited this round.
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

Pro forfieted. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

con basically engaged in pointless definiing of terms that are already understood by the audience. and opponent din't even engage in any arguments. my points above stand
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

I would like to remind the audience that Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof, and in doing so he left me nothing to argue against.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Pro had some points but did not argue those points properly.
It's not just wider shoulders it is also larger skulls and stronger bones in males of Tournament Species that depict Polygamous species such as Gorillas and Baboons.

Yet where the skull sizes are closer in size as in many humans, we have Pair-Bonding species where Monogamy rules, so Humans are somewhere in the Middle region between polygamy and monogamy.

Yet some species, such as Bonobos throw this whole notion out the window as Bonobos have social sex, in other words they just have sex as a form of showing friendship.
Where some apes groom to show support and closeness, Bonobos have sex.

Which is like a girl I almost dated, until she told me that she has sex with anybody she likes that she hasn't seen for a while as a form of Greeting. Since she was very beautiful, men were deliberately not visiting her for a month or so and then, how about your usual greeting.
No, I said!
I was not going to marry such a Bonobo woman!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Hmm, Spencer only needs to pose a decent argument in the final round as Pro cannot counter it.
Though both are equal in my books @ the mo, because stating that it is common in the animal kingdom doesn't make Burden Of Proof satisfied.
Humans are not ordinary animals, Tournament species have polygamous relationships, many Apes, Lions, etc.
Humans are becoming pair bonding (monogamous) as males are often no bigger than some females.
In Tournament species (Polygamous) males are usually bigger than females.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
NOOOOOOB SNIPEEEEEEEEE
nac
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
BTW, Fringe and Desert Dwellers are also more likely to be Monotheist (this is where Judaism, Islam and Christianity originated from) while Jungle and Forest Dwellers were more likely to have Polytheistic religions. like Hinduism, etc..
So not only does it sort of reverse things, Monotheistic religions originated from the same War Like groups that preferred Polygamous relationships, one Hero, Macho, Warrior type of Male, spreads his genetics through multiple women (Ghengis Khan) as opposed to the Forest Dweller, Polytheist (Gods for everything, trees, water, sky, wind, frogs, etc... who have wimpy Men who Pair Bond into monogamous relationships with a life partner.

Again, Humans are somewhere in the middle.
Monotheism is not natural for humans either.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LOL, No ceremonies, they just live together.
Near enough even for human species.
Pair Bonding species choose a partner for life, just as many humans do as both males and females help raise the kids.
Tournament species just screw around and females raise the kids by themselves.
Humans are somewhere in the middle, which is up for debate here.
Are humans more a pair-bonding (males are wimpy, closer to females than Alpha Males)or a tournament species (Alpha Males and subservient females who all seek to reproduce with the Alpha Males).
So it should be an interesting debate.

Which essentially the debate is about.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
There is no truth in this. When have you seen a member of the animal kingdom get married?
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
There is some truth in the Debate title, but it comes with Qualifications????
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
linateSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: ... in my opinion, there were no substantial arguments... There was a forfeit. Rounds were wasted by arguing about other nonsensical stuff. Spelling and grammar to the other guy cus con spelt "forfiet" wrong. Silly...silly...silly murican
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
linateSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro essentially didn't argue nor sustain Burden Of Proof, and after forfeiting came back with an accusation instead of an argument, giving Con a conduct point. Only Con provided source support.
Vote Placed by CountCheechula 2 years ago
CountCheechula
linateSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an argument and Con did not. Also I am biased against those who plead for votes.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
linateSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture