The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
medv4380
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

polygamy is more natural 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 2 votes the winner is...
medv4380
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 817 times Debate No: 59561
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

polygamy is more natural 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.
medv4380

Con

What doe it mean for something to be natural, or of the natural world?
Nature can be such a broad definition that because it's been left ambiguous my opponents claims are unclear. For example, the claim Hydrogen is more natural that Technetium[1] is true if Technetium is unnatural because it is "caused by man", and nature is defined as not caused by man. However, Technetium is natural if we use the broader definition supplied by natural philosophy to denote everything within the universe as natural as compared to the supernatural, or outside the laws of nature. Which definition that is the actual intent of my opponent will dictate whether, or not each practice is natural, or unnatural.

How is polygamy more natural than any other natural practice?
Unfortunately, natural is a binary attribute. You are either natural, or unnatural. Something that is natural is more natural than an unnatural thing because 1 is greater than 0. However, something that is natural is only equivalent to something else that is natural when we are comparing the virtue of naturality. In other words one is always equal to one. If we take a reductionist perspective we might be able to come up with a percentage for some things when they are composed of natural, and unnatural parts. However, I do not see any indication that either practice would be a mixture of natural, and unnatural.

If the only thing my opponent has to denote "more" is quantity of practice then there is several problems. My opponent has left polygamy, and monogamy ill defined. Most definitions would include the number of wives as a result of marriage. However, marriage is strictly a human thing, and would exclude all animal examples. Depending on what the definition of natural is I might be able to say that both are unnatural because marriage is caused by man. This would leave them both as equivalent, but unnatural.

I suspect my opponent maybe using the number of sexual partners to define polygamy since that is the only way to include animals into the debate. This is still a huge problem because it red flags a selection bias in my opponents argument. How do we account for sexual bacteria? They are strictly monogamous because once they have sex the prior organism no longer exists[2]. They're like salmon in that they can only have sex once in their entire life. It becomes a game of which animals do we count, and how do we count them. Do multicellular animals have a higher vote than unicellular animals? Even if this were an acceptable method of gauging somethings natural quality, or quantity it is impossible to come up with an unbiased method of accounting for all life past, and present to do the comparative of their sums. It would be an unprovable claim.

If my opponent isn't using the sexual partners definition, and is actually using marriage then the claim that polygamy is widely practiced now is in question. In China, and most of the world polygamy is illegal[3]. Most of the world outside of northern Africa, the Middle East, and a handful of others have it outlawed in some fashion. At that point any comparison to the animal kingdom is invalid since marriage is strictly human.

My position is that monogamy and polygamy are both equivalent in their virtue of natural. They are either both unnatural, or both natural. There is no valid method to attribute one as more than the other.

At this point all the evidence my opponent has presented is opinion, and hearsay. Referencing a primate study without actually linking to it is pointless. It could easily indicate contradictions in my opponents argument, or might not even exist in a state that supports my opponents argument.

[1] http://www.wisegeek.com...
[2] http://bugs.bio.usyd.edu.au...
[3] http://www.china.org.cn...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
medv4380

Con

I will have to wait for my opponent before I can make any further arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
medv4380

Con

So unfortunate. I'll leave this up to the voters.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Humans have ape characteristics.
Though the argument does not apply to all humans, humans are somewhere in the middle of their ape counterparts.
It depends on whether they are arguing about Tournament Species or Pair Bonding Species.
Tournament species are Polygamous, Pair Bonding Species are usually Monogamous.
Humans are somewhere in the middle and where in the middle is up for debate, likely this debate?
So it could go either way.
Posted by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
Is this debate about humans, with you using animals as examples, or is it about any species?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
dairygirl4u2cmedv4380Tied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
dairygirl4u2cmedv4380Tied
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 Forfeited though I was leaning Pro's way until then.