The Instigator
anc2006
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MentalDeadlock
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Being single is better physically (now)

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
08days21hours15minutes45seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2019 Category: Health
Updated: 1 day ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 123423
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (482)
Votes (0)

 

anc2006

Pro

Sorry for those who had their love but have to spend their free time on a corner of internet debating me.

This is PHYSICALLY. I am seeing humans as automatic machines that can reproduce. As this debate, Feeling are scrapped. This is only PHYSICALLY, Not including mental factors.

Reason #1:

Less money, Time and other resources spent

Easy. Every human has an amount of pollution dealt by their surviving and thriving objects like pants, Cars and papers etc. After marriage both people would be dependent on each other. And because of love, Most couples would spend more money and thus pollution. This includes Wedding dresses, Pictures and etc. After a few years of marriage they may have a baby or more. The baby alone would take a lot of resources as the surviving objects(milk, Clothes, Etc) and the thriving objects(toys, Photos, Etc) would take manufacturing via mining indirectly, As if anything else isn't.

Being single doesn't have that problem. Being a single person(unless you are the king of a country) would not be affected by the increasing carbon footprint count for a lot. He/she will be living themselves. Less things that would be common for married couples would be purchased, Like rings, Photos, Etc.

As well, Being single would still have more time on their own. Let me give some examples.
Newton, Unmarried, Created the foundation of today's physics
Tesla, Unmarried, Invented a lot of things, Especially ones with electricity.
Beethoven, Unmarried, Wrote a lot of famous pieces that I still play today.
Queen Elizabeth I, Unmarried, Is one of the greatest queens in the world.
Wright brothers, Started the field of aviation.

These people preferred to abandon their partners for the greater good that makes up part of the foundation of today's dating. Without those single people, Dates will be much more inferior.

As opposing to those people, Some people literally gave up their jobs that may be useful to the future, Only to deliver love to their partner. This would be a waste of time physically, And single people would be more free than ones with burden of family and relationship that will eventually oppose against the greater goods of humanity at some point.

As that human asexual reproduction is possible(although not achieved yet), Singled people wouldn't be the ending tips of human society.

Reason II: Less overpopulation.

Let's see.

Singled people would have no children whatsoever, Except when they adopt. There are 150 million orphans in the world, So they can easily take place(note that single parents are usually more responsible, And children is possible to be raised with one person). Eventually, If single, There will be more refuge of the orphans, And there will be less overpopulation, As well as unwanted pregnancy.
MentalDeadlock

Con

I shall accept you challenge, Best of luck to you.

Before I go through my points, Though, I would like to make clear what the contending position entails. Because the resolution put forward is that being single is physically better than being married (and by extension that the mental and emotional should be ignored), I as the contender can refute this in a number of ways. I do not necessarily have to prove that married people are better off physically than single people. I will be negating the resolution in two ways: firstly by rejecting the foundation on which it is set as faulty and/or with skewed perspectives, And secondly by showing the points you have given do not prove that single people are better physically than married people. I would also wonder if by excluding mental factors you are differentiating mental from emotional, As they can mean different things and you explicitly mention restricting both. Unless otherwise stated I will be assuming this to be the case.

Firstly, 2 points critiquing the resolution itself.

1) Marriage is not physical.
Marriage, In and of itself, Is not a physical object. It is not something you can hold, And it is not something that is crafted by hand. Marriage is a mental concept, The metaphorical union between 2 people, And does not exist in the physical world. True, There are rings and marriage certificates, But these are simply physical objects signifying the marriage, Not the marriage itself. Because it is a mental concept, To remove mental factors would be akin to removing marriage itself from the issue. I understand that this is a theoretical debate, But that does not mean we can push realism and pragmatism to the side. Because that is what we are doing when we are removing the mental effects from a debate on a mental issue. You cannot debate a mental concept with only physical terms. While it has its physical effects, They are merely a side effect of the mental, As will be shown below.

2) Mental effects are too large and too impactful to be ignored.
To put this argument simply: if you want to look at the physical you have to look at the mental, Because the mental dictates the physical. All of these physical effects you gave are merely the result of the mental effects of being/not being married. Didn"t buy anything for a wedding? Because you are not mentally influenced by marriage (which is, Again, A mental concept not a physical one). Taking more time to work on your own ideas? Because your mind is not influenced by marriage. Anything you do or don"t do is a result of your mental state, And by removing the mental we are also removing much of the physical. Additionally, In regards to emotions, Either we have mental factors or we have emotional factors, We cannot have neither (we can have both, Though). If there are no mental factors, Then any "greater good" is meaningless because it is premised on mental concepts and reasoning becomes irrelevant (there is no reason without the mental, And 'automatic machines' have no inherent reason). If there are no emotional factors, We wouldn"t care about the "greater good" because we cannot care at all (empathy, Sympathy, And the like are all emotional issues).

I would now like to take the time to refute some claims made in support of the issue.

1) Carbon footprint: this point is assuming that if everyone were single, They would use less materials. Firstly, You are assuming that the materials used to make things for married people would not be repurposed for things marketed towards single people. There is little to no historical evidence suggesting this would be the case. If a market is no longer profitable, The materials are used for a more profitable market, Not left to "reduce the carbon footprint. " And those that are already made would already have done their damage.

2) More time on their own: While this argument is somewhat true, It would be fallacious to assume that being single is a necessary condition for contributing greatly to society. Allow me to provide my own examples:

-Einstein, Married, Developed the theories of relativity (one of the 2 pillars of modern physics) and contributed greatly to the development of quantum theory.
-Michael Faraday, Married, Established the basis for the concept of electromagnetic fields, Discovered benzene, And made an early form of the Bunsen Burner.
-Mozart, Married, Also wrote many famous pieces
-Louis XIV of France, Married, Regarded as one of the greatest European monarchs of all time, Ended feudalism in France and modernized the nation

Without these people, Society would be quite behind as well. While this argument makes sense at first, It simply attempts to correlate lack of time spent on others with bettering society.

3) Overpopulation: You contradict yourself here. In your first argument you point out that asexual reproduction is possible (albeit not yet), But then in your second point you say that single people would have no biological children whatsoever. Either they have children via asexual reproduction or they don"t have children except through adoption, Which one? Moreover, This idea that single people wouldn"t have children beyond adoption is also flawed in and of itself. Extramarital sex would still exist, And children would still be born out of wedlock. In fact, According to the CDC, Unmarried women made up around 86% of abortions in 2015 (this isn't, Of course, Taking into account unwanted pregnancies outside of wedlock that do not result in abortions). Also addressing your point that single parents tend to be more responsible, I have seen no reason to believe this to be the case. There of course may be individual instances, But as a whole single-parent households are a detriment for children. One can look to the problems fatherlessness is causing the black community in the U. S. To see this to be the case.

While I have nothing against single people (being one myself), I find it improper to say that single people are physically better than married people. Firstly because the restriction on the mental factors makes the debate itself (technically) impossible, Because you cannot look at the physical without looking at the mental. Secondly, The points you have given supporting the topic are fallacious, Assuming that 1) materials used for married people would not be repurposed, 2) people that marry can"t spend time on innovation, And 3) single people won"t have children (here you even contradict yourself). Whether married people are better off physically than single people, We cannot say for sure, Because we cannot know which mental state is better without looking at the mental state. We also cannot say that single people are better off than married people (physically or mentally), Because the evidence provided is based on false or invalid premises.
Debate Round No. 1
anc2006

Pro

Refute:

1)-2):
Is marriage a mental concept? Not always. Some marriages are bound by family instead of freedom of love.

Now let's just say that all marriages are by love. Even then, 40-50% of the first marriages would end in divorce. I would like to admit that marriages would have some mental factors, And the number I just stated would be mentioned later in the text.

I would like to see that most marriages would soon take LESS carbon footprints than an independent individual. Not two. Just one person per couple taking less. NO? No. The fact is that most marriages are unnecessarily fancy, Creating more carbon footprint than two of the same single person in the same class. This doesn't need evidence: rings, Photos, Wedding dresses and other fancy stuff that are unnecessary. I am not saying that being single is the best choice eternally, But at this pace, Eventually marriages would kill the world if stay this way.

and I admit it is mental. But DOUBLE THE CO2 FOR A LITTLE LOVE? Hell nah. I might as well start my own paper and become the next newton than to waste white plastic for a little love. I am not saying that marriages shouldn't exist, But look, Even if the love is eternal, Their waste as in average in normal marriages would still damage the world where virgins live in their concrete bunkers trying to research about quantum mechanics, Even if by a little.

As if you think it is meant to be repurposed, What else can be used for a wedding dress? Clothes for african children? If so, Why not make it directly? Eventually, You will find out that the wedding things are both harmful for the nature and serve nothing more but marriage.

Again, With little enough manufacturing, And with everything planned that are basically all needed, Single people have less carbon footprint than married ones. They would minus the things needed to bond the nature of relationships.

also, Https://www. Businessinsider. Com. . .
https://www. Yourtango. Com. . .

This is here. The fact is that single people has less burden over a relationship. They don't want relationships to take up their time for pushing the world, Unless both can push the world, Which is a very rare situation.

then to address your people.

Einstein: married after he began his career, And relation didn't push far to him.
Faraday: Wife did little on it
Mozart: already famous before marriage
Louie: C'mon, He's a monarch, What'd you expect?

the fact is most of the married ones listed already completed their goals before marriage, Or after marriage, In which the partners didn't do anything. Their contributional life is still single-esque, Only to exclude a few.

3):
There would be 2 remedies:
if world is not overpopulated: then:
asexual production would most likely be possible, If humanity isn't extinct.

If world is:
Then adopt. Married people would adopt less knowing sex is more fun for them.

Overall, Single people wins a lot without the mental, And still manage to draw to a narrow win over within the mental area.
MentalDeadlock

Con

1) Marriage isn't always a mental concept, Some are determined by family.
I believe you misunderstand what I mean by mental concept. I am not referring to love or freedom (those are entirely different debates), I am referring to the marriage itself, Which I am aware can be family-related. The actual status of marriage, However, Is purely mental. Once you are married, Nothing physically changes as a necessary result. No matter the reason behind it--love, Family ties, Etc. --marriage will only exist as a mental concept, With physical signs to its existence being side effects. In regards to your point about divorce: firstly, This has no bearing on the issue. Just as marriage is a mental concept, So is divorce. You do not physically change as a direct result of divorce, Because it is merely a counterpart to marriage, Both of which are mental concepts. Secondly, I would question how you came to these statistics. Is this the global divorce rate or just one specific country. ? What year was this data taken? I'm not entirely certain where you got this, But the best I could find was a study in 2008 that found the global divorce rate to be 5. 5 in 1000, Or 0. 55%. This is a very different number from 40-50%.

2) Carbon footprint: Where are you getting this data? Your basic argument as I understand it is that weddings, Because of their unnecessarily fancy nature (this is assuming all marriages are like those in places like the US or UK), Leave a greater carbon footprint. According to you, Twice the carbon footprint. Twice the source doesn't always mean twice the output. Here's an example: a single draft horse can pull up to 8, 000 pounds, Or 4 tons. You would think that two draft horses together would be able to pull 16, 000 pounds (double), Right? Wrong. Two draft horses can pull 24, 000 pounds, Three times as much. We could of course go back and forth arguing about whether or not this multiplied output could refer to carbon footprint or working to remove said footprint, But that wouldn't be the point. The point here is that you simply cannot assume that double the source means double the output. Another thing to consider is that the people would still exist. They would still have a carbon footprint, So by not marrying you are not guaranteed to cut it in half, Just shave off what would result in marriage.
This leads me to the repurposing argument. Your argument here is that you can't repurpose a wedding dress, Or other marriage-related things. Here is the point I believe you missed: If the wedding dress has already been made, The damage to the environment has already been done, And you cannot undo that. If it has not been made, It is still in the form of raw materials: fabric, String, Silk, Etc. Your argument here assumes that these raw materials will not be repurposed, Which (as I've said before) there is no reason to believe this. You also mention how with a little planning, Single people can have less of an impact. Unless you are calling for a complete overhaul of how economics works, This isn't going to be the case. Any wedding materials that cannot be repurposed have done their damage and are a waste of space/materials, And those that can be repurposed will be. Unless you can provide evidence and not just theoretical arguments, This cannot be accepted as fact.

3) The websites
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here, These aren't even complete URLs. If anything, The majority of content on Business Insider points to the previous point I just made, And Yourtango. Com just looks like a relationship advice blog. Additionally, If we're talking about less of a burden, One could also make the argument that burdens a single person would have to bear the entirety of would be split between the two.

4) The people
I believe you are missing the point. I am not here to say that people accomplish more when married than when single. Nor am I saying that the spouses contributed. My point here is that you do not have to be single to have time enough to work on these things. I am fully aware that the spouses of these individuals may not have had that much of an impact on their work, Which is exactly the point. In regards to Einstein, His career had started already, Yes, But he continued to work on it after marriage. Faraday's wife did little to hinder his discoveries, And while Mozart was already famous before marriage (not a reliable indicator of societal impact, In my opinion), Perhaps his most famous piece--Requiem--was composed after he was married. As for Louis? Yes he was a monarch, The vast majority of monarchs throughout history were married, And that didn't really seem to stop them. You say they lived single-esque lives, Which further proves that these benefits you ascribe to being single are also seen with married people. You may say they were effectively single, But the facts remain. They were married, And their marriage--by your own admission--did not hinder them.

5) Overpopulation
Firstly, Thank you for clarifying the discrepancy. Now to respond to these remedies as situational, You are again ignoring the extramarital sex factor. People still can (and do) have sex outside of wedlock, So there would still be population growth even if it wasn't necessary. You also failed to respond to my point regarding single parents, Showing that they are in fact more detrimental than helpful.

While you have argued that single people are physically better off than married people, I have shown these arguments to either by null or fallacious. You also mention at the end that single people pull a (albeit narrow) win with mental factors. Unless I misunderstood an argument you made, None of your points take about the mental advantages of being single. You talked about carbon footprint, Overpopulation, Contributions to society, And briefly try to make the argument that marriage isn't always a mental concept. Nowhere is the case made that single people are better off than married people mentally, And because we have not seen evidence for this, Nor has the reasoning behind you claim they are better off physically sound, I cannot agree with this position.
Debate Round No. 2
anc2006

Pro

1)

Now I am convinced that marriage and divorce are mental. Thank you.
But look, What is marriages doing here? Increased burden, More money spend?

I have just see you arguing about how marriage is mental, And not even a single sentence how single people are not better physically. Physically single people would spend less than married people, Because married people are over burden(both financially and emotionally) that leads them eventually to spend more per person. Single people, Independently, Are just spending on themselves. Married ones, However are also using their money to bond the relationship(or else they would be less fortunate). Even then if they did, Their relationship is fixed, Meaning if they leave the other for free, They would eventually be much worse. This means that married couples would have much bigger a risk to lose their money than singles.

Also, Https://blogs. Psychcentral. Com/single-at-heart/2018/07/is-there-any-relationship-between-being-smart-and-being-single/ Single people are usually smarter. And another evidence https://www. Psychologytoday. Com/us/blog/living-single/200803/todays-singles-bashing-question-does-marriage-make-you-smarter This evidence may seems to be on your side at first glance, But the fact is that less smart people go to marriages, Then be smart, While people who are acceptable with the single status would be already smarter than the ones needing love at the first place. That is why Newton and Tesla did a lot, And Faraday's wife did nothing: they are smart enough to be single.

2)

Money being in married hands doesn't mean it is used more efficiently. Some(often) reports that their girlfriends often use the money wastefully, And making him a harder job to do, Thus having a burden, But not heavy enough to divorce. So, 1 person can earn 20, 000$ a month, Spends 8, 000$ a month, A married couple(typical) earns 40, 000$ a month and 24, 000$ a month? Is this what you are saying?

Also, Less marriages=less expensive materials used. You are arguing as if the clients cancelled at last minute making the ornaments useless and to be repurposed after being broken down. But what if they aren't even made in the first place? That would save.

I accept it is not exactly a 1/2---2 relationship, But it is true single men spends less theoretically(minus those wasteful bastards which can tip over the entire table), Making marriage more wasteful.

4)

Yes, They are living a single-esque life. This doesn't change the fact they behave like single people, Which is a portray how single people is better(except Louie, Which is less of a better monarch than Q elizabeth I)

if vast majority of your vicinity is filled with single people that act like married ones, Would you say married people are better, Knowing they are single?

In conclusion, You beat me on some points, Making me believe single are NOT better mentally. However, They are still better physically.
MentalDeadlock

Con

1) Mental Factors and Intelligence
I'm glad we can agree on the mental factors. However I do believe your point that I have not argued for married people being physically better is null. As I pointed out in the beginning of this debate, I am the contender, Which means that I am against a position, Not necessarily for. Because your position is supporting an affirmative statement, The burden of proof falls on your side. I do not have to prove the inverse of the resolution true, You must prove your resolution true. Saying otherwise would be a fallacy of shifted burden of proof.

Now as for your argument regarding spending. I still have not seen any evidence supporting this, So I decided to look it up myself. Turns out, This is true, Though only to a degree (https://www. Theguardian. Com/money/2013/oct/30/marriage-single-people-hurting-economy). The caveat here is that the extra spending is only a correlative-not a consequence-of being married. Therefore we cannot imply causation from correlation. Furthermore, One can also see in the context of the article that this lack of spending is harmful to the economy. Saving money is a great thing, But not when it harms everyone else.

As for your sources, I will be addressing the arguments as you make them, And then examining the sources themselves.

"But the fact is that less smart people go to marriages, Then be smart, While people who are acceptable with the single status would be already smarter than the ones needing love at the first place. "
So is the point you're trying to make here that marriage makes you smarter? If the less smart people get smarter after marriage, I see no reason why they would be worse off than those who never married.

"That is why Newton and Tesla did a lot, And Faraday's wife did nothing: they are smart enough to be single. "
This is inferring that Michael Faraday wasn't intelligent; I would argue that Faraday was at least as smart as Newton and Tesla. Also, Societal contribution is not at all the defining factor of intelligence. Just because someone hasn't made a revolutionary discovery doesn't mean they're not smart; if that were the case then there's a very large majority of the single population that isn't smart. Groundbreaking discoveries are not exactly common, So one cannot use them as a reliable measure for determining intelligence.

Now to discuss the evidence you brought up. From what I could find of this study (whose reliability is in great question, I might add), Some researchers found that of their group (not sure how they determined who would be in the group; they said they were high schoolers which doesn't really establish it as reliable), And found that there was a correlation between being single and being smarter. I checked both of your sources and the study itself and could not find any more concrete link besides this correlation. It is also notable that no cause is ascribed to this. It may indeed be true that single women are smarter than married women. However, I have no responsibility to prove that they aren't, It is your responsibility to prove that they are (at least with this example), And you cannot prove causation with correlation. Therefore my point still remains.

2) Efficient use of money.
"Money being in married hands doesn't mean it is used more efficiently. "
I never made this point, And I said in my last argument that this ultimately doesn't matter, Because unless you can prove that there is more inefficient spending (not to be confused with more spending; see above point), Then you have not proven that single people are better off physically. You also provide an anecdote, And attach the word often to it. You have not provided any evidence to this, However, So we have no reason to believe this is the rule and not the exception.

"Also, Less marriages=less expensive materials used. You are arguing as if the clients cancelled at last minute making the ornaments useless and to be repurposed after being broken down. But what if they aren't even made in the first place? That would save. "

No it would not. As I have said in my last two arguments, If the wedding materials were not made in the first place, The resources required to make them would be repurposed. The silk, Fabric, Etc. To make a wedding dress for example, Would not simply be ignored and help the environment. There are plenty of things that single people use that require these materials. The point I am making here is that if we were to do away with marriage, The materials would not be saved, Merely repurposed. History has consistently shown that if there are resources, They will (not might, Will) be repurposed.

"I accept it is not exactly a 1/2---2 relationship, But it is true single men spends less theoretically(minus those wasteful bastards which can tip over the entire table), Making marriage more wasteful. "
Theoretically? If we're discussing physical benefits the theoretical means nothing without evidence in the real world.

4) A single-esque Life
Your argument here is that they act single, Therefore it is just as if they weren't married at all. This is precisely the point I was making. All these benefits you ascribe to single people - namely contributing to society - can also occur when people are married. They are not exclusive to singles, And therefore you cannot say that single people are better off physically this way if married people can achieve the exact same thing. How they appear to act is irrelevant, Because it is undeniably a fact that they were married, And prove you can be married and have the benefits you claim only single people have. Also if we're talking about physical benefits, People that are actually married objectively get more benefits than those who simply act married (especially on the legal side of things), So this is a bit of a false equivalence.

"(except Louie, Which is less of a better monarch than Q elizabeth I)"
Plenty of historians would disagree with you here, Although some may agree with you. This is an opinion, Not an objective fact. Though if you want more examples of successful married monarchs, We can look at Julius Caesar, Frederick the Great, Jan Sobieski III, Suleiman I, Cyrus the Great, And Alexander the Great, Just to name a few.

5) Conclusion
One thing I would like to stress is where the burden of proof lies. Because you are supporting the affirmative statement, It is your obligation to prove it. As I have shown, Each of these points you have brought up rely on either faulty assumptions or fallacious reasoning. You have provided no evidence showing that marriage increases a carbon footprint, And we have historical precedence to say the wedding materials would not be "saved" by not making them into said wedding materials. You bring up examples of single individuals who contributed greatly to society, But I have shown that these exact benefits can be met even while married, Meaning being single does not hold this advantage over marriage. There was also the point of overpopulation which you dropped in your last argument. While it seems to make sense at first glance, It fails to take into account factors such as extramarital sex, And therefore lies on unstable assumptions. In your last argument you made a point about single people being smarter, But I see no evidence for this beyond a mere correlation. Since we can agree that married couples are better off mentally, And the mental dictates the physical, We cannot then reasonably come to the conclusion that single people are better off physically than married people merely based on faulty reasoning. Because of this, I retain the position that you have failed to meet the burden of proof, And failed to show that single people are physically better off than married people. Thank you, It was a pleasure debating you.
Debate Round No. 3
482 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leaning 2 days ago
Leaning
49 comment pages later. . . :(
Posted by Leaning 2 days ago
Leaning
Wow
That's a 'lot of comments. I think I'll actually read through this now.
Posted by anc2006 2 days ago
anc2006
Einstein and faraday: wouldn't be famous if newton didn't exist
Q. Elizabeth I: better monarch than Louie xiv
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 days ago
Dr.Franklin
glitch
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 days ago
Dr.Franklin
glitch
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 days ago
Dr.Franklin
glitch
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 days ago
Dr.Franklin
glitch
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 days ago
Dr.Franklin
glitch
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 days ago
Dr.Franklin
glitch
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 days ago
Dr.Franklin
glitch
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.