Instigator / Con
1
1420
rating
395
debates
43.8%
won
Topic
#5325
Should every person married to a physically abusive violent spouse get a divorce?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1271
rating
354
debates
39.83%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Should be clear enough but just in case, please request clarity prior to accepting the challenge.
Round 1
Should every person married to an abusive violent spouse divorce that spouse? No.
Here is the logic that follows.
First as I do in debates is explain what I mean by things regardless of the opposing side claiming I didn't. It's a lack of reading comprehension and attentiveness as typical.
What do I mean by "should"?
What do I ever mean by that really?
"Should" is connected to the expected result logically following a cause.
Some examples:
I get splashed with water, I should be wet.
I touched a fire, I should be burned.
I run in front of a moving vehicle or object to get hit, I should be struck by such.
Anything else is an anomaly, illogical or perhaps supernatural.
What causes an effect should be the effect of that cause.
With that being said, what is the cause of a person not getting a divorce from an abusive spouse?
We can take a survey of 1,000 folks. A cause of not getting a divorce is a person not believing in divorce.
Another cause may be because of financial reasons.
Another is coercion.
Could be legal circumstances with children or personally, individually or something of legal sort.
Could be for religious reasons.
Could be for personal convictions of not giving up. Either for hope in repairing the marriage or spousal therapy/rehabilitation.
What else?
A person's cause to not divorce is that the person has taken position "it's unnecessary''. Why? There is cause for that too.
Simply separation is sufficient.
Another cause of course obviously is if the person becomes a widow or widower.
So let's bullet point these causes in itemization to organize easier for the opposing side to challenge.
Cause for no divorce can be :
- NO BELIEF IN DIVORCE
- FINANCIAL REASONS
- COERCION
- LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES
- RELIGIOUS REASONS
- PERSONAL CONVICTIONS
- HOPE
- UNNECESSARY
- SEPARATION SUFFICES
- BECOMES/BECAME A WIDOW/WIDOWER
On the personal convictions, that can just branch out into several other causes from culture, family tradition, family values, personal values and family traditions.
Same way with the "unnecessary" bullet. A person could do a host of things to prevent divorce such as self defense or murder as a counter effect to the abusive spouse. Also the abusive spouses may have committed a crime themselves aside from domestic violence and has departed a place with the spouse to evade the authorities or apprehended by them. The abusive spouse may have taken route to be with another anyway.
The list can be built upon on and on and on.
The crux of the matter is, I believe the opposing side and whoever else whom had seen the title of this topic, may have just assumed that because there's no divorce it would mean that the abused can or will just have to remain with the abuser living in the same space and or close within proximity.
Not necessarily so.
This is like a rap battle where everything your opponent can use about you against you, you beat them to it.
You better lose yourself in the music, it's the moment , you own it.
All of your arguments are wrong
There is literally no reason to stay married to an abusive person, because it has no benefits for the abused.
Round 2
The opposing side stated there is literally no reason when I just stated several.
So what do you mean there is literally no reason?
The opposing side has not made one single refutation because there is none.
These are all reasons why a person will stay technically married. Remember , remember , remember, staying married doesn't mean you stay or live with the person.
I don't know what the opposing side means by "reason".
If we're talking about justification, that's up to the married person to decide. If we're talking about benefits, that's up to the married to see if any such thing is there. If you paid attention to what I've said, I've only argued the causes which are the reasons explained as to why everyone shouldn't divorce. If these causes didn't exist, everyone perhaps may do something different. I don't know for certain. I don't know all things. One plus one shouldn't be one because there's one more. Do we understand all this?
There is a cause that makes a scenario what it should be as a result.
There are explanations to why logically everyone won't be getting a divorce so the numbers or statistics SHOULD reflect that.
Being that the stats reflect that, the people represented in those stats SHOULD reflect exactly in doing that. Hence we have what we have amongst the divorce rate.
Do we all get this now?
Has the opposing side proved that these scenarios explained are impossible? NO.
Has the opposing side offered any rebuttal or counterpoint to what I've said? NO.
Did this individual prove that the causes I mentioned don't exist? NO.
I suppose because of the timing to make a rebuttal, the effort made by the opposing side was impeded or could of been no effort made deliberately.
When you're giving something you can't think of in any way to refute, you respond like the opposing side here with the invincible ignorance fallacy.
That is when you dismiss points claiming absurdity, impossibility, incredulous claims without actually challenging or refuting the points.
I must request of the opposing side to concede to all the possibilities and causes mentioned or actually disprove them. Either concede or accept the challenge.
This is a debate where you make the effort to debate. Not an open forum or talk show. Unless you just concede it's not a debatable subject.
I yield.
Forfeited
Round 3
I rest my case .
These are all reasons why a person will stay technically married. Remember , remember , remember, staying married doesn't mean you stay or live with the person.
So why stay married then?
Round 4
So let's bullet point these causes in itemization to organize easier for the opposing side to challenge.
Cause for no divorce can be :
- NO BELIEF IN DIVORCE
- FINANCIAL REASONS
- COERCION
- LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES
- RELIGIOUS REASONS
- PERSONAL CONVICTIONS
- HOPE
- UNNECESSARY
- SEPARATION SUFFICES
- BECOMES/BECAME A WIDOW/WIDOWER
Reposted this.
Are you awake, sleepy?
Get your head in the debate game playa.
So no valid reason.
Okay.
Round 5
Just respond with an "okay" next round to end this .
I've provided all what would be causes that a person would still be married to another.
The opposing side has not argued against any of these causes. The opposing side knows these causes exist or else it would of been argued that they don't.
Instead, rounds have been forfeited.
If the opposing side wishes to argue how valid the reasons and causes are, that's up to the individual in that situation.
You have no grounds over a personal situation.
Should I make lots of new arguments in last round?
No.
