Instigator / Pro
7
1233
rating
403
debates
39.45%
won
Topic
#5870
Divorce should be banned in most cases
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
baggins
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
14
1552
rating
10
debates
90.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
This was originally for Novice, but you accepted first, so I will debate you. Have fun.
Topic:
Divorce should be banned in most cases.
Definitions:
Divorce means an end of marriage with someone. This does not include cases where partner dies, or some other irrelevant cases which are not point of this debate.
Banned means legally not allowed to happen.
In most cases means in over 50% of cases.
My case for banning divorce in most cases will be built on these simple premises:
P1. If divorce in most cases harms future generations, then divorce in most cases should be banned.
P2. Divorce in most cases harms future generations.
C. Divorce in most cases should be banned. (C = Topic)
My opponent has to disprove at least one of these premises, but I will make my case for defending the two premises, which if both true, form a conclusion that topic is true.
If P1 and P2 are both proved true, then topic is proved true, since topic logically follows from P1 and P2.
Notice that conclusion is the same as topic, while P1 and P2 lead to conclusion(topic) being true.
So the premises and conclusion are in form of:
If P1 and P2 are true, topic(conclusion) is true.
This is the most simple debate setup I could think of, basically making whole debate to be about only two premises and conclusion, and defense of two premises which my opponent must negate if he wishes to win.
P1.
I will list observations which are true and which mean that P1 is true.
This premise is easily proven to be true, because future generations are what builds future society. Thus, any harm to future generations is a harm to future society.Future generations take priority over current generations, due to future generations being much higher in total number, more educated and thus able to reach greater truth and advancement.Thus, the position which protects future generations is a position which contains more truth and protects greater number of people.
By law of non-contradiction, position which enables more truth is the one which contains more truth, thus is more true than the position with less truth.
Thus, any position which doesnt protect future generations is less true per law of non-contradiction, as it is contradicting to say that position which contains less truth is more true.
Further, since increasing truth is goal of debate and most important goal of humanity which enables us to reach the truth better and have better reasoning, no position which reduces truth can be reasonably justified, as only increasing truth improves reasoning and thus, is reasonable.
If divorce in most cases harms future generations, divorce cannot be morally justified in most cases.My opponent might try to argue that divorce is harmful, but that banning divorce is more harmful than allowing divorce in most cases. We know that banning something acts as a type of discouraging, thus reducing the amount of something.
We know from the case of Philippines that banning divorce did significantly reduce divorce rates.
"According to the latest Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) census, just 1.9 percent of Filipinos had either received an annulment, or gotten separated or divorced."
In USA where divorce is legal, rate of divorces today is double that of 1950, and doesnt show any hope to return to levels of before, let alone become like rate in Philippines or Vatican city.
Thus, if divorce in most cases harms future generations, and banning divorce reduces divorce rates and reduces harm to future generations, then divorce in most cases should be banned. There is nothing to disagree with in this premise, which brings us to the next premise.
P2.
I will list observations which are true and which mean that P2 is true.
P2 is about comparison of harm of divorce to that of lack of divorce, in similar cases and general statistics. This premise has plenty of proof supporting it. Divorce very often has negative effects on children, as we see by statistics that those with divorced parents usually suffer much more than those with parents who stayed married. Also, we see from historical examples and examples of countries, that increase in divorce rates is usually followed by increase in suicide rates, increase in depression and increase in harm to mental health.Research has documented that parental divorce/separation is associated with an increased risk for child and adolescent adjustment problems, including academic difficulties (e.g., lower grades and school dropout), disruptive behaviors (e.g., conduct and substance use problems), and depressed mood.Offspring of divorced/separated parents are also more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, live in poverty, and experience their own family instability.Also, divorce being easily available increases amount of STDs, because it increases possibility for women being with multiple partners, which also increases depression and suicide rates of women, which further affects their children.Allowing divorce did not have many positive effects on women's mental health, but it increased their suicide rates and rates of mental illness, which is why today countries with high divorce rates usually have high suicide rates as well.Lack of divorce in most cases improves mental health of both women and children in most cases.
My opponent might bring up cases of some severe violence, but such do not form majority.
"Within a sample of divorcing parents, Hawkins, Willoughby, and Doherty (2012) found that the most endorsed reasons for divorce from a list of possible choices were growing apart (55%), not being able to talk together (53%), and how one’s spouse handled money (40%)."
We see that the first two choices, which form most cases, arent really good enough reasons to divorce a partner and to harm your children.
But another source says this:"A statewide survey in Oklahoma found that the most commonly checked reasons for divorce from a list of choices were lack of commitment (85%), too much conflict or arguing (61%), and/or infidelity or extramarital affairs".
We see that in this case too, none of these are valid reasons to harm your children, thus none of these reasons can justify divorce which harms your children.Divorces which are made due to poor, weak and unjustified reasons are the ones which cannot be justified nor have strong reasons to be, while reducing them reduces harm. These make up most of divorces.
We see from statistics that countries which have banned divorce and which now have less divorce also have much less suicides, low crime rate, homicide rate decreasing over time, and even higher birth rates, such as case of Philippines. Divorce is illegal for most residents of the Philippines.
What we dont see is divorce being beneficial for children in most cases after being legally allowed.My opponent might claim that divorce benefited children in most cases, but we dont see this being true in statistics or examples of countries, neither in birth rates of countries which made divorce easier to get.Even in USA, groups which have higher divorce rates tend to have more poverty and more crime and suicides than other groups.
For example in case of African-Americans:
These are the following percentages of divorced women across the United States:
African-Americans: 33%
Hispanic women: 22%
White women: 19%
Asian women: 11%
We see that high divorce rates dont benefit groups, and thus dont benefit future generations.Even if person marries again after divorce, the divorce rate for second marriage is higher, and even higher than that for third marriage.
Divorce also increases number of single parent homes, which contributes greatly to crime.
"Separation from a parent during childhood was associated with elevated risk for subsequent violent offending versus those who lived continuously with both parents."
Vatican city which has banned divorce also has high safety level, where suicides and homicides are extremely low.
"In general, Vatican City is an incredibly safe spot for both locals and tourists alike. Violent crime is almost non-existent, with just one homicide reported in the Vatican's 93-year-long history."
There is no any proof that divorce benefits children in most cases, but there is plenty of proof that divorce causes harm to children.If divorce was beneficial in most cases, we would see groups with more divorce being better than other groups or at least equal. But what we see is greater harm in groups with higher divorce rates, and less harm in groups with lower divorce rates. This means that reducing divorce rates reduces harm. This is further confirmed by reasons for divorce, which are in most cases unjustified, as well as mentioned countries which reduced harm by banning divorce.
With premise 1 and premise 2 being proven true, the conclusion (topic) follows:
C. Divorce in most cases should be banned.
My opponent's burden:
My opponent has to disprove at least one of the two premises which I presented. Should he fail to do that, he loses since these premises if undisproved, logically lead to topic being true. Thus, the only way to disprove the topic is to disprove at least one of the premises.
Con
#2
There’s a thing called human rights. Human rights are fundamental freedoms and protections that every person is entitled to. These rights include civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, aimed at ensuring dignity, equality, and justice for all individuals.
The right to choose whether or not to be with someone falls primarily under the broader category of personal liberty and freedom of choice.
Forcing individuals to remain in a marriage against their will could be easily seen as a violation of their autonomy and dignity. And while it's true that divorce can be challenging for children, research shows that staying in a high conflict or abusive marriage can often be significantly more harmful to children's well-being than divorce. Children should be raised in healthy and happy environments and no forced marriage is a healthy environment. Forcing parents to stay together for the sake of the children, in cases of conflict or abuse, can be detrimental to both the parents' and the children's mental and emotional health.
And if you are worried about future societies, society that values human rights, autonomy, and the well-being of individuals is likely to produce healthier, more well-adjusted future generations. If individuals are free to choose who they marry and, if necessary, leave relationships that aren’t working, they’ll be better equipped to form healthier relationships moving forward. Parents who are not trapped in unhappy marriages are more likely to be good role models for their children in the long run.
And while countries like the Philippines have lower divorce rates, that doesn't necessarily mean they have better outcomes for children or society as a whole. The absence of divorce does not automatically result in a healthier society—there are multiple factors at play. For example despite having high divorce rates (over 40%) Denmark, Germany, Sweden and Norway (and more) have one of the most successful societies in the world, with a strong economy, low unemployment, and high GDP per capita, offering universal healthcare, free education, and generous social benefits, including substantial child support, which helps ensure the well-being of children from divorced families and are objectively way better in numerous categories than countries with low divorce rates. So, divorces do not harm society as PRO thinks they do.
Additionally marriage is based on trust, love, respect and many more things and when those essential elements are missing, staying in just for the sake of the kids is often not a good idea. Divorce in itself is not inherently more harmful to children than staying in unhealthy marriages. The most significant factor in the well-being of children is how well the parents manage the situation and how much conflict or tension they expose their children to.
Divorce is not as significant as PRO seems to think it is for the prosperity of future generations. Not that significant for us to ban it and take away basic human rights. PROs points about suicide are simple correlation vs causation fallacy. Just because divorce rates correlate with higher suicide or crime rates doesn’t mean that divorce is the cause. Other social factors, such as poverty etc. may contribute more significantly to these outcomes. Divorce might simply be a symptom of broader social problems, rather than the root cause of them.
At the end of the day, even if we agree for the sake of the argument that divorce is harmful to future societies in most cases (which it is not), AND that we know for certain that divorce will cause more damage than staying in unhealthy marriage (which we dont), we cannot force anyone to stay with anyone against their will since we are taking away human rights and this is in no way a good society. Freedom of speech is another example of something that could be harmful but cannot be banned due to the same reasons - Human rights.
Two people want to be together and eventually they might not want to. It’s unimaginable to create a law forcing them to stay together forever, regardless of the situation (with no kids/one kid/twenty kids/abusive relationship/fine but just got tired of each other) let alone saying that it should be banned in MOST CASES.
Ultimately forcing people to stay in relationships they do not want to be in is more likely to cause the same or more harm as getting a divorce. The sad truth is that if the parents of a kid come to the point of not wanting to be with each other anymore, the kid is likely to have unpleasant experience either way.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Now lets see which challenges were presented for the two premises.
P1. If divorce in most cases harms future generations, then divorce in most cases should be banned.
This premise wasnt challenged, other than mentioning human rights. However, human rights of future generations are more important than human rights of current generations, as it was previously explained. Future generations are more important than current generations as shown in logical axiom in round 1 which wasnt even challenged.
P2. Divorce in most cases harms future generations
My opponent mentioned that reducing autonomy and human rights would harm future generations too, but he must prove that autonomy and human rights are more important than mental well being, low suicide rates, and high birth rates. Obviously, if future generations are reduced in number, all the human rights of destroyed generations are destroyed. His position is self-contradicting, because if he values human rights of all individuals, then he values human rights of future generations too, thus must ban actions which harm future generations. Obviously, if all people have autonomy to not give birth and choose to use that autonomy, then future generations would be destroyed and wouldnt even exist, and truth would be reduced. Thus, autonomy and human rights which harm future generations cannot be logically justified, as they reduce truth and sacrifice future for present.
My opppnent says: "research shows that staying in a high conflict or abusive marriage can often be significantly more harmful to children's well-being than divorce.".
Yet he shows no such research, and he even ignores that those marriages arent the same as most of marriages which we are talking about.
"no forced marriage is a healthy environment."
This is an unproven claim.
My opponent says: "society that values human rights, autonomy, and the well-being of individuals is likely to produce healthier, more well-adjusted future generations"
My opponent seems to have chosen a path where he makes unproven claims and expects people will believe it without proof. This claim was already proven wrong by many sources in round 1.
"If individuals are free to choose who they marry and, if necessary, leave relationships that aren’t working, they’ll be better equipped to form healthier relationships moving forward. Parents who are not trapped in unhappy marriages are more likely to be good role models for their children in the long run."
These too are just unproven claims.
"And while countries like the Philippines have lower divorce rates, that doesn't necessarily mean they have better outcomes for children or society as a whole"
It was already explained in round 1 that Philippines have high birth rates, low suicide rate, and low homicide rate. That is a better outcome for future generations, since future generations are increased in number.
"The absence of divorce does not automatically result in a healthier society—there are multiple factors at play."
My opponent is trying to punch a strawman. My argument was never about the health of current society or anything even close to that, but about divorce causing harm to future generations and resulting in harm to the truth. My argument was never that banning divorce solves all problems in society, but that it just improves society of the future.
"For example despite having high divorce rates (over 40%) Denmark, Germany, Sweden and Norway (and more) have one of the most successful societies in the world, with a strong economy, low unemployment, and high GDP per capita, offering universal healthcare, free education, and generous social benefits, including substantial child support, which helps ensure the well-being of children from divorced families and are objectively way better in numerous categories than countries with low divorce rates."
Lets see. The mentioned countries have very low birth rates, thus future generations are greatly reduced (thus harmed by being prevented from existing). They have high suicide rate, which is a further harm to future generations.
My opponent mentions free education, healthcare, child support, and social benefits, but he fails to understand that you can have these even with divorce banned, thus his argument isnt even an argument against my position. He also fails to explain how things he mentioned outweigh low birth rates and high suicide rates.
He mentions strong economy, low unemployment, and high GDP per capita, but he doesnt explain how these justify reducing birth rates and increasing suicide rates, and harming mental health of children. The countries he mentioned depend on importing migrants because they reduced their own future generations in number. Obviously, no amount of material wealth can make up for destroyed mental health and entire generations being erased from existance by reducing birth rates. Also obviously, you can have low unemployment, high GDP per capita and strong economy, while harming and reducing future generations, as proven true by very examples my opponent mentioned, and proven by many other countries, for example Japan which has strong economy and human rights for current society, yet its future generations are almost non-existsnt, thus my opponent here too fails to make an argument against my position.
My opponent didnt explain which specific goals are more important than others. He just listed bunch of goals without explaining which ones are priority.
I have already explained why reducing harm to future generations is a logical priority.
"So, divorces do not harm society as PRO thinks they do."
Strawman. Pro's argument isnt about harm to current society, but about harm to future generations, which remains undisproved by Con.
"Additionally marriage is based on trust, love, respect and many more things and when those essential elements are missing, staying in just for the sake of the kids is often not a good idea. Divorce in itself is not inherently more harmful to children than staying in unhealthy marriages."
Unproven claims.
"The most significant factor in the well-being of children is how well the parents manage the situation and how much conflict or tension they expose their children to."
Unproven claims.
"Divorce is not as significant as PRO seems to think it is for the prosperity of future generations. Not that significant for us to ban it and take away basic human rights."
It was already explained how divorce harms future generations and thus, reduces truth.
PROs points about suicide are simple correlation vs causation fallacy.
Unproven claim.
Just because divorce rates correlate with higher suicide or crime rates doesn’t mean that divorce is the cause.
If they consistently correlate, that means the relation between them is scientifically established, just as relations between all things are established.
Other social factors, such as poverty etc. may contribute more significantly to these outcomes.
This is not an argument. If they all contribute to outcome, then logically each contributes to outcome.
Divorce might simply be a symptom of broader social problems, rather than the root cause of them.
This was already disproved when reasons for divorce were mentioned. To put it simply, making divorce easier to get means even those who divorce for insignificant reasons are more likely to divorce.
we know for certain that divorce will cause more damage than staying in unhealthy marriage (which we dont),
So my opponent is arguing against himself now?
we cannot force anyone to stay with anyone against their will since we are taking away human rights and this is in no way a good society.
Human rights of future generations happen to be more important than that of present generations.
Freedom of speech is another example of something that could be harmful but cannot be banned due to the same reasons - Human rights.
Yet by destroying future generations, you are also banning them from their free speech.
Two people want to be together and eventually they might not want to. It’s unimaginable to create a law forcing them to stay together forever, regardless of the situation (with no kids/one kid/twenty kids/abusive relationship/fine but just got tired of each other) let alone saying that it should be banned in MOST CASES.
This is just rambling.
Ultimately forcing people to stay in relationships they do not want to be in is more likely to cause the same or more harm as getting a divorce. The sad truth is that if the parents of a kid come to the point of not wanting to be with each other anymore, the kid is likely to have unpleasant experience either way.
Unproven claims.
Since my opponent didnt prove any of his claims as he didnt use any sources, and since P1 and P2 remain unchallenged, the conclusion still logically follows.
Con
#4
There are too many logical disconnections in PROS's statements
future generations are what builds future society
Future society is a continuum, not solely the work of future generations. If we start taking human rights away this will greatly affect current society's well-being which will likely affect future society in a negative ways. The well-being of current society directly impacts the development and success of future societies. While not always explicitly stated, this concept is widely recognized in academic literature and research on sociology, economics, and public policy and psycology.
Source: United Nations Brundtland Report (1987)
Key Idea: The well-being of current generations sets the stage for sustainable development for future generations. Poor societal conditions today—economic instability, human rights violations, or lack of education—limit the resources, knowledge, and opportunities available to future generations.
Divorce in most cases harms future generations
The study cited by PRO indicates that divorce does show negative effects on kids, which I have agreed with earlier by saying that when the marriage gets to the point where the couple wants a divorce then, the kid will have unpleasant experience most likely either way. Whether it ends with divorce or unhealthy marriage. It's obvious that a happy marriage will yield the best results most of the times but what PRO is missing is that here we are comparing the option to leave the marriage vs the option to stay in the marriage you don't want. It's not "happy marriage" vs "divorce". And PRO's study is quite useless in this scenario because it doesn't discuss that. What discusses it is this study:
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and Family.
Finding: Children in high-conflict intact families often fare worse than those in low-conflict divorced families.
And while banning divorce will decrease the number of divorces, it will logically increase the number of forced marriages which we know by now lead to greater risks than simply getting a divorce. It is not the divorce inherently that causes the harm. The divorce is the result and the aftermath of the marriage not working anymore. The relationship and the home environment is what causes the harm.
Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations.
Finding: Post-divorce adjustment is influenced more by the level of parental conflict and the quality of parenting than by the divorce itself. A stable and loving environment, even in separated families, is more beneficial for children’s development than remaining in a home marked by conflict.
Future generations take priority over current generations, due to future generations being much higher in total number, more educated and thus able to reach greater truth and advancement.
First, PRO is assigning priority to potential future generations partly because he is equivocating bigger numbers with bigger potentials. This is false because as said, quality does not come from quantity. More numbers ≠ More truth.
Secondly, potential future generations being potentially more educated and that being more important due to "greater truths" than actual current human rights of current humanity is highly subjective and debatable due to many ethical concerns. Many would rather not give their human rights away, have their lives as they are now and not trade their human rights for potential greater advancement for the future generations. What is the point in advancing technologically (or in any other way which wasn't specified) if we can't have freedom and enjoyable lives.
Thirdly, what is greater truth? Undefined, unspecified, broad term that applies to what? Since PRO mentioned greater numbers and greater education for his speculation for greater truths, does he mean scientific advancements and discoveries? What about ethical truths? Are we not going in the opposite direction when we start taking human rights away? That is moral regress and ethical decline in society. So, PRO's position is not a "logical axiom". It's a subjective opinion that future generations will bring some potential (unspecified) truths and we have to sacrifice some human rights for it because PRO's opinion is that "more truth" justifies taking current personal liberties. How about we achieve those advancements while keeping our human rights.
"Increasing truth" as "humanity's goal" is broad and subjective again. Truth could mean many things. Regarding morals and ethics specifically, taking human rights away is not "increasing the truth" in anything. We have also established that we cant prove it will lead to any other truths either but I had to cover this too. In case some of the voters are still not convinced that divorce ban will not lead to some kind of other prosperities (advancement/truths). We saw that staying in unhealthy toxic marriages is worse than getting a divorce on good terms. And again, we are not comparing getting a divorce to being in a happy marriage. Once people are thinking of divorce, there is no happy marriage existing over there. Now its between divorce or stay in an unhealthy environment.
PRO says I need to prove autonomy and human rights are more important than well-being is kind of nonsensical because my whole point is that autonomy and human rights are a major part of "being well" (mentally and physically).
High birth rates point is already debunked (quantity not more important that quality)
Low suicide rates is also debunked (correlation vs causation)
Looking at statistics while not having good epistemology is "tricky". Just because there is some kind of relationship established between two things and they can be put in some kind of statistic doesn't mean that the one caused the other. There's a correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks, but ice cream sales do not cause shark attacks. They mostly happen in the summer, on the beach so we see more shark attacks when there's more ice cream sales ,this is the explanation. Just like divorce and suicide rates both happen when people are suffering mentally or physically. But you can't prove divorce causes suicide.
Then PRO proceeds to say "unproven claims" to common sense statements like "no FORCED marriage is healthy environment". Sources provided now. Then PRO says I'm expecting the voters to just believe me when I say "society that values human rights is likely to produce healthier and well adjusted society". Common sense again but sources will be provided this round or/and in the comments.
PRO presuppose Philippines's divorce rate is automatically a good thing and what actually causes low suicide rate, and low homicide rate with no evidence of causality. PRO assumes then that high numbers in future generations is what is "good outcome" for that society disregarding the quality of life they have based on his "logical axiom" misunderstanding. All of his statistics just show that some countries have higher population growth than others and don't prove nothing about what the future society will be there or the number of "truths" they are likely to discover. Which is PRO's whole point why bigger numbers is better.
PRO then wants to moderate what this debate will be about saying "this debate is about future generations and not about the current generation's health and well being". No, PRO. This debate is about banning divorce now. It has more to do with the present than with the future. It's just your take that future generations will have to be prioritized for your subjective fallacious reasons. I do not have to talk only about that.
About Scandinavian countries. The claim that low birth rates = societal harm is overly simplistic and doesn't account for these broader factors that contribute to societal success, again. Countries with high quality of life, strong economies, and low unemployment can still thrive despite low birth rates. Economic prosperity, technological advancements, and immigration can offset the challenges posed by a lower birth rate. We can actually see way more often countries with very high birth rates or even overpopulated doing much worse than countries with low birth rates who are ahead in scientific and ethical advancements. Which only shows again that they are more significant factors at play in what makes a good society.
And I don't argue against myself, which is why I used the phrase "even if we agree for the sake of the argument " . Clarifying something so simple is such a waste of characters, good thing I have extra.
Human rights of future generations happen to be more important than that of present generations.
Firstly, this is ambiguous assumption. Secondly, PRO is the one trying to take human rights away. You think those future generations won't like to have the human right to choose their own partners too?
Yet by destroying future generations, you are also banning them from their free speech.
Nobody is destroying future generations. Generations are not being destroyed now by having the option for divorce.
"This is just rambling."
All I have to say about that is: Unproven claim...
More sources:
Mental health and forced marriages
-Another study provides evidence that forced marriages cause significant mental health issues (depression, anxiety, PTSD) and emotional harm, worse than the impact of divorce.
Round 3
Con
#6
I can only assume PRO's last round was a sign of concession, either way thanks for the debate PRO.
Throughout this debate, I have demonstrated that banning divorce would not only lead to greater societal harm but also infringe on human rights, autonomy, and the mental well-being of current and future generations. My arguments are backed by extensive research and grounded in ethical principles, unlike my opponent’s speculative and logically inconsistent claims.
Throughout this debate, I have demonstrated that banning divorce would not only lead to greater societal harm but also infringe on human rights, autonomy, and the mental well-being of current and future generations. My arguments are backed by extensive research and grounded in ethical principles, unlike my opponent’s speculative and logically inconsistent claims.
Lets summarize some details from the debate:
"Philippines vs. Nordic Countries" Argument:
1.Birth Rates and Quality of Life:
- High birth rates, as seen in the Philippines, do not inherently correlate with societal success or individual well-being. In fact, overpopulation in resource-limited settings often leads to poverty, poor health outcomes, and diminished opportunities for future generations.
- Nordic countries, despite lower birth rates, maintain some of the highest standards of living, health, and education globally. Their societal success demonstrates that quality of life outweighs sheer population numbers.
2.Suicide Rates:
- Suicide rates cannot be solely attributed to divorce. In countries with strong social welfare systems (e.g., Denmark, Sweden), factors like mental health awareness and reporting standards contribute to perceived higher rates. This transparency is a sign of societal progress, not decline.
3.Material Wealth and Mental Health:
- Strong economies and welfare states provide support systems that mitigate the challenges of divorce. For example, child support and social benefits in these countries ensure that children of divorced parents receive adequate care. This refutes PROs argument that material wealth cannot offset divorce-related harm. And the argument that entire generations are being destroyed is not supported by any evidence.
"Destroying Future Generations" Argument:
No Generations Are Being Destroyed:
- Future generations are not "destroyed" by divorce or low birth rates. These terms are hyperbolic and fail to account for the quality of life and ethical considerations of those who are born.
Birth Rates ≠ Societal Destruction:
- Societies with lower birth rates, like Scandinavian countries, continue to thrive through economic prosperity, strong education systems, and high quality of life. Fewer numbers do not equate to societal harm when quality is maintained.
- Overpopulation in high-birth-rate countries often correlates with poverty, limited resources, and societal strain, contradicting his assumption that "more is better."
Divorce Is Not the Cause of Harm:
- It is the home environment—not divorce itself—that causes harm to children. Children in high-conflict intact families often fare worse than those in low-conflict divorced families.
- Research (e.g., Amato, 2000) demonstrates that staying in toxic, high-conflict marriages is often more damaging to children than amicable divorces.
Correlation is not causation:
- Divorce rates and societal issues like suicide rates may correlate, but this does not mean divorce causes societal harm. These phenomena are often linked to deeper social and psychological factors, such as mental health challenges or economic instability.
Autonomy, Quality and Migrant Contribution:
- Sacrificing the autonomy of individuals in the present for speculative benefits to future generations is ethically flawed.
- Countries with low birth rates often mitigate population concerns through immigration, contributing to diverse, vibrant societies. His argument fails to address this.
- The focus should be on raising well-adjusted, healthy children who can thrive in society, not simply increasing the number of births at any cost.
Key rebuttals:
- My opponent’s assertion that future generations take precedence over current generations relies on the unfounded assumption that greater numbers equate to greater truth and advancement. This claim was not supported by evidence and disregards the ethical implications of sacrificing current human rights for speculative outcomes.
- Furthermore, the notion that banning divorce reduces harm to children fails to consider the greater psychological and emotional damage caused by forcing individuals to remain in toxic marriages. Studies have clearly shown that a loving, stable post-divorce environment is better than a high-conflict intact family and we can't consider the healthy version of the marriage as an option in this debate.Ultimately, my opponent’s vision of societal progress is built on the flawed premise that the ends justify the means. However, a society that disregards human rights and autonomy in the name of speculative future benefits is not a society worth striving for. True progress lies in balancing the needs of the present with the aspirations of the future, ensuring both are grounded in dignity, freedom, and well-being.
I urge the readers to consider this while making their choice:
- Evidence-backed realities of the harm caused by banning divorce and staying in toxic marriages.
- Correlation is not causation.
- This is a complex ethical issue not a logical axiom.
- Quantity is not Quality. Bigger numbers don't bring bigger "truths". The education and quality of life depends on other factors.
- Human values and rights are universal and equal to all generations.
- My opponent’s vision of potential societal progress is built on the flawed premise.
- True progress balances present and future needs.
- No definition of the broad term "greater truth" was given.
- Human rights are non-negotiable.
- Economic and Sociological realities of countries.
- My Opponent’s lack of rebuttals to key arguments in the final round.
- The debate should focus on : is it better to have the option to divorce or is it better to force someone stay in a toxic marriage. Not about divorce vs no divorce.
- His sources were irrelevant to the topic and just plain statistics. Concluding things from them is overlooking a lot of context and simplifying a larger and more complex topic.
Thanks, again.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Disclaimer: When I vote on debates, I vote on the quality of the debate. Who my vote goes to does not necessarily mean that I agree with their position/conclusion on the topic of the debate.
While both parties gave interesting points, I think Con was closer to the point than Pro was.
Marriage always involves the health of both parties and we have natural rights to ensure we can take care of those needs. While future generations are in the picture, they carry less significance since they are an effect and not a cause. This comes from the idea: a defect in the cause is a defect in the effect. If the marriage is bad, the future generation is in trouble as Con pointed out. At that point, it would have been better to debate on whether or not the evil of a divorce or forced marriage is proportionate to the effects that will happen. Since Pro did not go there, my vote will go to Con since his points were closer to the heart of the problem.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Well, let me just start by saying that both sides made very interesting arguments. However, I think Con made the better argument when they emphasized the violation of human rights and pointing out that while divorce can be harmful, that is not enough to justify forcing people into unhealthy marriages. And while I do not think people have the "right" to just up and leave a marriage whenever they want, I certainly agree that keeping them against their will is a violation of both autonomy and their right to free travel.
Pro's argument that divorce causes harms to future generations does have its merits. However, claiming that the reasons people leave are weak and unjustified reasons is ultimately subject to ones views rather than a fact.
Thank you for voting!
Thanks for voting!
See if anything needs to be changed.
Here you go.