Polygamy is morally permissible.

Luckily, my opponent and I agree completely on the source of morality, which will save us both a great deal of word count on a definition debate. However, I will contest my opponent's definition of polygamy, as it is entirely non-applicable to his own advocacy. He provides the following definition: "Marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time. (Merriam-Webster)" In and of itself, that is correct, but all of my opponent's advocacy claims its moral and evolutionary benefits only from polygyny, rather than both polygyny and polyandry. Therefore, the new resolution must read: "Polygyny is morally permissible. " With polygyny being defined as: The state or practice of having several wives at the same time; marriage to several wives. (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary) You will prefer this redefinition because: 1. Polygyny and polyandry produce entirely different evolutionary or population-related outcomes. The two can't even be partially combined, as they have clearly opposite effects on procreation; 2. The entirety of the affirmative's case and benefits stem directly from polygyny. If we don't redefine, then the affirmative is only conditionally or partially affirming his own resolution, so you can vote con on face. In other words, it behooves the pro to accept this new resolution, or he will automatically lose the round. I assume that my opponent will remain legitimate and not incorporate polyandry into his advocacy in round 2, as that was clearly not his intention. I will first forward an offensive con advocacy, and then rebut my opponent's case. 1. Due to exponential population growth and unprecedented resource competition, polygyny is no longer a viable moral standard. Consider the effects of industrialization on the world, or at least the effects of population growth, as this argument applies to most third world or unindustrialized nations as well. Currently, the population of the world is around 6.7 billion people, with more people born every second. The population of the world in the year 1900 was 1.6 billion. In 1800, the population of the world was 978 million. An increase of a mere 100 million compared to that of 5 billion is phenomenal, and spells disaster for the world's resources even with non-polygynous breeding. . https://www.cia.gov... . http://en.wikipedia.org... If we look at the state of world affairs in regards to resource competition and the ability of the planet to sustain our species logically and empirically, dramatically increasing the population via polygyny is incredibly immoral, as it will lead to further resource competition. This will, as it has shown to do in the recent past consistently, lead to the following harms: *Increased violent conflict between competing societies. As geographical societies compete for resource dominance for their ever increasing populations, they will inevitably clash, which will cause the unnecessary death of already-born human beings. *Decreased quality of life: every human being on the planet must be guaranteed basic necessities in order to survive. Those basic necessities cannot be provided to approximately 1/3 of the planet's inhabitants, while another 1/3 are considered underfed. That's about 4 billion people that are not able to have the basic necessities of survival as it is. . http://library.thinkquest.org... *Increased environmental destruction: as finite resources dwindle with today's population, polygyny will only increase the damage done. If 2/3 of the world is already not able to access the resources currently available, this problem can only continue to worsen with more unfettered population growth, especially since increased populations will not allow resources to naturally renew or expand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, to counter the affirmative's case: Contention 1: Polygamy allows for more rapid reproduction. See the harms outlined in my case. Right now, with the growth of the population as it is, we should be looking at natural and ethical ways to restrict population growth, like polyandry. Clearly, the world cannot sustain rapid reproduction. I've held off on offering a counterplan, as we aren't technically implementing a policy, but if we were, you can bet dollars to donuts I would be pushing polyandry as a morally and evolutionarily sound behavior. Polyandry allows people their sexual freedom, as well as works to the benefit of the human species as a whole. Turn: rapid reproduction is antithetical to the biological imperative to help the human species thrive, as billions are sure to die in the ensuing population explosion. The terminal impact of polygyny in an already crowded world is the mass reduction or extermination of the species. Contention 2: Polygamy makes it easier to raise children. While it is true that it takes a village to raise a child, that village does not have to be a single man impregnating multiple women. We have schools and other child-rearing infrastructure that can supplement the 2-parent system just as effectively as multiple wives. If we consider the history of tribal communal child raising and simply modify societies based on the better principles of these tribes, we can achieve the benefits of communal child-rearing without the added harms of extra children. Contention 3: Polygamy increases diversity. While gene spread is critical to the evolution of a given species, it need to be achieved at this point. Gene diversity is pretty much guaranteed with a population in the world of 6.7 billion people. While this might be true of a species with incredibly limited numbers, it can no longer be said to be applicable today. In fact, many, many nations encourage genetic diversity in their laws and moral structures already via laws that specifically restrict citizens from marrying their immediate or even extended family. Hence, the affirmative is claiming a benefit that is entirely law-based, and not polygyny-based. For example, I could be a man who chooses to marry and procreate with my 5 sisters. The man next door could choose to marry one woman from another nation. At that point, the next door neighbor is encouraging more genetic diversity than the man who married his sisters. Only laws can guarantee that a polygynous relationship genetically diverse.