Divorce should not be encouraged II

First, I will deal with the attacks on my argumentation. Unfulfillment of the role of marital unionsThis is, honestly, the most confusing rebuttal I've had to reply to on this website. My opponent doesn't even seem to be sure what he wants to say, let alone really attack my arguments. Alas, I am obligated to offer a reply, so I will attempt to do so. My opponent first claims no marriage is free of conflicts. True. It isn't. He then states marriage is a two person process. I will repeat my response from round 3 - you don't say? !And then it gets confusing. Really confusing. First I hear a statement about marrge being a two person process, which is immediately followed by a statement that one should work individually without depending too much on the spouse. This is very much contradictory, and it is not clear:a) What my opponent wants to sayb) How, exactly, this has anything to do with my argument, or with divorceNext, we hear about how couples will grow more in love by facing problems. .. what? ! I am indeed sorry, but I find no other way to reply to this. Honestly, what does this even mean? It seems that somehow, for some reason, my opponent seems to believe problems arise out of nothing, followed by the couple saying "Oh, look, a problem, let's solve it and fall in love even more". Problems that cause divorces exist because it is impossible to salvage the love and the marriage. Divorce is what ends a marriage that's going down a one way street. He ends the rebuttal to my argument by saying that, in his opinion, there is no such thing as a functional or dysfunctional marriage. His point of view, unfortunately for him, means nothing and changes nothing. The fact that he doesn't believe such marriages exist doesn't mean they don't exist. They always existed, and they exist now, despite my opponent's point of view. Quality of lifeMy opponent begins with saying people should enter a marriage prepared, as well as sure they want to marry. This is true. However, none can predict the future. Even a marriage that has always been rock-solid can enter into a state of turbulence, and might go down the path of no return given certain unexpected events. Events no one could have predicted, say, twenty years ago, no matter how prepared the couple was. He then goes on to state that, after marrying, one shouldn't look for another spouse. Of course no one wants their marriage to fall apart - every single couple wishes for a happy life. However, unexpected events occur, and people do look for other spouses. They sometimes manage to achieve a happy, stable life, with only the second or third spouse. Finally, my opponent states that he takes the statement that "marriage is permanent" from my round 2 response. Indeed, I stated that marriage is meant to, that is, should, be a permanent covenant. The emphasis, however, is on the word should. If a marriage turns out not to be happy, the problems to be unsolvable, and the marital union to be unefficient, the couple must have the opportunity to divorce. This is where my opponent's attacks on my argumentation end, and his own argumentation begins, so I shall now address it. My opponent says that some people commit suicide after divorcing, or suffer emotional trauma and depression. Divorce is, of course, not a pleasant experience. Some people do indeed commit suicide or start suffering from depression (here I must also point out that my opponent has himself said that being married has no effect on lowering suicide rates). There are, on the other hand, more cases in which people recovered and started life anew, finding happiness and stability in a new marriage. Such cases are much more numerous. Furthermore, I must repeat a question that remained unanswered. If the couple has determined that their marriage is beyond repair, how exactly will staying married bring any benefits? Being forced to maintain a charade and being forced to live an unhappy life puts even more stress on the irreversibly damaged relationship. My opponent then states that one must be ready when entering a marriage, as well as aware of possible conflicts. These are facts, not arguments. Also, being aware of possible conflicts doesn't mean being able to stop them. He then quotes a source and states that since the emotional split is incomplete, one can just as well maintain the marriage. Yes, sure, why not? It's that simple, isn't it? Just maintain it, and everything will be just fine. .. My opponent grossly trivializes the problem of marriage dysfunctionality. It is hard to split. Emotional splits are costly and taxing, but when they are finally dealt with, one is free to start anew. There are always cases of hostility - there are extreme cases everywhere. On the other hand, however, would there not be cases of hostility if people were forced to stay married? Hostility due to helplessness? My opponent ends his exposition by naming what people should, in his opinion, do in a marriage.1. Handle stress properlyMy opponent says people need back-up, and gives an analogy with a military base. I shall reply with the same analogy. There are bases and armies that fight and win. There are also bases and armies that defeat their opponents after they recieve back-up. There are, however, bases and armies that fight bravely, to the very end, but still fail. If they had been relocated, or evacuated, they might have lived to see another day and been of more use in a future, decisive battle. Just as the military must have the sensibility to recognise a lost cause and evacuate its personnel, so must couples be allowed an opportunity to such a sensible decision. There are cases where back-up isn't enough.2. Avoid thinking of divorceI find this to be ridiculous. No one marries thinking: "Oh cool, I'm getting married. When there's a problem, we'll get a divorce, and problem solved. "Most couples try to sort their problems out, and sometimes they fail. When they fail, it is humane to offer them a possibility to start again. The most important question of this debate is one my opponent has not yet answered. Who, exactly, has the right to force someone to remain married? Who has the right to meddle in people's personal affairs? Who is more able to know when a marriage is done for than the very couple forming that marriage? Furthermore, my opponent must learn the difference between the words must and should. Marriage should indeed be permanent, but it cannot be made to be so by force. Yes, it is up to every couple to decide about the "spark of love" in a marriage. That's exactly why divorce exists - for cases when the couple has determined that said spark is extinguished.3. Remember the possible consequenceMy opponent begins by stating that some people would like to break their spouse. I doubt one would enjoy breaking their spouse. Breaking spouses is illegal. Breaking up with one's spouse is another matter entirely. The other problem here is that I do not see what the point of this argument is. If it was impossible to live without one's fist spouse, people who divorce would universally commit suicide. However, they don't. Finally, to simply remind my opponent that there indeed are reasons for divorce, I will offer this source which offers five good reasons (not the only ones, mind you) for divorce. I'd copy them, but that would make me exceed the character limit. . http://www.essortment.com...Back to my opponent. NOTE: I realize that, in the last paragraph, I commented on semantics. It is not something I often do, but my opponent's part of this debate was written in very bad English which I've had difficulty understanding and it just added to the confusion in my opponent's argumentation. Thus, I couldn't resist commenting on semantics.