Polygamy is morally permissible.

I accept my opponent's modification of the resolution, as it is more fitting than the original. I am glad that my opponent accepts my basis for morality, as it makes things much easier. As a side note, I appreciate my opponent's frequent use of three to five lined paragraphs; it makes her arguments very easy to read. I will begin by rebutting my opponent's case, and then will defend my own. 1. "Due to exponential population growth and unprecedented resource competition, polygyny is no longer a viable moral standard." I have three counter-arguments: A - There are enough resources in the world to support a larger population than it currently does. If resources were more efficiently produced and distributed, quality of life would not be much of a problem. Utilizing resources more efficiently is a good idea anyway, and if we did, it would make the population problem from polygyny not so much of a problem any more. There are other solutions as well. We are working on colonizing other planets. With an expensive initial investment, we can dramatically reduce the population problem over time. Disallowing polygyny is not the only solution, nor is it even close to the best. B - Why is it wrong to increase the potential for population growth via polygyny, but not wrong to continue having children at all? If more children is generally harmful, then why are we still allowed to have children? Increasing the population does not seem to be inherently immoral. I will elaborate upon this in round 3, after my opponent answers my questions. C - Would the population even increase very much? The number of women with mates is what really matters in terms of population growth. This number would not increase very much due to polygyny, as many unmarried women are unmarried by choice[2]. But polygyny would allow women who want to get married more opportunities to marry. "*Increased violent conflict between competing societies." For the sake of argument, I will assume that resources will in fact become more limited. There is competition over resources irrespective of the availability of the resources. One bases how much he has not on some absolute standard, but on how much others have. If all resources are reduced, competition will not increase. Competition only increases when there is an imbalance of resources. What truly matters in terms of competition is the relative resources possessed by each society. So if polygyny is allowed universally, and it does limit resources, competition will likely not increase. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contention 1 "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." I agree that polyandry is morally sound. It may even be more sound than polygyny. But that does not mean polygyny is morally unsound. I have no real rebuttals to this case, since all my rebuttals against my opponent's contention also apply here. This contention and my opponent's contention should be merged for the sake of convenience. Contention 2 "We have schools and other child-rearing infrastructure that can supplement the 2-parent system just as effectively as multiple wives." We do have some infrastructures in place, but they are not really as good as polygyny. Schools, for example, cannot watch your child while he or she is sleeping, and in fact cannot take care of your child most of the time. Daycares are better, but they are not there all the time, and there are still a few problems. Daycares cost good money, and while this is not so big of a problem, it still renders them inferior to polygyny. Additionally, daycares do not foster the same level of attachment. In a home, with multiple caring mothers, the child grows long-term attachments to each one and the mothers truly love the child. These deep connections are wholesome for the entire family, and cannot be effectively achieved in a daycare center. Daycare centers are temporary; motherhood is eternal. "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." This would be better than a daycare center, and close to as good as polygyny. But it may not form the same level of bonding as true motherhood. And additionally, it is more logistically difficult. To modify society to emulate tribalism would be very difficult, much more difficult than polygyny. Contention 3 "Gene diversity is pretty much guaranteed with a population in the world of 6.7 billion people." Not necessarily. Some countries consist almost entirely of a single race, and need all the diversity they can get. "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." Yes, but that's not really a fair comparison. These comparisons would be better: -I could marry and procreate with my five sisters. The man next door could marry his sister. I am encouraging more genetic diversity than my neighbor. -I could marry and procreate with five women from completely different nations. The man next door could procreate with one woman from another nation. At that point, I am encouraging more genetic diversity than the man next door. My opponent's example only proves that it is possible to not be genetically diverse, even when polygynous. But polygyny increases the probability of diversity, and provides more opportunities. [1] http://healthandenergy.com... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...