Resolved: Polygamy in the United States should be legal.

Alright. Thank you Tatarize for a very interesting debate. I'm going to go paragraph by paragraph down your arguments with a summary at the end. Laws Vanish (P 1) ============= 1. First extend the argument I make about how our secular society with a divide of church and state is uniquelly different from the attempts at polygamy in the past. 2. My opponent argues that things such as abuse laws, divorce, and age of consent are largely moot when it comes to practice. I respectfully disagree. There is no analysis as to why law would suddenly disappear. My argument is that in a state with such forward thinking women rights that this would just never happen. Ever. 3. Polygamy happens unlawfully in the status quo. At the very least, by legalizing it, we see a chance for these people to be protected by the law. Men can't compete (P 2) ==================== 1. My opponents arguments are defense at best. He argues that the underlying inequalities in the system simply make it impossible for men to ever rise above. But my argument still stands. It, at the very least makes them try harder. Which means that at least some men will have that ability to rise above. Which is better than the status quo. 2. Secondly my opponents ignores the argument I make saying they will be more confident for trying which decreases suicide. 3. The underlying social and economic problems exist with or without polygamy. The fact that they do is not a reason to vote polygamy down. Technical issues (p 3) ================ 1. Women already compete for resources for themselves in their children as do men!!!! 2. My argument is that it's worse RIGHT NOW because they get divorced and thus lose more resources. Perhaps never regaining the ability to fully sustain themselves. 3. The fact that polygamy exists means that one does not have to be divorced so their spouse can pursue someone "better". This means that they are not thrown out on the streets. 4. Thereby a polygamous society can best protect the very children and women my opponents is arguing for. 5. And yes, you're right Tatarize, it would probably be 1/nth of the property in a divorce. But my argument is that divorces would happen drastically less. An argument that you flat out concede. Thus while a few divorces would happen which would lead to bad situations, that: a. already happens in the status quo (bad divorces where the divorcee gets screwed), and b. It would happen less than the status quo. Thus polygamy is net advantageous. Blanket claims (P 4) =============== 1. Extend every argument I've made so far. They all turn back every single one of these claims. There is absolutely no justification for why any of this would happen. Blanket 2 and Prostitution (P 5) =================== 1. Nope, I think prostitution is fine. If that's how one would like to make his/her money then let that person do so. 2. Once again extend all arguments made so far. The things that my opponents speaks of: "men at the bottom fighting" "women fighting for husbands time" are all things that happen right now. Our society has a 50% divorce rate. My argument is that polygamy in essence already happens. People find someone they like better and thus have to divorce their current spouse. We already see all this competition my opponent is arguing polygamy would cause. A polygamous society would prevent the divorce from happening in many cases. Which I argued in the last round was a greater cause of suicide and my opponent never touched the point thereby conceding. Commodity & Objectification (P 6) ============ 1. Polygamy already happens illegally. If there is a chance that women are treated as a commodity/abused then allowing those women to be protected by the law can only decrease that chance. 2. Secondly, and more importantly, extend my argument where I say that objectification happens just as much now as it would under a polygamous society. People already objectify women, they divorce women to get better "objects". Those people would only continue to do so in a polygamous society but the people who don't objectify women wouldn't suddenly magically start to because they can now have multiple wives. (Same applies men to women). 3. Women can still choose who to marry. The objectifying D-bag or the really nice dude. 4. Women can divorce, thereby avoiding objectification. Ace (p 7) ========= 1. The examples my opponent speaks of sound predominately third world. 2. Secondly they just don't respond to my arguments about how modern laws in the U.S. would avoid such harms. 3. There is simply no justification from my opponent as to why legalizing polygamy would suddenly make young men outscast. Daughters sold into marriages. Or a hugely unequal marriage dynamic. These claims just aren't true! Especially in modern United States. All of these things could happen now but don't. A polygamous society isn't suddenly going to reverse the laws in place. -.- Empirics Good! (P 8) ============= 1. For sure they are. But the empirical examples given have nothing to do with the United States. 2. I'm not suggesting it hasn't been tried in a rich country. I'm suggesting it hasn't been tried in the United States, a country with a pretty solid law system. 3. Third an finally on this point, my opponent mentions that families bleed fortunes which turn into big companies. If this was really the case then having a multitude of heirs would only create more companies which would better benefit the economy. Saudi Arabia (P 9) =================== 1. Flat out horrible example. Doesn't even have the same government type as the U.s. 2. Saudi Arabian poverty wasn't caused by polygamy..... monarchy, royal family. 3. The United States already has a massive rich poor gap under monogamy. Thus even if my opponents arguments about how Polygamy leads to massive poverty were true....then so does monogamy. Great Families (P 10) ============== 1. My opponents argument is that the Fords, Rockefellers, and Gates all have massive wealth and don't marry Harems. They keep the money for themselves. That's what happens in a monogamous society. A polygamous society in no way makes that situation worse. In fact, if just one of those families marries an extra person then the wealth gets spread farther. Farther spreading of the wealth means less poverty which is just flat out beneficial. 2. My opponent also argues that polygamy would make America unstable but he includes no warrant as to why that would be the case and I think every point above from myself offers great insight on why it wouldn't be the case. The Other Three Aces (The reason to vote PRO) ============================== 1. In the United States competition already happens between people. Objectification already happens between males and females. A husband will leave his wife because he's found another cooler "object". A husband may try to win back his wife after she's found someone more worthwhile. In all reality out society already contains every components of a polygamous society except for the lack of divorce. My major argument in this debate is that divorce is more problematic to the multitude than having multiple wives. I've argued that a person who has been divorced has a higher chance of committing suicide or resorting to the terrorist actions which my opponent speaks of. These points go completely dropped by my opponent and thus conceded in his last speech. Meaning at the end of the day we have two worlds. In my opponents word objectification continues to happen as does competition. Yet people get divorced and many end up on the street with no way to fend for themselves. Suicide etc..... In my world objectification and competition also exists on the same level. But we avoid divorces and accept our already polygamous society for what it is. Thus I thank my opponent for this debate. GL!