There should be no such thing as alimony payments, spousal support or maintenance upon a divorce

First, to address the purported offensiveness of my use of the world "leech". The definition if leech is " to habitually exploit or rely on". The handouts that I said leeched off the successful would be relied on in some way for the welfare of the poor/struggling students/those affected by some charity could be said to habitually rely on the rich, and could therefore be seen as leeching on them. However, I will admit that a word with less negative connotations should have been used. Next, I will try to explain the difference between spousal support and the handouts you described in a more comprehensive fashion. I will agree with you that both are for the greater good, and both are government enforced mandates, however, the differences again lie in the particulars. First, and arguably most importantly, when people enter into a spousal relationship, they are aware of the reality that upon divorce, one will likely be forced to pay support. While this alone would not justify spousal support, marrying couples also have the opportunity to draft and sign into agreement a prenuptial, in which the specifics of what will happen after divorce (at least in regards to spousal support) can be set in stone. Nearly all couples in the first world have the option to draft a prenup. Basically, you have a choice on spousal support, making the elimination of it completely unnecessary In addition to this, I also make the argument that spouses have earned the support in many cases (as you addressed in the second half of your first paragraph). You rebut this by saying that one spouse provided money, the other errands, cleaning, etc and the mutually beneficent arrangement ends when the marriage does. Again, it is not just money that could have been earned working that spousal support is covering for, it is the loss of earning potential. In a society where females are brought up to believe that their primary duty is childcare, it is often difficult to set up a relationship in which both partners will work - in our culture, it is the norm for females to be the primary caregivers, and this is a disadvantage to them in the event of a divorce, in which they will have no career skills. Our laws should consider our culture and try to counter the inherent differences of post marriage life in the interest of again, fairness. On the topic of the subject of the debate, you claim that you retain the right to "clarify" the topic of the debate. You saying that "There should be no such thing as alimony payments, spousal support or maintenance upon a divorce" can be changed to "There should be no such thing as alimony payments in some case" is like me saying I can change "1st trimester abortions should be legal" to "ALL abortions should be legal... and MANDATORY" (just kidding about the very last bit). You set the topic of the argument, and once I accept it is written in stone. I agreed to debate against your original statement, and no other, and if the rest of your argument relies on a re imagined premise, I will consider it completely invalid. Part 3 of your argument, yes I do agree in some cases there should be no spousal support. Again though, if I can convince voters that there is one situation in which there should be spousal support, I will have won the debate according to the premise of your original statement. Addressing part 4, I must again say that you must argue that spousal support should be abolished completely, and not argue that it is unjust for a few groups. In part 5, you say that the dependent "spouse did receive housing, food, clothing during the marriage without having to work a 'real job.'" The work done by a majority of stay at home spouses is equal to or greater than the work done by the working spouse (http://www.salary.com... [even if these figures are a gross over estimate, look at the "jobs" and time spent and it becomes apparent that a stay at home spouse earns their keep]), and for this diligent effort they are rewarded with little more than a goodbye upon divorce, thrust into the career market with 10+ years of experience in a field with no true career applications. You basically argue that either both parties assume equal work and home obligations, a nearly impossible task especially with children, or that one side be hugely disadvantaged after marriage. In the final part of your round 3 argument, you leave out the most vital part of my quote, "to a reasonable extent for life if the situation calls for it", which calls into question this entire section, as you act as if i had just asserted your own viewpoint when clearly I do not believe the obligations of spousal support end with divorce. If there were no spousal support, there would be no penalty for the end of a child free marriage. While the "sanctity of marriage" is not my biggest concern, to many around the world it is culturally, religiously, and personally important, and penalty free divorces would severely degrade one of our oldest cultural institutions. Break ups are especially harmful to children, and if we saw a removal of spousal support, the consequences would soon become apparent with higher divorce rates, and a new generation of children with issues caused by these divorces.