Polygamy is morally permissible.

I will use his order, and address the con advocacy and his responses first. Con #1: Pro response A: The colonization of other planets is a non-realistic, Star Wars-esque solution that is hardly an answer to clear and decisive empirics. My opponent is assuming that the problem of 2/3 of the world—4 billion people—can be solved by interstellar colonization and resource conservation, when the US refuses to even sign the Kyoto Accord. Without warrants as to these solutions being immediately implemented or being immediately effective against any of the data listed in my case, the harms still clearly outweigh. Pro response B: While there are hindrances such as reproductive rights stopping us from ethically halting *all* birth of children in any sort of international sense at this time, it certainly is a moral imperative to illegalize polygyny. In fact, all of the world's major religions and many of the world's countries have already denounced or banned the practice for the very reason that it has no societal or biological benefits. If we are to equate morality with evolutionary or biological tendencies, then why would myriad societies ban polygyny if it was so useful to society? After all, law is the manifestation of a moral code. Pro response C: Of course the population would increase. That's the whole point of practicing polygyny in the first place. If the affirmative is only affirming to allow more women to marry, then vote con right now for two reasons: A) He just dropped every impact of polygyny in his case, and can no longer claim the benefits of diversity, increased species spread, etc. B) Marriage, being a religious institution, is existent according to all religions primarily for procreation. This is true across all major religions, and permeates every piece of scripture regarding the bond of marriage. If those of any major religions are joining in polygynous relationships, then their first concern, dogmatically, is to breed more children which will practice that same religion. Hence, polygyny will always yield far more children than not. On increased conflict in societies: Yes, there is competition at times irrespective of the availability of resources. However, the basic premise of evolutionary theory, which I am sure my opponent is more than familiar with, is that resource competition drives evolution. The "fitter" a specimen is, the better it can adapt to a changing environment or survive when resources are in competition or scarce, the more it shall survive to breed, hence furthering itself. To say that violent conflict will not increase as resources dwindle is unwarranted, especially within the pro's own framework of evolution. Competition to survive, according to evolution, must increase as resources reduce themselves. See Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, & Steel for much more detailed analysis of how resource competition shaped the world. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To the Pro's advocacy and responses: Pro's #1: Offering up polyandry as a moral act actually is an independent reason to vote con, but only because the two practices yield directly opposite results. If an act that naturally saves the human species is considered moral, then the exact opposite act can be assumed to be generally immoral as it would logically hurt the species. For example, to save a person's life is considered an evolutionarily moral act (generally—I realize there are exceptions). To do the opposite, in general, and take a person's life, is considered immoral. On merging my/his arguments (? ): Please don't merge any arguments. Despite what my opponent tells you (and I don't understand the rationale in the first place), there is a clear counter-argument and turn on his contention 1. To repeat, since it was not addressed: Rapid population increase will lead to the destruction of the human species at this time in our evolutionary history, rather than thriving, per the harms listed under my case, which were not properly covered. At the point where we are destroying the environment without remedy, increasing global conflict, and not providing basic necessities for 4 billion people in the status quo, the turn is proved and you should vote con. Pro's #2: First of all, my opponent ignores the biological instinct to raise one's young, which is incredibly powerful in the human species, as we are proven to be not only genetically social, but altruistic in nature. Plenty of societies world-wide have perfected the art of communally raising children, and to say that a co-wife will be any more qualified to raise another woman's children (whether she be married to the same husband or not) than a daycare provider is arbitrary, as there is no genetic link in either relationship. As a teacher and a speech coach, I can tell you with no hesitation that I see my students as my children, my responsibility. Teachers join the teaching profession because of this natural desire to foster children. Polygyny is only "true" motherhood for genetic mother and child, assuming that true motherhood is simply a direct genetic link, as the biological need to raise children is inherent in the human species as a whole. Multiple wives are still only as good as step-parents, which does not establish any stronger of a genetic bond than any other human being who could come into contact with said child. And, emulating tribal behavior, I think, is being overcomplicated by my opponent. We can take basic principles of communal child raising, as observed in societies who have been very successful (not necessarily tribes, by the way), and then apply them as we have to the ideas of school and daycare. Pro's #3: My opponent misses the point entirely of my necessarily limited analogy. I was only making the distinction that polygyny, in and of itself, is not foundationally responsible for genetic diversity because it doesn't put restrictions on which women you can marry. Sure, at the point where you marry your 5 sisters, genetic variation will be *slightly* increased over the next door neighbor that marries his sister (and I'm talking slight), but that doesn't refute the actual argument I made. Legal interference in choice of partner is what encourages genetic diversity, not the act of polygyny all on its own. Number of partners won't inherently increase diversity. The proper biological choice of partner(s) will. Not only that, but my opponent dropped the far more important response, so please extend the fact that, with 6 billion people in the world, we clearly have an abundance of partners to choose from if the only benefit we are trying to achieve is genetic diversity. The benefit of genetic diversity is already achieved, so this cannot possibly outweigh the outlined harms in my advocacy.