The Parable of the Long Spoons is an Advocacy for Polyamory and Polygamy

Closing1) In Round #2, CON asserted that "more sexual partners does not lead to more procreation", which was at first entirely reasonable in that it noted biological limitations in child-birthing. By round #4, it devolved into unfounded speculation that "Pro has [supposedly] failed to show that polyamory would boost the birthrate." These two statements are utterly disjointed, have no relevancy to each other, and do not proffer a consistent nor reasonable argument as to whether or not the resolution is valid. Central to this inconsistency is that CON offers zero explanation as to what would actually cause people to want to have children - instead, she talks about paying women to have babies, birth control, and abortion. Apparently to CON, children are more a curse than a blessing.PRO has been very, very consistent that continuing one's genetic legacy is a primary factor as to why people would want children. Quality of child-rearing is thus an integral part of securing such a legacy. Having more children with more partners would mean that there are more parents that would have incentive to be responsible in taking care of the children. CON's counter-arguments to such assertions have been non-sensical and largely dropped upon subsequent scrutiny - CON argues in round #3 that having more sexual partners would not lead to more parents or more parenting, yet completely abandons such reasoning by round #4 once PRO demonstrated that such children would have very many step-parents, and that responsibilities would be shared amongst the pool of parents thus lessening the burden for each parent overall.2) In Round #2, CON asserted that "more sexual partners does not lead to more help with child-rearing" by at first asserting known discrepancies in care giving between fathers and mothers. In Round #3 CON furthered this line of thinking by attempting to cite how "If a father has ten children with ten different women, he needs to split his time among ten different households, and the travel time alone will make this inefficient," which PRO addressed by citing how housing would also be shared by this (much) larger family. CON's line of argumentation then devolved into inconsistencies in that in Round #4, CON then asserts that such sharing has nothing to do with polyamory or polygamy, and that people do not have sex with "aunts, cousins, etc.". This is wholly ridiculous. Would you share your house with complete strangers, or would you share them with people you love and with whom you have intimate relations? Of course such sharing has everything to do with such intimacy.Do you have sex with your father, mother, daughters or sons? Of course not, yet you share your house with them all the same, because those relationships are resultant of sexual intimacy between the parents, not the offspring. CON's line of reasoning here does not acknowledge basic realities of family creation and living arrangements.3) CON believes that "the parable definitely advocates a one at a time policy, which corresponds to monogamy or serial monogamy." This is an unfounded assertion. While PRO agrees that procreation stipulates that people have sex with one person at a time, it does NOT correspond with serial monogamy, which requires that people divorce their current spouse before acquiring another one, nor does it necessarily correspond with monogamy. If it did, then to be consistent with the parable, people would only eat the potatoes on the table, and would ignore the ham, steak, lobster, etc, or would have to give up potatoes to eat the other foods. This is also non-sensical.ConclusionI have been very consistent with my stance on this resolution - Having more children with more partners would mean that there are more parents that would have incentive to be responsible in taking care of the children. Apparently to CON, sex is only about hedonism and has little to nothing to do with children. While she is certainly free to her opinion, it wholly ignores a very valid reason as to why people have sex - to have children. All of my arguments have dealt with the consequences of having more children with more sexual partners, and have shown several positives that would come from such arrangements. CON by round #4 largely dropped any criticism she had of such arrangements, in the end only weakly and almost nonsensically attempting to resolve that such arrangements do not ostensibly stem from intimacy.I fully acknowledge that if a society has too many children, it will hit resource constraints (for example, there is simply not enough water in the world at a certain point), yet the internal logic of the parable dictates that "the table is plentiful". Given this unrealistic premise of the parable, when applied to sex, it would strongly imply polyandry and polygamy. That is my burden and I have upheld it.Thanks to CON for participating in this debate, and to readers for reading it. I look forward to insightful comments/criticism of these arguments.