Polygamous Marriages

My opponent misunderstands the way that the frameworks interact and just doesn't seem to cover enough in this debate. It's why they'll be losing. I'm going to go down their last round from top to bottom, extending critical arguments of my own as I go. To begin with, extend my framework of love being based solely around the capacity to love one another as what we ought to be basing marriages off of, rather than practical concerns. This concept goes entirely conceded by Con, and Con even concedes that they don't disagree with this. This is a game-over mistake from my opponent because if this is true, then, like I implied in the previous round and stated in further previous rounds, practical concerns are irrelevant toward if the marriage is permissible or not. What does it matter if it potentially will add one more parent to divorce conversations if the entire family loves one another and wants to give it a try? Con makes no response to this line of reasoning, nor attempts to respond to it. Insofar as I'm winning on this front, then the debate is effectively over -- marriage based off of love supercedes practical concerns, thus making them irrelevant to discussing whether the marriages ought to be permissible. Moreover, I've already made responses to this practical version of marriage as a "contract to avoid paperwork in the future" concept. Extend the two responses I made talking about how this view of marriage makes the marriage effectively useless and disregards how contracts are actually formed. Both explain why the Con's viewpoint of marriage is problematic. Neither are responded to. Don't let them go back and make responses to it in the final round because a) they've had chances to respond to these already and elected not to, thus making it their own fault, and b) it's unfair for me to have to cover new arguments in the final round where no one will be able to respond to what I say since the debate will be over. At this point you don't have to read any more as a voter and can affirm just right here -- if we base marriages off of love, then there's no reasons to preclude polygamous marriages. Also, don't buy the "this debate is about legality": a) The resolution, as imput by con as the instigator, is literally "Polygamous Marriages". There's no way to deliniate if this is about "polygamous marriages" as a concept or rather the legality of "polygamous marriages". My interpretation of the resolution is entirely fair. b) My opponent raises practical, but theoretical objections to the concept of polygamous marriage through the first two rounds, only electing to ask a legality question in the third round. Waiting for the fourth round to say "hey this debate is about legality, by the way" when the first three have been about concepts and theoretics is entirely unfair to me. c) Prefer theoretical arguments to legal arguments because saying that we ought to base things around legality is the is/ought fallacy --> just because something is or isn't doesn't mean that it ought be or ought not be. Only be evaluating the ought of things can we determine what we ought to do in a society, and the only way to do that is through theoretics, which is entirely what my arguments consist of. Moreover, extend my first two responses to his practical issue of polygamy being that it excludes some men from ever getting married. He responds to the first argument, that his argument makes a really dangerous and unwarranted assumption that men deserve to have a wife by simple being the man, by saying that his ideas are based in history, but that doesn't respond to my argument in the slightest. The assumption he's making is that women are merely property for men to claim as "wives" and that every man deserves himself a wife at some point or another, which has dangerous implications in terms of sexual violence and human worth. His "basis in history" is irrelevant to the unwarranted assumption being present.But moreover, he drops the third response that I make that this concept of marriage in that a man deserves to have a wife misunderstands the way that marriages actually form. Not every guy can build a relationship with a girl, meaning that by simple process of elimination of candidates, not every guy will marry someone. Forcing people who are incompatable to marry just asks for a lot of the harms listed in his case (namely divorce) to almost certainly happen. He never makes any kind of response to this. My opponent also seems to confuse what he's responding to. Extend my response that there's no reason to believe that women just become pawns and "sattelites" to the man in polygamy -- there's no reason to believe that a polygamist marriage cannot be based on the premise that all members of the marriage love one another equally, otherwise why would they be getting married in the first place? His response doesn't address it, but rather says "Well they happen anyway", but that's not actually a response. Sure, they can happen, but there's no reason to believe that they must happen or that they will always happen. There's not even compelling evidence to show that this is just what normally happens. Con's not doing enough work to merit this argument. Then, extend my responses to the study he posted. It's outdated, the most recent data being collected decades ago, and with more material wealth among the rest of society, there's less reasons for people to fight among one another for this wealth, which solves for the child welfare problems. The responds to the first half of this isn't even close to sufficient. The response of "well polygamy is illegal everywhere except islamic countries, so there's no good studies out there" only lends credence to my argument -- there really isn't any compelling evidence out there that polygamist marriages have all these problems. The second half he tries to respond back by citing crime rate statistics, but this is laughably fallacious:a) The easist confounding variable is that as population rises, crime rates will also rise simply because there's more people for crime to happen to. There's no reason this is specifically because of polygamy. b) There's a number of other confounding variables that could account for these issues, such as race riots, urban gang culture, and a litany of other things that have absolutely nothing to do with polygamy. He's not proving any kind of unique link that links the rise in crime rates to polygamy. Insofar as he's not doing that, these stats are literally meaningless.And his response will be that being specific to polygamy wasn't his point, but that's where the problem lies -- it has to be his point if he wants to warrant his argument. He needs to be showing how polygamist families fighting among one another account for these rise in crime rates and violence statistics in order for his point to actually be valid. Since this task from the stats he provided us is literally impossible, there's no reason to buy his argument. To conclude:My opponent just isn't doing enough work on the flow to justify his side of the resolution. I'm winning the framework debate, which is showing that we ought to base things on a capacity for love rather than on practical concerns which operates before his arguments and precludes his arguments. But even if we're evaluating the practicality of it, he's not making enough offense showing why practically polygamist marriages is a bad idea. Either way, I'm winning the debate at hand.Over to my opponent.