Love after marriage is much better than love before marriage

The resolution is questioning the value of love at different points in time, indeed it presupposes love. Based on this interpretation Pro has done nothing to argue for her side of the resolution. However, I will argue against the concept of arranged marriages (pro states love after marriage is better due to the failures of ‘love marriages’ ; negating this point negates pro’s argument) , in the spirit of a proper debate. Nevertheless, I urge Pro to clarify the resolution, and attempt to fulfil the BOPCon CaseI’ll split this into 2 main sections – arguing based on the different points in time interpretation and then about liberty as opposed to arranged marriages. After or before? Pro argues that “As far as "love after marriage" is concerned, its mostly beneficial because partner expect less and get more where as in love marriages people expect more and get less” . Pro gives no evidence of this whatsoever. Also, even if this were proved, it doesn’t mean that love after marriage guarantees more. Imagine this hypothetical example: Marriage type Expectation Result Love Before 100 80 Love After 50 70 Clearly, even if I were to concede this truth of Pro’s unsubstantiated claim, it is quite possible to still end up with more with love before marriage. Pro also argues points about divorce, which are all unsubstantiated claims. Pro states there’s an 80% divorce rate, there’s not. Based on . http://www.nationmaster.com... , there’s a weighted average of 38.9 divorces per 100 marriages. No country breaks the 60% mark and some are quite low. Pro’s incorrect here. Also, based on our time interpretation we need only consider happiness for that time. I contend that if people are expecting great happiness (as my opponent seemed to believe was the case with love before marriage)there is a reason for this. The greater the expected happiness the stronger the reason. Since this reason is likely past experience, we can conclude that the experiences of love prior to marriage are of greater enjoyment than those following. It should be noted that divorce can only occur once one is married, a severe hampering issue to happiness. .. Also, let’s have some fun here and state that ‘love’ can be objectively defined, hence love is the exact same at any time, meaning some is not better at any one time (such as after) than another time (say, before) . I think these points are enough for a first round given this might not be my opponent’s intended resolution. Liberty in marriage or arranged marriages? First point of note is that of a false dichotomy. Indeed, phenomena such as ‘self-arranged marriages’ are developing in India (Susan Christine Seymour, Women, family, and child care in India: a world in transition, Cambridge University Press, 1999) , which reflects a move towards liberty away from arranged marriages. Obviously, one should be allowed to do what one wants unless there is sufficient reason for another party to intervene. For example, if a man wants to shoot people of his own volition he is prevented as there is sufficient reason (safety and so forth) for said prevention. However, if I wish to say ‘by George! ’ then I should be allowed to do so, as there is no good reason to prevent my action (not to mention the waste of resources if my action were to be policed) . Using this logic, if people want freedom (such as the case in India) , shouldn’t they be allowed it? Also, there is good reason to believe freedom in marriage benefits the economy - . http://glassvisage.hubpages.com... :“In traditional arranged marriages, parents prefer that daughters be less educated so they can have more control over household affairs, but if more women hold college degrees, they can provide for themselves and help redistribute resources more evenly in society (The Agenda, 2008, p. 31)”Furthermore, the world’s richest economies are generally those without arranged marriages. Note in the previous source that Japan had a 70% rate for arranged marriage half a century ago, yet today less than 10% are arranged marriages? Also, on the point of ‘stability’ in arranged marriages, we must ask some serious questions. Firstly, given the nature of ‘arranged’ marriages one isn’t meant to prize liberty. Ie. Arranged marriages disregard personal preference and are intended as a solution for life. Secondly, go back say, 100 years, and although arranged marriages weren’t found in places like the USA there was a far lower divorce rate. This suggests the possible hypothesis that increased lifestyle expectations (like perfect marriages) result from greater development, technology and wealth. Surely though pro isn’t going to argue that these advances are bad? ConclusionI think I’ve given pro enough points to consider for R1 given an unclear resolution. Pro doesn’t provide a case for her side (under either interpretation) in R1, and I’ve shown economic and social arguments against Pro. I’ve also shown that even if we were to accept pro’s flawed logic that Pro would still not have a case! Resolution negated. Sidenote: Sorry for the slow response; I’ll try and be quicker next time.