in society without polygamy, all women either accept all men or many women or men remain single

We wont consider LGBtq relationships or whatever, because that is irrelevant small percentage of society.

Round 1

1 of 1

SatanLucy

Pro #1

Because we are not considering gays,

we are only considering straight people.

Ratio of women to men in society is about 1:1.

In an example of 10 straight women and 10 straight men, there are only two options without polygamy:

Each woman belongs to one man

Someone is without relationship.

Same if there are 11 women and 10 men. Because each woman isnt getting her own one man, one woman ends up not in relationship.

Con #2

You pointed to something obvious, which is, in a 1:1 system, if pairing isn't perfect, some people remain single.

I agree. Some people will be single. That’s true in any system.

Polygamy is flawed too.

Say, in a polygamy, 1 man has 3 women as his partners, that would mean 2 men are single. You didn't remove singleness, you just increased inequality.

And we need to be realistic, attraction is selective, and compatibility matters.

Even with a perfect 1:1, you would still get singles because not everyone wants each other, and some choose to stay single.

Furthermore, singleness is not a flaw of monogamy, it is inevitable, and dependent on choice, preference, and competition.

Lastly, if everyone is forced to accept any partner, their individual choice is removed. That turns relationships into forced rigid distribution system than voluntary connections.

SatanLucy

--> @fauxlaw, @Savant

thanks for taking time to vote.

Savant Administrator

--> @SatanLucy, @Savant, @YN

>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Voted for: pro
>Reason for Decision: too-vague
>Reason for Mod Action:

Savant Administrator

---Savant's former vote---
Voted for: pro
Con concedes the premise: "I agree. Some people will be single. That’s true in any system."

The rest of their argument isn't addressing the resolution.

Alyssa

Lmao

ShtLp

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

The Con side wins because they noticed the poorly framed l tautological claim and engage the only meaningful version of the argument, then successfully refute it. Instead of accepting a trivial framing, they charitably interpret the Pro as making a substantive claim about relationship structures reducing singleness and show that this does not hold under realistic conditions: singleness persists in any system due to selective attraction and preference, and alternatives like polygamy merely redistribute outcomes while increasing inequality.

Con also introduced an unrefuted impact that any attempt to “solve” singleness structurally risks undermining individual choice.

Since Pro does not defend a non tautological position or demonstrate improved outcomes under their model, Con wins.

Savant Administrator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Con concedes the main point of the debate: "I agree. Some people will be single. That’s true in any system."

The rest of their argument isn't addressing the resolution. The debate is over whether singleness occurs in certain conditions, not about if it's unique to those conditions or if it's good.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

The topic is poorly constructed, which limits Pro's latitude in argument, because Pro's approach is to make polygamy a primary feature of the conflict of marriage coupling or remaining single, which are not the only two results in a society without polygamy. Con correctly argues: "And we need to be realistic, attraction is selective, and compatibility matters. Even with a perfect 1:1, you would still get singles because not everyone wants each other, and some choose to stay single. Furthermore, singleness is not a flaw of monogamy, it is inevitable, and dependent on choice, preference, and competition."
Pro does not address any of these three optional results of a polygamy less society. Con wins.

Round 1

New comment