I thought part of your argument was that it is the irreligious type that cohabits, [b]so how do you expect the religious, non-cohabiting types to go on vacations together and pass weekends together? [/b]Would such people find that acceptable within their religious boundaries?
How will they get to know each other?

Months, years or a lifetime is never enough to know someone completely? Does that in anyway mean the longer you know someone (by increased and longer contact) is of little or insignificant value compared to the shorter you know the person?[/quote

yellowpawpaw:



Lerrie, pls who u be?
R u using another moniker?
I'm very curious to know.

U were very hot.
Shege!
Assuming I was the one paired with u, I would hv ran away since!
U too much,gal
Congrats!

[quote author=ileobatojo]Lerrie John, you provided some good insights into the mindset of people who cohabit. You also had a wide range of points you provided to the audience to chew on. However, some of your points seemed contradictory. You did a great job incorporating your references nicely into your argument and you made some very striking statements during the rebuttal stages. Congratulations on a strong debate showing. I would love to hear more from you

debosky: Feedback for Lerrie

I liked your style of appealing to the reader's basic understanding of what marriage was about and contrasting it with the 'reality' of co-habitation. You also went into detail on each of the demerits of co-habitation which helped with following your line of thought.

Your style of providing insight into the motives of those choosing cohabitation is also very convincing and seeks to go beyond just mere quoting statistics.

One area where you could have done better was explaining some apparent contradictions in your position - e.g. you can walk out at any moment vs you go with the flow and don't leave because of all you've invested. For the latter you could've said e.g. the illusion is that you can walk out at any moment while reality is that you are somewhat stuck because of your investment in the relationship.

The way you attributed your evidence to the references you provided were not as clear as those of your opponent, and some claims could not be readily verified. For example you stated that cohabitation lacks commitment, interdependence and fidelity - without clear evidence supporting this or indicating this was your personal view/opinion.

Finally, your argument didn't distinguish between those cohabiting as a marriage substitute versus those cohabiting in order to confirm suitability for marriage.

Overall I think you delivered a compelling argument, and it would have been even more compelling if some of the elements above were incorporated. Well done and congratulations on getting this far in the debates.

Lerrie John: Thank you ileobatojo.
I do realise most of my points were contradictory and I should have made them clearer, pity I didn't. Most of the contradictions were deliberate cos the intention wasn't that of saying cohabiting is entirely wrong but that even when it is a good option ( based on one's personal values), it doesn't guarantee marital stability.

Lerrie John:


Thank you very much debosky. Really appreciate the feedback. Will take note for future purposes..
Reading back I guess I should have made my points clearer as my contradictions weren't really understood.
For example when I say Couples who cohabit do not have any family, social, nor legal obligations to one another and can therefore live their relationship in a relaxed manner, knowing they could walk out at any given moment if they choose to, as opposed to couples who are married. , [/color] , it is to point out that there really is no commitment to one another in cohabiting. You do not have to give explanations to family nor friends if you think you found someone better out there.

Then I bring up a different situation[color=#000099] ( Another problem with cohabitation prior to marriage, like it or not, is it's easier to get in than to get out once you start playing house) now let's assume the couple are together for love. Being in love doesn't mean both parties are compatible and so tend to have arguements often. The fact that a couple might love each other deeply and invest financially makes it hard for them to break up even when they are aware they might be heading towards a destructive relationship. If a couple isn't cohabiting it's easier to break up from a bad relationship than when they are living under the same roof..and so we have a case of people getting married for the wrong reasons.

I hope with my explanation I have been able to shed more light on what may seem absolutely contradictory opinions. The purpose was to show cohabiting doesn't really guarantee marital longevity.

ifyalways: Congrats Efe . A louder congrats to Lerrie John,the mysterious new lady on NLD. Lerrie,i know you are a member of the cabal,just tell me your old handle. lol

Kai,I miss the cabal criers- this debate would have been a scream with them around. RichyVkunt,Johndoe and Harakiri,I dedicate Efe's winning trophy to you guys.

When is the finals?

ileobatojo:

Stunning numbers. Any theories from the study as to why this is so in these two countries? Is there a certain profile of women that choose to cohabit that puts them at increased risk to be abused? And the men? Why are they more abusive in cohabitation arrangements than marriage?

debosky: Without reviewing the data, I struggle to see why an abuser would be more abusive in a co-habitation than in a marriage.

I think this may be a classic case of mistaking correlation for causation - i.e. if co-habitation relationships are more abusive, it is more likely because those that are abusive preferentially select/end up in co-habitation (for a yet to be determined reason), and less likely to be that the relationship makes them abusive.

This flaw is quite common when arguing to 'support' a position - any statistic that shows 'better' performance in the selected position is assumed to be better because of that position when it isn't necessarily so. While the latter might be an indicator, it needs to be confirmed by identifying an eliminating any 'bias'.

One more thing to note - this discussion (at least the debate between contestants) isn't around comparing marriage to co-habitation, rather it is whether cohabitation supports successful marriages or not.

Therefore the pertinent subset of co-habitation under examination here is that which is entered into with the view to getting married (if successful), not the wider group which includes those who engage in co-habitation as a substitute for marriage.

ileobatojo:

I understand that. But what I was trying to say is that respondents to surveys are usually savvy in the US and Australia where the study is from. So say for instance, they had the respondents fill out confidential questionnaires answering questions about abuse, I don't think too many women in these parts would decide to lie about that even if they were married. Remember, for anything to be done about the marriage, the abusee needs to come forward and specifically press charges or something. The women know that researchers cannot just come and interfere with their marriages because of what they put down in a questionnaire.

On the other hand, if the data was obtained from police or court records from abusees who came forward, I could see how there might be some discrepancy between marrieds and cohabitants.

ifyalways: 24 years @ Obino? It's too late o. A 26 years old single lady is seen as "old and quarter to expire" in Nigeria today. Waiting till 24 can lead to injury time.lol

coogar:

ify stop exaggerating....chics of 28 are still rocking the town in naija with high hopes that one lucky dude would still ring it.

ifyalways:
That one na one high hope that is charactarized by continuous fasting and prayer, casting and binding,holy water and anointed oil drinking.

Ideally,28 is a good age for a woman to marry but it's not so in Naija anymore. Once a woman clocks 26,pressures from family,friends,pastors starts.

ifyalways: "One of the most powerful teaching tools parents have to convey their values to their children is their own relationship. Children will learn to be tender, compassionate and respectful of their partners when they see their parents model these behaviors".

^ ^ ^ @ Efe,what happens if the parent(s) themselves do not possess those qualities? What if it's a bitter single parent or divorced? Would they still qualify as role models?