₦airaland Forum

yellowpawpaw: TV, don't just go yabin women.
At least there r reasons for women exploding though it can be controlled but
What about u guys?
Some of u guys carry belle wey big pass 9months pregy belle.
What reasons hv u guys for exploding

jmoore: Men, can you marry a lady 8-12 years younger than you?

pickabeau1: Just as you have mentioned in your post ...
Extreme cases

That means not everyone can marry

My post was marriage is not for everyone

Some die before their time
Some have a calling that marriage will hinder - Paul
Some never just get married

Fulaman198: To be with the love of their life for the rest of their lives, as simple as that

pickabeau1: I believe marriage is not for everyone...do you think otherwise...

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.

pickabeau1: It may not even be your destiny

Tgirl4real: Sir,

I wasn't expecting this from you. Are you saying you were forced into participating in this debate?

Tgirl4real: I am really surprised at your comment. This shouldn't be coming from you and if at all you have such grievances, you should have voiced it privately.

Tgirl4real: When you asked if you could comment on the judges scores, I didn't know you were gonna take it personally.

ileobatojo: Ah! The more they speak, the more they expose their lack of integrity.

So all along it was just a diversionary red herring for the hate and bitterness that lie inside.

One would have thought an 'intellectual' can separate senseless personal beef from the business of the day which is the debate.

What shameless hypocrisy.

Obinoscopy: Thank you my esteemed judges for your appraisals. I've noted my flaws and will improve on them in subsequent presentations.

TV01, your presentation was great. You also did good in your rebuttals. But the fact remains that there were some flaws in yours as well as mine. The judges pointed out those flaws for us to improve on them in subsequent presentations. Your trying to justify your presentation by faulting the judges appraisals is very wrong.

You need to display the spirit of sportsmanship. This is not a do-or-die affair. The fact that you lost out - albeit narrowly - doesn't mean that marriage shouldn't be a lifetime commitment. It might even surprise you to note that I, personally, am against divorce. I also strongly believe that marriage should be for life!

debosky: Erm. . . what is the purpose of a debate with a specific title? Why didn't we simply say 'marriage - discuss?'?

In a debate, one needs to evaluate the reasons why an alternative view may be considered. This isn't a debate about marriage in general - a point you fail to grasp - it is about the lifelong commitment aspect. So far as you put that at the centre of your argument then fine.



You make allowances for violations or instances where the general may not apply - you don't say everyone can drive regardless of whether inebriated or not.In the same guise, while lifelong marriage may be viewed as the ideal, you do consider instances where it may not be and make allowances for that. To neglect doing the latter is a deficient argument.



There's no one asking you to consider 'every possible scenario' here - what I mentioned is a common scenario that doesn't require much imagination. In fact, since you took time to reference the advantages to kids in your argument, it's surely not much of a stretch for you to consider instances where remaining in the lifelong union could be disadvantageous.



The above would have sufficed if you included it in your argument - a simple consideration of why the alternative may be selected.



No it doesn't - take your drink driving example - you legislate for those drinking by providing means of removing their privileges to drive. In a similar manner, where a marriage is not providing the required outcomes or is being abused, a means to make it non-lifelong is available.



Again, this was not what was requested - it was a simple acknowledgement that there may be perfectly valid reasons why the opposing view may have its (limited) merits. It appears you're too caught up in your fervour to appreciate this simple point.



Individual experiences have to be considered since no one lives in principle - they live in practice so a purely theoretical or idealistic view is deficient. Grounding a principle without pointing out glaring exceptions leads one to infer it applies all the time - that is an inherent weakness in your argument.



No one is invalidating a principle here. For the umpteenth time, it was a request for a consideration - within your argument - of the merits of the alternate view.



Great - I wish other debaters would respond in the same guise.

debosky: I'm a bit puzzled as to if/why this was directed at me, but I'll respond anyway.

debosky: 1. I didn't question your definition nor even the essence of what you were describing per se. I’ve critiqued the strength of your argument, not your position. Maybe you intended this for Ile?.

debosky: 2. In terms of definitions being antediluvian? Well if we’re talking about ‘definitions’, marriage has been redefined as also being valid between members of the same gender in a number of countries. The trend is for this to happen in more and more countries, so yes your definition may well be antediluvian in that sense.

debosky: 3. Ile has disputed your ‘truth’ for one with her example definition, which incidentally is expressly validated by the Qur’an. One may argue that successful, prosperous societies have been built this way.

debosky: I’m not throwing my own opinion into the ring - I’m simply evaluating the strengths of the arguments presented. Your motives are of course your own prerogative.

debosky: For the children for example - I'm referring to considering situations where a lifelong commitment (e.g. in the case of abuse) may not deliver the best outcome for the children.

debosky: Again, you miss the point - it's not about 'altering' marriage, it's about considering (in your argument) whether a specific marriage can deliver what it intended to. If it isn't, have you considered the option of terminating it, or does considering that option of terminating it render it not marriage? Simply saying 'do not alter marriage in any way' does not show you've considered the merits (if any) of the opposing view in a debate.

debosky: I said you did not consider that possibility in your submission, no one said you claimed anything.

debosky: It was in your initial submission, I don't see why you are belabouring this obvious point.

debosky: I wasn't asking you to change your ideological position nor retract your submission. I've just provided feedback on the deficiencies in your argument, specifically its failure to consider the merits of the opposing position.

debosky: The aim of a debate is to argue in support/against, while show a rounded understanding of the subject and this includes evaluating the merits of the opposing view.

yellowpawpaw: Chilli, one thing with debating on a topic like that is it will turn religious.
So if we can, we will balance that with muslim and christian. Its a good topic but still we won't learn a lot from it.

debosky: ^^ The issue wasn't really a case of varying for individual desires, but evaluation of what other means (if any) could deliver the same outcomes desired.

debosky: For example, you didn't consider that, in certain cases, ending the commitment of man to woman (e.g. in an abusive relationship) would be better for the children so that they are not raised in an abusive environment/develop a negative view of marriage.

debosky: In addition, sticking to what you believe to be truth is okay, but when tangential or even irrelevant (e.g. same sex marriage reference and role of the state) it only serves to distract from the point you seek to make.

As for whether or not you referred to same sex marriage, below is an excerpt from your post:

debosky: TV01

Excellent delivery style and structure as usual, but I can't help feeling you were debating a slightly different proposition than what was stated. Your excessive emphasis on defining marriage and on themes such as the role of the state and societies that repudiated marriage - all issues largely tangential to the subject of discussion - was glaring. As usual your advocacy for marriage (as you view it) was clear, but you didn't spend enough time challenging the premise that the duration of commitment should be left to those involved. The reference to same-sex marriages was completely unnecessary in this case and factually incorrect (in some jurisdictions at least) in some respects. That said, your focus on the effects on children - linking that to why marriages should be lifelong - was well presented.

If the topic was 'Lifelong marriage of a man and a woman - the optimal child raising construct?' then you'd have won without a contest. You'd benefit from a more focused argument instead of dwelling on valid but ultimately unrelated aspects.

ileobatojo: How about we start here.

If I defined marriage simply as, "a polygamous union between one man and up to 4 wives", what would you say about that definition?

ileobatojo: TV01, your definition of marriage continues to stump me. You were extremely limited in your defense of your position and your focusing primarily on the children significantly weakened your argument. Your hard-lined posturing ended up being too tunnel visioned. I would have loved a broader perspective. With that said, your delivery was captivating and kept the reader engaged. Thank you for your time and hard work.

yellowpawpaw: Congrats obinoscopy!
TVO1,
U were simply amazing!
I enjoyed ur arguments very well.
Very constructive and insightful.
Standing ovation for u!
(I lv intellectuals.)

Tgirl4real: I see Coogar peeping. Any questions for the debaters?

yellowpawpaw: TV, how do u want me to answer ur kweshion naw?
Me, I no sabi grammer too much.
Let me consult my dickitionary.
It will take time o.
Just wait, I dey come.


Me think that since we hv diverse religiou beliefs, when used in context like this, mostly d aim is defeated since all side will start defending their faith(w'out knowing it) instead of focusing on the topic of discussion.
Also, other major points which would hv surfaced and treated equally will automatically die natural death.
Let us not forget that the debate has to be neutral.

Then again, we can pair and learn from both sides(if actually that's the aim) without throwing stones but can that be obtainable here.

Two christians quoting the bible is meaningless to a muslim reading the post or a free thinker. Think about it.

Obinoscopy: Tut tut. You're very wrong @ the bolded. I addressed the topic from different angles. This is enough evidence that you did not read my presentation and did not address my rebuttals effectively.

Obinoscopy: Thanks for this reference. This was exactly what I was looking for. The other references you provided were not in correlation with the topic of discuss but this one is. Weldone!