As Feminist, This House Would Oppose All Campaigns Against Polygamy in Poor Countries

0
2291
Image by miawicks9 from Pixabay

In this motion all teams from both side are demanded to give clear picturization upon Poor country, you can go through detail like giving examples directly about poor country (example India). Then goes further by giving characterization of Poor Country, both side could agree that poor country most likely trapped in the patriarchy system. Then goes to the explanation how does feminist move inside their country. What feminist is fighting for in India? Adding alittle bit fact to support your case will be useful to empower your next argumentation. (Example: Domestic Violence case in India, Arrange Marriage and Women has no platform for advocacy)

In this debate both side could argue in Principle level in explaining the interest of Feminist, In proposition side of the house team(s) might try to define the interest of feminist as giving protection and ensuring survivability of women which could be explained in a way by saying that women are less educated so having less access to job opportunity so low chance of surviving inside the community that’s why they need man to at least make them survive. This is exactly the trade off that each woman might take using R.A Kartini Case in the past might be useful to support your explanation.

In opposition you might be able to counter this principle by saying that survivability has never been ensured by marrying a polygamist cause domestic violence rate is so high and you have no power to fight back. So none of the team can talk about survivability because the true interest of feminist is independence and marrying a polygamist will create a dependency toward men in which women will be seen as a fragile, incapable being. So to win this principle level of debate both team need to prove again which one is exactly within the interest of women.

In practical level both side could argue for better changes by explaining that only by supporting women who were left with no choice instead of marrying a polygamist we can gain their participation inside the community and expecting them for a significant change where at least we could embrace them and give them education so women, could at least teach their kids in the future to fight against the concept of patriarchy by teaching their kids to not preserve the culture and respect both men and women equally.

In the best case when women are married at least they have financial capital that they could utilize to invest to their own selves for a lot of utility like education, opening up business and etc. So marrying a polygamist is just a stepping stone for having better financial capital cause most polygamists are people who are financially capable.

In Opposition things that you need to negate is the technicalities on how women are not going to get the chance of utilizing money or arranging money to their own uses. Because in patriarchy system husband is the leader and has fullest capacity of controlling the money and things inside their homes. But when we fight againsts polygamy we could expect the husband to be more responsible and open up more chances for the women to have full capacity over the money they have. Then possibility of best case in govt will most likely occur in our side.

Other than that both opposition and propositon might try to engage to issue about creating political changes by having enough social capital. In proposition the analysis might go hand in hand by saying that only by accepting majority’s value then you have chance to bargain and compromise with their values by engaging in more productive discussion. Or else in Opposition by saying only by keep againsting the value through campaign and showing image of women oppressed in their system that we could make people become symphatetyc and make them have better discourse about the current problematic situation.

Well this is just a guideline upon what can be discussed in the debate you might also look for other intereting thing that I haven’t mentioned yet.


Author is a member of an adjudication core of Medan British Parliamentary Debate Open 2019, held in University of Muslim Nusantara Al-Washliyah. This motion analysis is a contribution to further elevate the local debating community proliferation.