The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
59 Points

Debate.org classic: FINAL ROUND: LOGICAL-MASTER VS THELWERD

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,576 times Debate No: 6204
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (55)
Votes (13)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank all those who are judging this round as well as my opponent for being here to participate (and I wish her the best of luck!!! :D ). Second, I'd like to give special thanks to Johnicle for starting this tournament and a big thanks to Phil for sponsoring it. With that said, let us proceed:

RESOLVED: It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.

>>>DEFINITION: Love: http://dictionary.reference.com...

Essentially, what we can gather from these definitions is that love doesn't necessarily have to be romantic. It can be a sexual bond, the bond between a parent and a child, the bond between siblings as well as the bond between between two very good friends. From this, we realize that what this debate comes down to is to whether or not my opponent can demonstrate that a strong sense of companionship (or sometimes the pursuit of) as well as the loss of it is not as good as never having had the opportunity to experience it in the first place.

With that said: I shall start this debate by listing benefits that fall under loving and losing as well as to how these benefits are superior to never having loved in the first place

>>>CONTENTION #1: Through loving and losing said love, there is still a gain . . . and that gain is experience and knowledge (essentially the formula for maturity).

To elaborate, let us remember the great Thomas Edison. We must keep in mind that he had failed numerous times in order to perfect the light bulb. Indeed, each of his failures enabled him to gain a better understanding of electronics as well as fabricating light. Imagine what may have been the case if Edison had never tried in the first place? His knowledge would not have improved and his capabilities in the field of electronics would have practically been nonexistent (not to mention that there really wouldn't be a light bulb) In that light (pun not intended), one could insist that it is better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all. In the same sense, I advocate that through loving and losing, one is more capable and knowledgeable on matters which concern love. Naturally, with more knowledge and skill, one is more capable of handling intimate social situations properly, judging people who are in love and essentially anything else which can be done with the knowledge of love (such as maintaining a love based relationship so that peace may be instigated).

In addition (and this point should be considered rather crucial in this debate), through gaining the knowledge and experience of love and losing, one is better able to decide whether or not they feel that the pain of lost is too great to pursue love any further. Let us keep in mind that what my opponent shall be advocating is ignorance and close mindedness. Rather than try and see whether you like something, my opponent would perhaps have you remain presumptuous, fearful or unwilling take a chance towards something which you could very well love enough to cope with failure.

>>> CONTENTION #2. If we are to look at love as "sexual" (i.e. the phrase "Making love"), then the topic can be seen as "It is better to get laid and no longer get laid by the individual you've gotten laid with than to have never gotten laid at all."

With this kind of love, losing it (as in losing the partner who offers it) is not really that big of a deal considering that just about any other potential partner can offer it. In fact, we know this "love" to be quite ongoing given the success of prostitution (in spite of being illegal in many countries). Essentially, if the 'love' is based on sex, losing it with one potential partner is hardly considered much of a loss.

More important than the pleasure aspect though, we must remember that it is mostly "love" which keeps our species alive given that "love" enables reproduction. Essentially, we are looking at the continuation or death of our species. Fortunately, I advocate that we continue to thrive through our means of thriving.

>>>RECAP: Thus, for a brief overview of my points, I've advocated that the resolution is true in that the process of loving and losing grants experience (most importantly, it gives an individual the idea of whether or not love is something worth pursuing, contrary the contenders side of the resolution), enables great pleasure and is what allows our species to reproduce.

That being said, I reserve the right to mention additional arguments in the next round as well as to elaborate on the two contentions which I've already made (assuming I need to). I now stand ready for PRO's first rebuttal. Have at thee, theLwerd!!
Danielle

Con

[ Introduction ]

Thanks again to Johnicle for starting/running the tournament, Phil for sponsoring it, the debaters who participated and the judges for judging. I would also like to congratulate LM for making it this far in the tournament -- he is certainly an esteemed and formidable opponent! I look forward to a fun and challeneging debate. That said, Welcome to the Final Round. Let's go!!!

[ Defining Love ]

What is love? It is a word composed of 4 letters - 2 vowels, 2 consenants (in English) in an attempt to define a truly ambiguous, controversial and ineffable emotion. Unfortunately the dictionary.com definition provided cannot suffice as a true indicator of what the term actually means; my opponent himself discusses the various 'types' of love one can have or share.

One interpretation of Protagoras' take on relativism is the notion that "Man is the measure of all things," which was a concept expanded by Plato when he stated, "Knowledge is nothing but perception." Socrates agreed, "What seems true to anyone is true for him to whom it seems so." In other words, how one perceives or defines love is relative, and that discrepancy provides many holes in my opponent's argument (especially his first contention).

The point here is that one can define love in many ways, for instance by measure of acceptance, trust, happiness, etc. At the same time, you hear phrases like "fatal" or "poisonous" love in an instance where 'love' leads to negative consequences such as death or destruction, be it figurative or literal. If my opponent wishes to introduce the argument that love is a broad term (i.e. not limiting the debate to romantic love specifically, but encompassing all types of love such as the love between a parent and a child, for instance), then we must acknowledge that subsequently a perception of love can also include highly negative connotations as well.

An example of this includes killing in the name of love. Consider, for instance, the millions of lives lost in holy wars throughout the ages where people have waged destruction based on the idea that god = love and that their god and consequently love is worth killing for. Under my opponent's parameters for the debate (in terms of the definition), this idea must be considered as a way in which the indistinguishable term 'love' can equivolate to not only positive terms, but also negative realities such annihilation, genocide, evil and hate.

[ Contention 1 - Love as Experience ]

Ignoring the fact that my opponent has presumptiously and falsely eluded to what my arguments for this debate must entail, let us simply evaluate the facts -- Pro argues that failure (in this case failure = losing love) incorporates the valuable life lesson of experience, which helps formulate the concept of maturity. There are two huge flaws with this ideology:

A) Pro has not proved that a loss of love is necessary or even beneficial in terms of one's growth as an individual. For instance, say Tom Jefferson failed numerous times at 'creating' the light bulb. Let us also suppose that at the inception of his journey; however, Person A was simultaneously after the same goal as good ol' Tom. Assuming that Person A had the opportunity and the know-how to accomplish such a goal, and that Person A not failed numerous times as Jefferson had, then he or she (Person A) could have invented the lightbulb even before Jefferson had succeeded.

In that case, the result would have been the same (artificial light), but without an unnecessary waste in time, materials, resources, etc. And if you try to argue that Jefferson's failures could have sent him down a different path in terms of his discoveries, I could just as easily argue that the resources and efficiency saved in having invented the lightbulb sooner would have left more opportunities for Person A to further his development and create something even more creative or advanced than the lightbulb.

* The point here is that failure is not always a pre-requisite for success. *

B) Pro writes, "through gaining the knowledge and experience of love and losing, one is better able to decide whether or not they feel that the pain of lost is too great to pursue love any further." If we are to buy into this contention, we must also realize that via the same logic, someone can also choose NOT to pursue love any further. Anyone who has experienced true heartbreak can attest to the unequivocal and incommunicable suffering such a loss may elude to. For some, the pain of losing love is so great that they may choose to close themselves off entirely to new relationships and experiences, or even go so far as to end their own lives. Consider the various Shakesperean plays or other works of art which supports the notion that love can lead to permanent damage or irreparable anguish which can destroy a person's sanity/soul.

[ Contention 2 -- Love as Sex ]

For this premise, my opponent wishes to define love as a sexual act, and the flawed logic he uses to sustain such a notion is abundantly evident:

A1) Simply because the phrase 'making love' is sometimes used to describe physical intimacy does NOT make love a necessary or even commonality when referencing sexual intercourse! Let us not confuse love and sex just because certain beliefs - religious, moral, social or otherwise - promote this unsupported, highly disputed and illogical ideal. That said, my opponent cannot suggest that the topic reads, "It is better to get laid and no longer get laid by the individual you've gotten laid with than to have never gotten laid at all." It is simply and blatantly false, as it does not actually pertain to the topic of debate at all.

A2) For laughs, even if we did assume that love = sex, my opponent is wrong in suggesting that losing sex/love "is not really that big of a deal considering that just about any other potential partner can offer it." This disregard for the 'act of love' tells me that 1 - he already argued his own point that sex = love if sex is so easily replacable, and 2 - that he has probably not had a lot of sexual experiences, as those who are sexually active can attest to the fact that no two lovers are the same or offer the same or even especially similar physical/emotional reactions/results.

B) Perhaps most absurdly of all, Pro argues that 'love' a.k.a. sex is necessary as it is the basis of the continuation of our species - reproduction. This could not be more wrong! Surely Pro and the judges alike are aware of technological advances which have made sex (not to mention love!) a completely unnecessary aspect of reproduction. Religious and moral implications aside, it is not only possible but increasingly popular for the use of "unnatural" means to pregnancy, such as in vitro fertilization, 'test-tube' babies, surrogate mothers, sperm donation, etc. Thus no type of love OR sex is required by any means for the continuation of our species.

[ Re-Cap ]

My opponent points out that his sole points have been: love as experience; sex as pleasurable; and sex as a means of reproduction and the continuation of humanity. The latter 2 points have been entirely disputed by the reality that sex does NOT equal love, for starters. And in regard to experience, I have made the claims that 1 - one can gain life experience without having lost love, i.e. It Is Better To Have Loved and Not Lost, and 2 - Sometimes the experience of lost love can have far more damaging effects to an individual than never having loved at all. Let us also recall my contention that the concept of love can also lead to horrible fatalities and other tragedies causing severe harm to the human race and individuals alike.

That said, like Pro I am also reserving the right to mention any additional arguments in Round 2 as well as elaborate on the former proposed contentions. I look forward to a fun and interesting debate -- Good Luck, LM!

-- L
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

RE(2): DEFINITIONs:

It would seem that the contender doesn't agree with my dictionary.com interpretation of the love. In order to clarify, she asserts that how one perceives or defines love is relative (we'll get to the so-called notion that this places holes in my argument in a moment). She uses this as an excuse to make mention of the notion that love (used as a broad term) can be a means of referring to love which has highly negative connotations and demonstrates this through citing those who have used their gods (god=love) to justify killings. However . . .

If "killing in the name of love" is considered a negative connotation of love, then we can just as easily say that every idea possesses the same negative connotation given that individuals are capable of killing in the name of anything of their choosing. For instance, the Nazi related scientists performing experiments on the Jews during WW2 could have very well been justifying their heinous acts by suggesting that they were killing in the name of science. Or rather, what about the US's decision to bomb the innocents in Hiroshima? That was done in the name of peace, was it not? Given that any act which our society deems as "wrongful" can be done in the name of something else (in particular, something which is generally identified as "good'), there really isn't much reason for CON to be citing the Holy Wars as if it actually demonstrates a negative quality of love. Rather, all she manages to prove is that people can do bad things while claiming to follow good ideals.

>>>RE(2): CONTENTION #1

A) Rather than directly address CON's example, I shall go the easier route and address what she claims to be the point to it. As she has suggested, the point behind it is that failure is not always a prerequisite for success. I agree, just as studying is not always the prerequisite for acing an exam . That said, what I'm insisting is the failure boost one's chances of inevitable success and at the same time, makes one more knowledgeable and experienced. To use a more well known valid interpretation of what I'm referring to, it is the age old process known as "Trial and error." Every time you make an error, you have the knowledge necessary not to repeat it; you essentially gain more knowledge on how to behave successfully. This is literal improvement.

B) CON states that by my same logic, someone can choose NOT to pursue love any further. I agree with this,hence why I made this claim initially (. . . 'decide whether or NOT they feel that the pain of lost' . . .). As far as those who have gone through emotional trouble or having had committed suicide . . .

Yes, there are those who experience emotional pain as well as the desire to commit suicide due to having lost love just as there are those who experience emotional pain and go about desiring to end their lives based on sheer loneliness. Making either decision can possibly lead to such turmoil, hence you have no reason to consider her objection. As far as citing fiction goes, if CON considers it as being a valid reference point, then we could just as easily make note of the so many fictional stories which encourage the theme of love and/or portray in a purely positive light (such as the oh so many Disney princess films, harlequin novels, Pride and Prejudice or even that recent hit film Twilight. :D )

>>>RE(2): CONTENTION #2

A1) I referred back to the phrase "making love" for no reason other than for clarification. I base my 'sex = love' point merely based on the fact that it is defined that way. Of course, if my opponent desires a astronomically more credible source, then lets go with the Oxford Dictionary definition. http://www.askoxford.com...

As shown above, sexual intercourse is defined as a form of love. Why is this the case? Simple really. I believe CON's disbelief rest on the fact that she merely wishes to equate love to romance. However, although not as potentially strong as romantic love, loving one on a physical level is still rather common. Furthermore, given the fact that it was our very own contender who insisted that there could be many different interpretations of love, I fail to see how this is necessarily a problem.

A2) Not at all. In terms of being easily replaceable, I would equate it to food (though this should by no means be taken as me saying that 'getting it on' is as important at eating . . . I'm speaking figuratively)). Each group of food may taste differently (better or worst; average or supreme), but ultimately, the same amount produces the same result in that one is temporarily not hungry. This was what I meant. One could have sex just as one could eat a sandwich, yet one doesn't tend to be upset when the sandwich is already devoured/used up (no matter how much they enjoyed it) seeing as how they can just get another one.

B) As for my argument on love/sex, let us keep in mind my exact words: "We must remember that it is mostly "love" which keeps our species alive given that "love" enables reproduction." Note the term "mostly." I am well aware of there being other means, but this doesn't help PRO's argument.

We're talking about "loving and losing" vs "never loving." My argument is that "never loving" does not benefit in terms of reproduction. I'll give it to CON for making note of the fact that sexual love wasn't necessary, but if we are immediately to refer back to other forms of love, well . . . Making use of all of those alternative means of reproduction is mostly used by those who in LOVE or wish to perpetuate LOVE (such as homosexual couples, those who can't quite give birth for genetic reasons, but want to have family, etc) in the first place. For CON to successfully win this point, she would have to demonstrate that those with no love-related feelings would fall into the category of the type who would wish to perpetuate a family (hence build a parent/child relationship, which we've already covered as being an example of love) as it's highly unlikely that individuals (with no interest in love) would just start contributing to those means of reproduction for the heck of it.

>>>RECAP (R2)

So far, CON has failed to show any actual problem with my definition of love, has straw manned my experience argument (by insisting that failure isn't necessary for success) while arguing against their being benefits through the basic practice of trial and error, has failed to demonstrate problems with "loving and losing" which couldn't apply to having never loved at all, has insisted that physical love is nonexistent in response to me pointing out that sex is a benefit of loving (which even my Oxford dictionary definition supports) and has given us no valid reason to disbelieve the benefits which sexual loving and losing has.

Above all though, I still hold the stance that the most important point made in the debate is that an individual deciding whether or not love is worth it should be something which is based on experience (this works even on the off chance you buy into the notion that this debate ought to revolve around romantic love). As continually insinuated, individuals are going to have different feelings towards love (again, something which the contender implied to be true at the beginning of the round). There will be some who love it (pun not intended) and some who hate it, but one will never be sure until they try it out.

And since it would seem that I have no reason to offer up any additional arguments . . . I'll end my round here.
Back to you, Lwerd. :D
Danielle

Con

[ Re: Defining Love ]

PRO proposes that not only love, but almost any act is relative upon perception. He uses the example of killing in the name of science. Clearly this is a failed attempt at proving any point but my own. I am not arguing that the Nazi "scientists" from his example could claim that they killed in the name of science. In fact, I agree with that sentiment entirely. We see people debating over whether or not science is good or bad all the time... so what's PROs point? He proved that everything including love (especially love) has an infinite number of connotations, hence why I suggest this debate focus on a specific aspect of love, i.e. Romantic Love. At least then this debate can have some sort of actual focus.

[ Why The Definition Matters ]

PROs original citation proposed *28* definitions of love, all of them positive. I have already proven that love can have negative connotations as well. For PRO to suggest that all 28 positive aspects of love are acceptable for the purpose of this debate, that would mean that I can just as easily describe 28 NEGATIVE aspects of love for which PRO must defend. For example, if "making love" is a sufficient definition, then the heinous and violent crime of rape - which encompasses the same physical actions of making love - should also be considered, for a rapist can say that they are 'making love' to their victim if that is how they perceive it.

If a 60 year old man was romantically in love with a 5 year old boy, and wanted to 'make love' to him, it would be considered love using my opponent's cited definitions. However, that doesn't make the act any good, moral or justified. It also doesn't support the notion that the 5 year old boy was better off or beneficial in either receiving or making that love. In fact, it proves my point that it was better to have not loved and lost than it was to give/receive that love.

The point: Love can be defined as destruction. If we use PROs positive definitions of love, the worst that could happen regarding not having loved at all is that someone doesn't gain the unnecessay experience of being in a failed relationship. Using a negative definition of love - say destruction - it would be far better to have never loved at all (especially if said destruction negatively impacted or resulted in death for more than 2 people, as a direct loving relationship involves 2).

[ Re: Experience ]

A) To argue that failure is not a necessary aspect of success, PRO offers that one is more likely of acing a test, for example, if one studies beforehand. This is absolutely irrelevant; the analogy is flawed as one does not have to fail a test in order to ace it! Nor does failing on one test necessarily mean that one will do better on their next test. Moreover, I never argued that one is more likely to succeed at love before or more often than they fail. Instead, I stated that one can gain experience (PROs given benefit of loss) without ever having had love and lost it. In that case, losing love provided absolutely no benefit to the individual and therefore the CON stance rings true.

One does not always have to make a mistake in order to know what the right thing is. I have never 'cheated' on a loved one but I know that doing so would be a negative thing. I have the knowledge necessary to make an "experienced" decision without ever having to actually experience it. For his point to work, PRO would have to prove that It Is Better To Have Wronged Someone To Gain The Experience Of How To Behave Better In The Future Than To Never Have Wronged Them At All.

Bottom line: There is an absolute fallacy or perhaps logical opposition with PROs major point (experience). Nowhere is it guaranteed or even implied that there will be a 'next' love for which said experience would be necessary. Further, since the majority of people believe in the concept that one has a "love of their life," then in losing their love - that one person - they will be losing the being or relationship that is the most prominent in their life.

B) PROs next point is easy to argue, as I only have to turn his own logic against him in order to successfully dismantle his flawed ideology. He makes the claim that while one could agonize over a lost love, that another could just as easily agonize over sheer loneliness and never having experienced love... However, if experiencing love is so amazing (and better than not having loved as PRO has argued thus far), then wouldn't an individual be better off only considering the possibilities of love instead of knowing what they had loved and no longer had?

If you feel that thinking about the wonder of love could never compare to the grandeur of actually being in love (i.e. you agree that it's an ineffable emotion that cannot be distinctly defined), than clearly my point has won -- It would be better to be ignorant to your loss than to know the amazing relationship you had and no longer have. A suicide, for example, would be tragic regardless of the cause - it would result in a death. However, we can assume that the one who died over lost love was in more pain than the one who never knew what they were missing. In order for this to be invalid, PRO would have to prove that love in general is what gives life its meaning. Because he has not done so (and cannot during the final round), one cannot interject their own opinion on life and love in terms of judging this debate.

[ Love as Sex ]

Even if you bought into the flawed notion that sex = love, consider some possible effects that sex/love could have; they range from feelings of physical euphoria to getting an STD such as AIDS. In that case, PRO would have to argue It Is Better To Have Had Sex And Acquire AIDS Than To Not Have Had Sex At All (and avoid said disease). In other words, PRO would be arguing that the physical euphoria of one sexual encounter was worth the deadly virus that has become a global crisis. While PRO of course would like to argue the reality that one would probably have sex and *not* get AIDS, and therefore the physical euphoria was worth having the encounter, the fact remains that this debate topic is structured intentionally as to argue extremes, so we must consider the overall positive aspects and possibilities of love vs. the overall negative aspects or possibilities of love. I have made consistent points proving how the negative greatly trumps even the most positive rewards.

B) PRO stated that love/sex is necessary for reproduction. After conceding this point, he tweaks this contention to read that people wish to perpetuate humanity (have kids) for the sake of love and loving relationships. Unfortunately that is not always the case. People have children for the wrong reasons all the time, i.e. to manipulate a romantic relationship; to receive additional government aid; because they have low self-esteem or other issues; etc. Many people also greatly abuse their children, and let us not forget the millions of abortions performed annually. So, if we were to buy into PROs notion that sex = love and love = babies, PRO would be given the nearly impossible task of proving that 'making love' to create a child would be the right thing to do even including those negative examples which I have stated. You cannot automatically assume that child rearing is a completely LOVING experience.

[ Final Note ]

Life isn't a story book - there's not always a happy ending like in the Disney movies PRO has described (Note: None of those movies end with the absolute loss of love - it's too painful). Sometimes being in love can lead people to comprimise themselves, and more importantly, other loving relationships. Consider one who turns their back on their friends and family in the name of love. In that case, many loving relationships are ruined because of one. If you believe that a failed relationship is worth losing other loving relationships, vote PRO. Otherwise, CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

Heh, it looks like I will have to regretfully forfeit. Besides the character limit, I've had to take care of a few other things concerning my family. Twas fun while it lasted, but the Lwerd is the winner. Later. :D
Danielle

Con

[ Preface ]

I'd first like to thank L-M for his participation in the debate thus far. I'm sorry he didn't find time to reduce the amount of characters in his argument -- I myself have a hard time with this so I feel his pain! But since a forfeiture of *two* rounds is necessary for an automatic win, I must post a final Round 3 argument. I would like to thank the judges ahead of time for their consideration, and again thank Phil, Johnicle, etc.

[ Defining Love ]

Because love can be defined in innumerable ways, I feel the debate topic at hand ought to have been narrowed down to defining one type of love (namely romantic love). Otherwise, while my opponent continued to propose numerous positive examples of the broad term, I could have easily countered his definition with negative examples of love for which the result would have been severely costly or even deadly. In that case, it would have been impossible for PRO to win.

Here's why: If we accepted all variations of love as acceptable for this debate, we could consider nationalism, for instance, which is the love of one's country, or racism, the love of one's race. It is those sentiments precisely that have led to major world wars (those two examples in particular were especially deadly and important regarding the inception of WWI).

Now assuming PRO had in fact conceded to debating specifically romantic love in the final round, I would have countered this in 2 ways -- One, people have done all sorts of horrific things in the name of love (i.e. raped, maimed, killed, and even started wars; i.e. Helen of Troy). And two, consider my final point of R2 in that often people comprimise several loving relationships for the sake of one romantic lover.

[ Re: Love as Experience ]

Even if you are a bleeding heart, die-hard romantic who believes that love is worth fighting and losing for, keep in mind that this love would have inevitably been lost as per the debate topic at hand. Moreover, the loss of that one love could have caused someone to shut down completely in terms of being open to future loving relationships. In other words, the EXPERIENCE of losing love could have severely hurt or cost one in the sense that a failed relationship could have prevented future, more successful loving relationships.

Additionally, people often mistake infatuation or adoration for love. So, as I've stated, a loss of "love" could have comprimised a future relationship where 'love' actually existed. Again, this would be the concept of EXPERIENCE as working *against* PROs argument. On that note, PRO has even failed to explain how or why that experience with (lost) love is even necessary, as I've pointed out that nowhere is it guaranteed or even implied that one would find love in the future after having lost it.

Now, PRO has pointed out that while love can lead to one's inevitable destruction, he mentioned that one could choose to end their lives or find it not to be worth living based on sheer loneliness. This is FALSE; one cannot miss something they have not experienced. This is a huge flaw in PROs argument. Even if you buy into his infinitely broad definition of the term love, one cannot be lonely if they are ignorant to loving relationships in general, including amongst family, friends or partners. Therefore it would be better to have never experienced love at all than to know and fully understand the concept of loneliness. Loneliness can only be experienced after one has experienced a loss of love. Therefore, the contention that one would rather die than feel lonely is an absolute fallacy.

Finally on this point, I mentioned how one did not necessarily have to lose something in order to gain an experienced perspective, i.e. the notion that one does not have to cheat on a significant other in order to know that it is wrong and should not be tolerated. Oh, and because I can't resist (( SPOLIER ALERT) ) --> I find it quite comical that PRO used the "recent hit film" Twilight as an example for which he notes is a "fictional story which encourages the theme of love and/or portrays love in a purely positive light" ... Um, Twilight concludes as a typical 'star crossed lovers' tale often does, in which love winds up *destroying* both characters (( END SPOILER )).

[ Re: Love as Sex ]

I don't even know where to begin with this flawed contention.

Going back to PROs Round 2 argument, he claims that while love (sex) is not necessary in terms of reproduction, that people "mostly" choose to reproduce based on concepts of love. Well, in addition to the numerous examples which I have provided that completely dismantle this argument, let us not forget that this debate topic is structured around an ABSOLUTE. Therefore, the terms 'mostly' and 'sometimes' are irrelevant, as PROs contentions have to apply absolutely.

However, once again - just for fun - let us take PROs "maybe" or "sometimes" into consideration. Recall my example of the 2 absolutes regarding sex as love. On one hand, a sexual endeavor would MOSTLY result specifically with an orgasm; a feeling of intense physical euphoria. However, on the basis that a sexual encounter SOMETIMES leads to the acquisition of an STD, can PRO defend the absolute that It Is Better To Have Loved (Had Sex) And Lost (A Lover) Than To Never Have Loved At All?

Another thing - If love is defined as SEX, as PRO has argued, how then does one LOSE LOVE? You cannot undo a sexual encounter. And losing a lover - a person, a human being - is far different than "losing" sex. This is just ANOTHER reason why PROs contention was incredibly flawed and useless to this debate.

[ Re-Cap / Conclusion ]

Assuming PRO had not forfeited the final round, I am confident that I could have and would have argued this debate effectively until the bitter end. Clearly my points have consistently dismantled his flawed ideology. Nowhere has he sufficiently proved why it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. I have pointed out why his two contentions are not only entirely flawed, but more often than not actually helped *MY* case as opposed to his.

He mentioned that character limits were a huge issue for him in the final round; While I can sympathize with that notion entirely, he also mentioned that they were spent mostly arguing the definition of love. Again, love is a subjective term. Dictionary.com nor even the highly regarded Oxford Dictionary could put an absolute definition on the term, ESPECIALLY if PRO intended to argue not one but numerous examples of love (familial, romantic, etc.) However even considering those ideals, consider also a situation in which loving a family member prevented you from loving a romantic partner or vice versa. That is just one of MANY ways which I could have and would have argued PROs point.

* PRO also failed to establish how one can miss something or feel incomplete without something that one has never experienced. * Moreover, he failed to compete with my implied notion that one can gain experience regarding relationships without ever having lost love (i.e. other sources - movies, observing friend's relationships, etc.). Also keep in mind he cited a fictional story in which love led to destruction and heartbreak as opposed to happiness or achievement with his example of Twilight which he noted as a 'positive' example of love.

Considering that love may be defined as sex in the dictionary, I have proven why love as sex can be unhealthy, dangerous or immoral. Therefore one cannot say absolutely that it is better to have love (sex) than to not. And finally, even if you - the readers/judges - could find loopholes with this ideology or ANY ideology mentioned within the parameters of this debate, the fact remains that PRO has not (and/or has not pointed them out, and therefore they cannot be considered). Thus, I consider this debate a clear and consistent win for the CON. Thank you.

-- L
Debate Round No. 3
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by xiaotianZ 7 years ago
xiaotianZ
hey, theLwerd, do you read death note? i was just wondering if you used L as your image because you read the manga.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
The decisions are in (to a sufficient amount) and the results are:

Johnicle: (voted for) TheLwerd
I-am-a-Panda: TheLwerd
Ournamestoolong: TheLwerd
Labrat228: TheLwerd
LightC: Made an indecisive vote marked N/D

The rest of the judges have not submitted a vote. Therefore, the final decision is a 4-0-1 decision for TheLwerd. Congragulations to TheLwerd on winning the first online debate tournament consisting of 53 people. Her overall record was 7-0 and if you include the buys 10-0. Great Job! I hope you continue this run in the March 1st tournament! Thank you to ALL of the competitors.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
...3 decisions...
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
I currently have 2 decisions. 5 more needed before the reveal unless a winner is decided before that.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I don't know about the Lwerd, but I certainly wouldn't be bothered if you commented.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I'm not so sure if I wish go through this tournament ordeal again. Once is satisfying enough for me. It depends on how I feel when we are allowed to sign up. If I were going to get a teammate, anyone who wanted me on their team I guess. It matters little to me. :P

As for who would have won this debate . . . maybe. ;)

I look forward to debating you as well. In fact, I may instigate a rematch on this very debate topic if I'm in the mood.

And thanks for voting for me on the user awards. :D
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
Johnicle: Are we allowed to talk about what we think about this debate now that it is over?
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Aw. Thanks anyway for the debate, LM. We should do it again sometime even before the next tournament! Any ideas on who you'll have as a teammate for the team debate?

Also, I think I would have won this debate even if you had posted a R3 :-X

Nevertheless, great job and I look forward to debating you in the future! I voted you as best member of 2008, by the way. And I meant it :)
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"LM! You should have cut a paragraph or three and made it happen!"

I'm not the type who is willing to sacrifice points so easily. My goal was to lower the wording so that every point I had to make would remain in tact. Though you're correct. I probably should have just attempted to focus on keeping the most important points and recycling the ones which were not "round deciding".
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Yes, there are cases of that, but you're too good of an opponent for there to be a single forfeited round. :D
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: banter
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wweasel 6 years ago
wweasel
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mrbullfrog11 8 years ago
mrbullfrog11
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dvhoose 8 years ago
dvhoose
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Its-you-or-me 8 years ago
Its-you-or-me
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07