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

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+18
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
Logical-Master
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 16,051 times Debate No: 28305
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (56)
Votes (11)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

INTRO

True love conquers all.

This is an expression which most of you are undoubtedly familiar with. But to what extent does such an expression hold merit?

For some, love is fleeting. For others, love is frequent. But regardless of the extent to which we've experienced love, many if not nearly all of us have experienced the swirling pain of lost. It is because of this feeling that many forgo the experience of love in the first place. However, it is my position that it is far bette to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.

Greetings members of debate.org. My name is Logical-Master and I shall be representing the affirmative side in today's debate.

To prove my case, I shall offer two contentions, both of which are individually sufficient to persuade you.

#1. The experience of love and loss is an excellent source of maturity.
#2. Love is awesome.

I assume there is no need to offer definitions, but should there be a need, I reserve the right to leave such discussion in the comment section so that any such dispute may be resolved without interefering with the overall spirit of this debate.

Without further ado, let us proceed.

ARGUMENT

Contention #1: The experience of love and loss is an excellent source of maturity.

Ever hear the phrase "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger"? In general, the sentiment behind this phrase holds true in life. Life is full of pain and dissapointment. But it's adjusting to the pain/dissapointment that makes us better off. Take for instance J.K. Rowling, the renowned author of the Harry Potter series. She got rejected not once, not twice, but twelve times by 12 different publishers (1).

However, as pscyhothereapist, Phillip Hodson (from the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy), points out, rejection shows you that the world can’t be taken for granted and that you have to fight for what you want (2). Moreover, it can make you more determined to prove your abilities, it sharpens your ­competitiveness and gives you an ­incentive to prove people wrong (3).

Analogously, the same can be said about love and loss. Loss, whatever the cause, is a form of a rejection and has the potential to make one more insightful and stronger than before. In experiencing loss, one becomes more aware of the world and how life cannot be taken for granted.

On the otherhand, one can just as easily spend the entirety of their time idely sitting in Plato's cave, convinced there is nothing to be found in the outside world, never knowing the joy that true love brings!


Contention # 2: Love is awesome!

In addition to what is gained from loss, there is much to be gained from love. That is, the experience of love brings about a peace and joy.

It is well understood that love is good from an empirical standpoint. Indeed, there are numerous health benefits to being in love (4). One specific benefit, according to Dean Ornish, MD, is that "men and women who felt most loved and supported had substantially less blockage in their coronary arteries (5). Another is simply the jubilant effect it has on one's mind. One psychologist has described this feeling as "elevat[ing] us above the daily grind, allowing us to observe the world from a more exalted perspective . . . it adds a layer of luster to our mundane existence, making us feel empowered and self-connected even as it "decenters" us from our customary concerns. "(6).

It is true that in experiencing love and loss, one automatically loses all of these benefits at one point. Howver, in never loving at all, one doesn't gain these benefits in the first place. Moreover, unlike the one who has experienced love and loss, the party that chooses to never love at all doesn't have the option of simply experiencing love (and thus these benefits) again in the future.

CONCLUSION

Because the benefits love and loss have to offer, tis better to have loved and lost than to never loved at all. With that said, I now await the response from my opponent, whom I wish the best of luck!

SOURCES

(1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
(2) Id ( Id = above source).
(3) Id.
(4) http://www.yourtango.com...
(5) http://loveandforgive.org...
(6) http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Danielle

Con

I would like to thank Logical-Master for this debate :)

While I do not agree with the Con position, I appreciate the opportunity to challenge myself against such an esteemed opponent. Of course, our tendency to gravitate toward love would present an inevitable bias in favor of Pro. However, our bias does not automatically make the resolution true. I trust that the audience will keep an open mind, and allow me the opportunity to defend the futility of something the vast majority of us (including myself) find important. Indeed, my burden in this debate will be a significant challenge.

We've agreed to limit this discussion to notions of romantic love. I acknowledge that most of us would still like to experience love even if we knew it would be a transient affair. In this debate, I will do my best to undermine Pro's arguments, and suggest that such a position may not be rational much like craving Ben & Jerry's every day doesn't make satiating that desire necessarily the right thing to do.

Pro assumes that there is no need to offer definitions of love and I agree. While we can recite the dictionary's interpretation of this fundamental human experience, the fact is that no definition could realistically suffice as a true indicator of what the term actually means. And so we begin...

[ Rebuttal ]

First, failing as an entrepreneur, scientist, musician, or writer as my opponent's example proves (J.K. Rowling) indicates that love is not a prerequisite to the maturity that failure can bring. Being fueled by the desire to succeed does not require romantic love, which undermines the relevance or at least the weight of this contention.

Second, while some thrive from rejection, many people respond negatively to it. Studies show "that fear of rejection runs extremely deep in low self-esteem people... people with low self-esteem do not fare well in close relationships, as they are hypersensitive and hyper-reactive to dismissal and disapproval cues. Being in constant threat mode can also take a toll on one"s mental health" [1]. Just as we consider the potential benefits of rejection, we must also consider the harms.

L-M writes, "In experiencing loss, one becomes more aware of the world and how life cannot be taken for granted." Indeed. But when some experience loss, they become aware of how cruel the world and/or life can be, and find it cold, meaningless, desolate, desperate, dark, dismal, bleak, depressing and invaluable. Moreover, this sometimes closes people off and causes them to become recluse and bitter. Their attitude burdens all of their interpersonal relationships. For some that attitude is a phase, but some never recover.

What doesn't kill you doesn't always make you stronger. Example - cancer.

Pro's next argument is that love is awesome. He points out that there are both health and psychological benefits to being in love, and implies that love is overall considered "good" by just about everyone. However this ignores my previous point that love is subjective. One can only identify "love" with their own experience. For example, my best friend is in a horribly abusive relationship. She equates her negative situation with "love," whereas to me it represents the complete opposite of love.

Love can be negative, painful, or even dangerous. Examples include killing in the name of love or because of emotional reactions based on love. The term 'love' can equivocate to not only positive correlations, but also negative repercussions such as death, destruction, and the breeding ground for hate (when love goes sour).

Also, consider that something can have both positive and negative effects. You might feel great when you're in love, but this debate is about love lost. Are the psychological benefits of love in place then? No-- on the contrary, stressful and negative emotions (doubt, fear, regret, nostalgia, sadness, etc.) are now the emotions being felt. The past is irrelevant; there is only "the now" as many philosophers have noted.

Pro also provides two flawed pieces of reasoning in attempting to establish his second point.

"However, in never loving at all, one doesn't gain these benefits [of love] in the first place."

--> None of the benefits Pro mentioned thus far (like positive health effects or maturing from rejection) are specific to romantic love. Further, scientists have concluded that when humans experience love, what is actually happening is a surge of serotonin and dopamine in the brain during those moments where they "feel" love [2]. This same feeling can be replicated by taking Ecstasy [3].

"Moreover... the party that chooses to never love at all doesn't have the option of simply experiencing love (and thus these benefits) again in the future."

--> This debate isn't about whether or not love can be chosen but love lost in general. This contention ignores the reality that love can be experienced and NOT lost. As such, a party who experiences love can and does gain all of the benefits. However, is one who experiences love and then loses love necessarily in a better position than before they experienced love? Pro hasn't proven that they are. Pro hasn't highlighted any specific factors that are inherent to romantic love, and therefore make love lost a requirement of growth or even happiness.

[ Contentions ]

Love is a distraction. It takes time and concentration away from school, work, family, friends, goals and hobbies. Because we're talking about love LOST, we have to consider the negative repercussions of a relationship that ultimately failed, since that is the perspective this debate is being argued from. Lost love is generally not worth the initial sacrifices. Lost love means you've wasted your time, resources and other emotional investments on a relationship that only deterred you from finding or being with the right person. It may have felt good in the moment, but doesn't make it a "better" alternative.

According to Wikipedia, romantic love has the property that "it cannot be easily controlled." You often hear the phrase, "Love is blind." When people's emotions are clouded by passion and hormones, rationality and judgment decrease. This can be dangerous. Plus, love is expensive. Was she really worth all of those expensive dates and jewelry? They usually aren't...

Humans have the capacity for romantic or erotic love (eros) and compassionate or friendship love (philia). This passionate affect tends to be of a highly limited duration, typically lasting not more than 5 or 7 years. The "7-year itch" isn't just anecdotal [4]. This is one reason why so many marriages end in divorce. Those that last usually become entrenched in habit and ritual, and/or evolve into a very close and intimate friendship. In other words, we should consider separating notions of romantic love and sex. You can have passionate, sexual encounters without romantic love, and engage in serious, loving, non-romantic relationships with people and still be potentially happy and fulfilled. The lines between love and romantic love can be blurry, especially when you consider that sex =/= love.

People are anxious over the pressure of finding the "right person," the fear of dying alone, the dramatic highs and lows of turbulent relationships, the disappointment of "settling" for someone, etc. Meanwhile, they can seek growth, happiness, passion, fulfillment and security outside of romantic love, forgoing all of the heartache, loss and detrimental sacrifices.

[1] http://www.psychologicalscience.org...
[2] http://books.google.com...
[3] http://www.maps.org...
[4] http://www2.hawaii.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

[MY CASE]

CONT #1


Love is not a prerequisite to the maturity that failure can bring. Nevertheless, as CON points out, we as humans have a tendency to gravitate towards love. We not only tend to desire companionship, but romantic companionship too. What I’m proposing is that we confront this head-on and accept the consequences it brings. In doing so, one not only has the benefits of being in love, but also the opportunity to learn from the experience they’d had after loss has taken effect.

CON claims that many people respond negatively to rejection. I don’t deny this. In fact, I’d say just about everyone responds negatively to rejection. Nonetheless, what I’m proposing is that people should deal with rejection head on rather than the worry about the negative feelings that will come with it. As most of you realize, a large percentage of life is filled with failure and disappointment. Some people don’t get that promotion they’ve been wanting, some people do poorly in school, some people are dirt poor and some people deal with the death of their loved ones. It’s a painful life filled with painful experiences. We live in a world where negative feelings are simply part of the process. Therefore, to reject love on the basis that you might have to deal with negative feelings in the future is not a good reason as there’s no escaping the struggle that is life.

CON says “What doesn't kill you doesn't always make you stronger.” This is true. She cites cancer as an example, however, I couldn’t disagree more. Cancer has had a positive effect on a number of people who have been stricken by it. It has served as a wake-up for people to turn lives around for their remaining days alive and right every wrong they’ve committed.

CON claims that one can only identify love with their own experience. I couldn’t agree more, but would go as far as to say that the love CON’s best friend is feeling is good, despite her being in a horribly abusive relationship. Sometimes, good things come from bad circumstances. The Nazi’s performed heinous experiments on many of the Jews they captured. Nonetheless, the medical data gathered from these experiments has provided a wealth of medical knowledge. Do I condone the Nazi’s experiments? No, but at the same time, we ought not to discard the medical knowledge gathered. In essence, it’s important to distinguish the cause from the effect. Here specifically, the effect is good, but the cause is bad and should not be tolerated. It should be noted that should CON’s friend end her relationship with the abusive partner, she will have lost that partner. In losing him/her, she can learn from her experiences and pick a more suitable partner in the future.

CON claims that love can be negative, painful or dangerous. She cites people having killed in the name of love as well as having committed other bad behaviors while associated with love. This is true. Many jealous lovers have done just that. However, although people often commit evil acts in the name of something, it doesn’t mean that that something is inherently bad. Throughout history, human beings have killed in the name of all sorts of things. Some have killed in the name of peace, but we certainly don’t consider peace to be dangerous. All my opponent proves here is that love is not painful/dangerous, but humanity itself. After all, human history is filled to the brim with pain and violence.

CONT #2

CON points out that love has both positive and negative effects--that this debate isn’t about the ‘then’, but the now---specifically the love lost. However, this doesn’t follow. Regardless of what one is feeling when they have lost their love, it doesn’t change the warm experiences they had when they had love in the first place. I’m sure each of you can think of a very fond point in your lives that you occasionally look back upon. For me, it was the Christmases I got to celebrate with my family as a child. Due to unfortunate circumstances, those days are gone. Nonetheless, I still have these memories to cherish and look back upon. Not only that, but should I begin a family in the future, I can replicate these experiences. The past certainly isn’t irrelevant. Rather, it’s what paves the way for the future.

CON questions the reasoning I provided about the benefits of love. She says that none of the benefits I mentioned are specific to love. Assuming this is true, it’s irrelevant. As one is not restricted to choosing a single method on how to acquire these benefits, you can quiet easily aggregate these resources. In other words, take CON’s mention of ecstasy for example. Not only can one experience love, but they can simultaneously take ecstasy, hence effectively doubling their resources of pleasure while experiencing the best of both worlds. For someone who never loves at all, this isn’t an option.

CON claims that this debate isn’t about whether or not love can be chosen, but love lost in general. This is correct. Her position in this debate is that romantic love/loss is not worth bothering with in the first place due to negative effects and benefits accessible elsewhere. In light of this, my stance holds. Love/loss is indeed worth bothering with. One of the many reasons for this is that you can experience love again and again, regardless of loss. From this perspective, it’s a process of trial and error and one can potentially improve their romantic experiences over time, maturing in the art of love, increasing its benefits and simultaneously decreasing its cost.

[ Her Case ]


CON claims love is a distraction. She says it takes time/ concentration away from school, work, family, friends, etc. This contention makes an assumption about life. That school, work, family, friends, goals and hobbies take precedent over everything else---or at very least, love. Since people have different views/aspirations, I reject this line of reasoning.

She says lost love is generally not worth the initial sacrifices as it means time/resources were wasted on a relationship that only deterred you from finding or being with the right person. This goes right back to my contention that loss allows for maturity. One can ask themselves what they can do better next time and can better deal with other sources of heartache, knowing they’ve just dealt with the heartache of love lost. Finally, one can cherish the memories they have had about the good feelings love had given them.

CON claims love is blind. That when people’s emotions are clouded by passion and hormones, rationality and judgment decrease. Whether this is, this debate is about love lost. Therefore, I submit that love lost grants one the potential to ‘do better next time’ and not allow their passions to cloud their judgment. For example, our standing president, Barack Obama, is in love with his wife Michelle. He has acquired success and notoriety of the highest kind despite being in love. It should be noted that Obama too has experienced love lost [1]. Now does this mean that loving and losing will make you president? No. It is, however, illustrative of one’s opportunity to better perform after experiencing loss.

CON claims love is expensive. Some people blow lots of their cash on dates/jewelry. However, there are two things consider in regards to this contention. First, in experiencing love lost, one can learn a valuable lesson (i.e. ‘don’t waste your money,”). A lesson that is applicable in a wide variety of life’s many facets. Second, expenses (even on what will ultimately be a failed relationship) can make the experience that much more memorable. There’s a big difference between spending a romantic evening at McDonalds and spending one on a luxury cruise.

CON tells us that people can get anxious over the pressure of finding the right person, the fear of dying alone, etc. However, again, life is filled with anxiety, pain and disappointment. This is all part of the experience that is life. One should confront life’s troubles directly.

Source:

[1] http://tinyurl.com...

Danielle

Con

Pro has argued from the perspective that one shouldn't reject the potential of romantic love on the basis that they fear the repercussions of love lost. As I pointed out, this debate is NOT about choosing to reject romantic love, but instead a comparative analysis of a person's well-being before and after a failed relationship. On a cost-benefit analysis, was the failed relationship worth it? This debate is about a retrospective POV and not about choosing to reject love in the future.

I've acknowledged that our audience will have an inherent bias toward the Pro position. Love is something that most people want to experience. However, do most people want to experience (TRUE) love lost? Instinctively our desire to experience as many profound life experiences as possible would compel us to automatically say that yes, the risk is worth it. While that may be so, the value of the risk is subjective, and it wouldn't be possible or fair to expect me to argue from the position that we should ignore our innate human desires, fueled by evolution, to seek romantic companionship. Instead, I am acknowledging the reality of our feelings, but arguing that the repercussions of lost love aren't necessarily sufficient to make the relationship worthwhile regardless of our feelings. Feelings are unreliable, and our strongest desires aren't necessarily the ones that serve our well-being.

Pro touches upon this notion when he points out that despite my best friend being in an abusive relationship, she is probably feeling good and therefore the relationship is at least somewhat worthwhile. Can what "feels good" be the sole basis of merit? Obviously not. To a crazed serial killer, mass murder feels good; to a drug addict, heroin feels good and in fact they may become physically dependent on the substance in order to survive (so you would assume that criteria alone would make it a positive thing, but it is not).

Again, I am asking the audience to ignore all emotional ties to whatever experiences they've had, and consider only the objective facts that Pro and I compare. Specifically, we must analyze what Pro puts forth in this debate and not our own perspectives. Pro's arguments thus far have been weak.

L-M has acknowledged that romantic love is not a prerequisite for maturity. Indeed, almost every human experience we have will allow us to mature, learn, and grow in some capacity. Attending college, changing careers, perfecting a craft, participating on DDO, or going sky-diving: all of these things will teach us about life, other people and ourselves to a varying degree. Of course romantic love would teach us lessons as well, but would the trade-off of that relationship going sour be worth it?

Obviously this question is subject to an infinite number of variables. If a couple's marriage failed, but they produced smart, healthy, and wonderful children, we might say - and I'm sure they would say - that their love was worth it despite the relationship's demise. But what if their relationship produced destructive, unproductive, venomous children? We could go back and forth with anecdotal extremes. The fact remains, Pro's provided two affirmative contentions: the potential for maturity, and awesomeness.

Considering we mature from just about every life experience, and some people don't mature at all and in fact regress from failed relationships, this isn't a strong argument for Pro. My opponent brings up the medical research conducted by the Nazis and how that was a positive byproduct of a negative situation. Of course, lost love might teach us a few lessons, but we must observe the scenario in its entire context. When reflecting on Nazi Germany, we can acknowledge the benefits (like medical research) but see that overall it would have been better to NOT have had the Holocaust happen despite any "good" derived. A few or certain positives is not indicative of an overall worthwhile experience.

The same concept applies to the cancer example. On that note, is cancer analogous to love in this debate? "It is better to have cancer and lost [died] than to have never had cancer at all...?" No, that would only make sense if we said it was better to have cancer and BEAT IT (win, not lose) than never have cancer at all. Of course experiencing love and not losing it would be preferable to not having love at all. Love lost however can be detrimental without a positive on the horizon.

L-M points out that President Obama has experienced lost love, yet became president so his growth through loss helped him achieve greatness. This is a completely unsubstantiated assertion. Obama has experienced loss and hardship in many ways, some of which are more pertinent to a political career than romance.

Pro wrote, "It"s a painful life filled with painful experiences. We live in a world where negative feelings are simply part of the process." I agree, so people can still grow without losing love. The reason this is important is because I have pointed out negatives specific to love, whereas Pro hasn't been able to point out any positives (maturity, awesomeness) specific to love. When we compare the pros and cons of lost love, we need to consider that inherent negatives to love and love lost are what gives me the edge in this debate. Realistically, there's no other way to win, as all other arguments are based on subjective variables.

Pro hasn't proven that it was because of lost love, specifically, that Obama was able to achieve the presidency. Loss and rejection have even been known to destroy people and deter or stifle their success. This impacts not just the individual but everyone around them. This phenomena even has a name, the "Yoko Ono effect," in which the significant other of an individual is known to have negative repercussions on that person's career, talent, friendships and other aspects of their lives [1]. Perhaps Obama's promise and growth was even hindered by his alleged lost love because he was distracted, either personally or professionally.

Pro's ecstasy explanation is flawed. He says that someone in love can experience double pleasure by simultaneously being in love and on E. This debate is about NOT being in love (love lost), so it would not be "the best of both worlds."

Pro writes, "Regardless of what one is feeling when they have lost their love, it doesn't change the warm experiences they had when they had love in the first place." True, but they may not be worth it. There are all types of warm experiences one can have outside of romantic. For example, consider Pro's anecdotal example of Christmas growing up. This debate is about romantic love in particular. Citing notions of warm, happy, familial love actually strengthens MY case and is not an argument for the Pro. It goes along with the fact that I pointed out humans have the capacity to experience deep, passionate feelings, sex, and strong love of all kinds outside of romantic love that enable them to grow, feel happy and fulfilled.

In fact, this is the strongest aspect of my cases and Pro ignored it. Please extend the second to last paragraph of my R2, in which I cited the difference between philia and eros. I explained how eros --> philia, and why philia is the more important, preferable, and ultimately dominant types of love. It is love beyond romantic love, a.k.a. hormones and whimsical passions, and pair bonding reinforced through evolutionary processes in the brain that we have no control over.

As for my argument that love takes time and resources away from other areas of life, Pro says this assumes that the other areas (school, work, etc.) are more important. Not necessarily, but they are abundant - or should be for a healthy balance in one's life - and love lost means you've sacrificed excelling in those areas due to focus on a relationship that would ultimately fail.

[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

CASE


CON has acknowledged that failings in love will allow us to mature, learn and grow in some capacity. Her concern is whether the tradeoff of a failed relationship is worth acquiring this knowledge. It sure is! As CON herself has pointed out, we as humans have a tendency to gravitate towards love. It is something most people want to experience. Thus the trade-off of a sour relationship simply puts one in a position to better themselves in their experience. Throughout this debate, CON has gone to great lengths to discuss the various pitfalls humans experience during their dealings with love. Indeed, some people enter abusive relationships, some people spend too much money, some people display poor judgment. Failure offers one the potential to overcome these errors. To love and to lose is trial and error.


CON says she wins today’s debate because she has pointed out negatives specific to love. Not true. Her criticisms of love can simply be summed up as instances of people taking love and its virtues too far (i.e. killing in the name of love), people approaching love immaturely (i.e. her friend in an abusive relationship, overspending on a failed romance, poor judgment, distraction) and people being overwhelmed by failure/rejection (i.e. depression, etc). None of these are specific to love, but are risks/possibilities that one can succumb too in just about any facet of life.


CON starts off her R2 by claiming that this debate is not about choosing to reject love in the future, but that is ABSOLUTELY what her positions entails. Her job is to demonstrate to you that never having loved at all is a superior alternative to experiencing love lost. In laymen terms, she is essentially building a case demonstrating to you why you shouldn’t bother with love the first place. Her arguments indicate as much. She says eros/philia love is better, says love is blind therefore detrimental, says love is subjective , love is distracting, etc. All of these are reasons not to bother with love PERIOD rather than to reject love on the sole basis of loss. CON is trying to have her cake and eat it. In adopting her position, she is effectively persuading you to reject romantic love.

Even observing this debate from her mindset, her understanding of it still doesn’t follow. If Bob had never loved at all and has benefitted from never having loved at all as opposed to experiencing lost love, it follows that Bob is better off not loving again in the future.


CON addresses my response about her friend in an abusive relationship. I pointed out that that the feeling of love she was experiencing was good, despite the abysmal origin. I did so reasoning that causes and their effects can easily be distinguished (see nazi analogy). In response, she brings up the pleasure a criminal gets from crime. These analogies are both poor and unpersuasive. She brought up her friend’s abusive relationship in attempt to show that love is subjective. As shown in R2, my rebuttal was not that her friend’s relationship was somewhat worthwhile, but that we can distinguish her friend’s ‘love’ from its cause. After all, this is not a debate about abusive relationships, but about love itself.


CON mischaracterizes the example I provided regarding the Nazi’s medical search. She points out that we would have been better to NOT have had the Holocaust happen despite any good derived. That goes without saying. But when considering the example of the holocaust, the lesson to be learned is not that ‘a few certain positives’ are indicate of an overall worthwhile experience, but that good can sprout from even the most terrible of places. It is thus important that we distinguish them. I certainly wouldn’t try and suggest the medical advances derived from the holocaust made the holocaust worthwhile or that the souls searching effects cancer can have on people makes cancer worthwhile. Nevertheless, in looking at what we know to be the worst sources of pain/destruction, it is clear that good can and has sprouted from both of them. I’m sure we can agree that love loss isn’t remotely within the league of cancer or the holocaust.

CON addresses my mention of Obama. She says that my assertion regarding our leader is unsubstantiated. Quite the contrary. It was CON that claimed that love is blind and detrimental to one’s judgment. In response, I cited Obama, a man who has experienced love lost yet has worked his way to acquiring the highest position in the land. CON is simply trying to shift the burden here. If love is in fact the detriment she says it to be, why then has it not deterred our standing president from acquiring his positions? Not just Obama, but scores of individuals in high places. The notion that love is to be avoided because it creates weakness is unpersuasive.


CON says that my ecstasy explanation is flawed since this debate is NOT about being in love. Note, once again, however, that most of her arguments are critiques on being in love (i.e. her friend in the abusive relationship, love is blind, some kill in the name of love, etc). Even this argument citing ecstasy was meant to provide a viable alternative to being in love.

CON addresses my Christmas anecdote. She says this strengthens her case. Untrue. I used this example to demonstrate the folly of her disregarding love itself and solely focusing on love having been lost. She claimed this debate isn’t about the then, but “the now”. As my example shows and as she has just agreed, the ‘then’ is quite important to evaluating the now. Love, even if lost, still allows for cherishable memories.

As to having warm experiences outside of romantic love, this is true, but just as irrelevant as the suggestion that ecstasy is alternative to the warm feelings that love provides. Once again, one isn’t restricted to choosing between romantic love and alternatives. One can experience both and make an educated decisions about them.


CON says that her eros/philia love point is the strongest aspect of her case. Quite the contrary. This is by far the weakest aspect of her case. As shown with her example of ecstasy, one need not limit themselves. Both philia/eros and romance are loves both worth exploring. In experiencing both, one is in a fine position to determine what they are suited towards. Unfortunately, we’re not here to compare the different forms of love, nor are we here to compare love and ecstasy.

As for her argument about love being a distraction, CON says that these other areas of life should be abundant for a healthy balance in one’s life. She says that love lost means you’ve sacrificed excelling in areas due to focus on a relationship that would ultimately fail. However, this unpersuasive. People fail/sacrifice constantly in all other areas of life. Many do poorly school/work. Are we to believe that those who’ve done poorly in their studies should just give up? Of course not!


CONCLUSION


You as voters likely do have a bias towards my position, but in taking my case for its merits, CON has failed to negate what my position entails. Her criticisms are equally applicable to any other area of life. As both CON and I have agreed, life is filled with risk, turmoil, pain, suffering. As these are inherent elements of life, coping with them is simply part of the process. Her alternatives are irrelevant since each can be tried without rejecting romantic love.

To love and to lose is to face the challenges of life head on. As we desire love and strive towards it, it is better for us to strive towards gaining strength from loss than to have never gained at all. Simultaneously, however, as one marches forwards in life, it is important to look back on the good times of the past. As shown throughout this debate, love benefits one not just physically, but mentally. One who has experienced love lost knows this quite well and should cherish the memories of love, hoping and being better prepared to experience it once more in the future.

. . . cheers, Danielle & DDO. Always a pleasure!

Danielle

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent and any of you still reading.

I accepted this debate with Logical-Master not because I agree with CON, but because his challenge made me nostalgic and reminded me of when we first discussed this topic 4 years ago - exactly as I was falling in love with whom is probably the love of my life.

We are no longer together.

I don't really care about winning this debate (as I said, there is an inherent bias toward Pro so I never really stood a chance). As such, if this 4 AM stream of conscious blatantly costs me the win, so be it. I'm going to lose the structured arguments, forget about responding to my opponent, and instead speak from the heart.

I've been in love, and I've been madly in love with one very special person. I lost that love.

I can honestly say that losing love has been the worst, most painful and difficult experience of my life. My last relationship's demise involved neither a dissolution of passion, nor heated arguments in an abrasive falling-out. Instead, it was my selfishness, my immaturity and ultimately my stupidity and short-sightedness that cost me the most valuable person in my world. My mistakes hurt her, and because I genuinely and whole heartedly love her SO much, that pain amplified back to me. Not only did I have to deal with the repercussions of my choices, but I had to reconcile the fact that I myself did the one thing I swore I would never - could never do - and that was hurt the person whose life and well-being truly and genuinely meant more to me than my own.

In this debate, Pro and I talked about my best friend who is dealing with a bad partner, but we haven't discussed what it's like to be the person responsible for causing another suffering. If you really love the person, there is no greater agony. After my break-up, I spent over a year (literally) crying over my lost love at some point every single day. The absolute hardest thing to get over was the fact that everything falling apart was all my fault. When you have no one to blame but yourself, you become depressed. You become self-loathing. You become self-destructive.

I don't know if anyone reading this has ever felt like they hated themselves - I mean TRULY hated themselves - but there is nothing worse. You are all you have in this world. You are the source of you. You will always be you and can never not be you. To despise and detest the source of your own person so vehemently is hellish, and yet that was (and in a way always will be) a part of my reality. It significantly diminishes the overall quality of your life.

But I'm a big girl. I got over it. Or did I...?

Today my ex ad I are friendly. It's taken awhile to get to a place where we can talk daily about frivolous things, political going-ons, and other generic topics of conversation. She's moved on, and currently lives with her girlfriend whom I can tell she really loves and vice versa. Likewise, I am in a new (well, 18 month) relationship with someone I will be moving in with very soon. And I love her too. I guess this would make you assume that Logical-Master's assertion that it all worked out for the best is correct. After all, I can't deny that I've learned life lessons, and my ex and I have both (seemingly) moved on.

But that's not the whole truth. Not a day has gone by where I haven't been haunted by my mistakes. Not a single one. This has undoubtedly had a detrimental impact on my overall well-being and especially my capacity to be happy. Without her the blue sky isn't as blue, period. I could be enjoying an ice cream, kissing my (extremely sexy) new girlfriend, or writing a fvcking debate argument on DDO and yet my mind wanders to this person pretty regularly, which tends to completely put a damper on my day or current experience.

I think the hardest thing to get over is the fact that this is all my fault. Because of that, the overwhelming sense of guilt and regret that I feel haunts me day in and day out. Rather than focusing on learning from my mistakes (which is the feel-good message of encouragement we feel obliged to repeat to someone who's sad), all this has really done is cause me to obsess over the what-ifs and how-could-I's. While I'm sure this will subconsciously encourage me to make better decisions in the future, it's much too little way too late, and hardly comforting enough to make the loss worth it.

Thus far, I've continuously specified that I love her and not loved her. I've lost my love (the person) but not my love (the feeling). I don't think I ever will. Someone wise (okay it was my aunt) once said that not knowing is worse than knowing. She was referencing the human tendency to let our imaginations run rampant usually to our detriment whenever we care about someone. While in that particular instance she was referring to a specific scenario, I can confirm that this is completely true when obsessing over what could have been...

Now am I naive enough to believe that I could never be happy again? Of course not! Since then, I've dated a few people (and really friggin liked one!) as well as have the pleasure of experiencing a new love. I certainly appreciate it. I have really hot sex, I've made awesome memories, and I've laughed quite a bit along the way - so don't feel too sorry for me. But no matter where life takes me, no matter who I wind up with, I will NEVER be fully happy. I will ALWAYS be haunted by ideas about what could have been - because not knowing is torture.

Someday when I am looking my partner in the eyes as I make my really gay (pun intended) wedding vows... when we squeeze each other's hand as we welcome our first child into the world... when I'm relaxing on a beach 20 years from now looking back on all that I've (hopefully) accomplished both professionally and especially personally... all of that will be tainted. I don't think I can EVER experience anything like that without remembering that it was supposed to be - and probably should be - with somebody else.

Now I know what you're thinking:

1) How do you know you will ALWAYS feel like that?
2) Maybe THIS is what was "supposed" to happen...

Indeed, maybe it was destined at the universe's inception that I was fated to this excruciating pain. Maybe I will wind up with someone better than I could have ever imagined. Maybe in a few years or even a few months from now I won't give this person a second thought. That would be nice. Unfortunately, I know better.

Am I going to sit here and say that it would have been better had we never never loved? I'm not sure. I can recall several instances throughout our 3 year (pretty much perfect) relationship where I felt so viscerally elated and euphoric that I remember thinking "This is it. This is why I'm here" and, as crazy as it sounds... "I can die now." A little dramatic perhaps, but a genuine introspection about my existential existence. I still feel that way. If I die tomorrow, I wouldn't be bitter. I have been so incredibly fortunate to experience something so profound, so rewarding and so fundamental to my growth and happiness that I don't think there is anything more that I could possibly ask for in this lifetime. I am hands-down a better, more evolved and fulfilled person because of the love that I got to experience with this person. But the fact is, losing said love will have a deeply detrimental impact on my ability to be happy. Had I not had it, I could better appreciate my past (before her) and more importantly my future.

The most credible source ever, Tupac Shakur, once said "Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside while still alive." In losing my one true love, I know I will never be FULLY happy again for the rest of my life. Knowing the extent of my suffering as only I can truly know it, I understand and accept the Negative position as I'm sure nobody else reading this can. Hopefully none of you will ever be in a position where you are compelled to agree with me. Stay optimistic, but vote Con ;)
Debate Round No. 3
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
@ Dakatoria

Thanks for reading the debate!

"Pro . . . doesn't prove that loss is necessary"

Its been ages since I last looked at this debate, but I think you're referring to this notion that the benefits of loss can be acquired without loss, am I correct? If so, this position disregards the substance of the debate entirely. My case is that Loving/Losing is better than Not Loving at All. You cannot gain the benefits of losing love should you never love at all.

" doesn't prove that the loss is better than the gain."

Again, apologies. This debate isn't fresh on my mind. Could you be more specific as to what you're referring to? I don't recall that being my position or burden. I maintained that loss could LEAD to gain.

"Pro merely asserts that fighting is a necessary part of life which is neither"

It is a necessary part of life. Survival of the fittest, my friend. Humans have experienced struggle and sadness throughout the entirety of their existence. Regardless, however, I believe there's been some miscommunication here.

"people can fight and win. Fighting and losing does not necessarily lead to resilience either."

My friend, I think you read my arguments and opted to insert yourself in the debate. People can fight and win, but we're talking about losing and learning from your loss.

"Lastly, while Pro does prove the benefits of gaining love, that's not the debate here."

Quite the contrary. That is the debate here (or at least one way of debating it). If A is more beneficial than B, A is better than B.

"The debate is whether it's better to love and lost than to never have loved at all."

Correct. And I maintained that both sides offered benefits.

"Pro's argument ultimately depends on possible lucky instances where the payoff works out"

I wouldn't call it luck. More like trial & error and determination. You can identify your losses, learn from them, grow and become better off. This is a part of life.
Posted by thigner 4 years ago
thigner
quite easy but ironically very difficult debate it is. It never can be debated with empirical experience.

No one who loved cannot say it's better than not loving anyone because they've never experienced not loving anyone. vice versa.

It seems con abnegate her right to win cuz at last her debate, she confessed how much she loved one person devoutly and she said it was never forgettable.

it's like pro of atheist said her christian life was so perfect.
Posted by sbaik610 4 years ago
sbaik610
Could you post a link for us to follow please?
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
OK LM. I'll send you a challenge on whether or not the desire to love is an innate part of human nature.
Posted by sbaik610 4 years ago
sbaik610
I see your point but I can't state mine anymore for I can't without any religion to get involved. If we were looking at the existence of this spiritual soul (unified and classifying the identity of a person) then yes. I am all pro!!
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Yeah i believe the idea that spirit and soul being distinct to each other is a Christian concept, but I get most of my knowledge from eastern philosophy mainly the Vedas and they class both as one, example: they would say "spirit soul" and class that as one singular identity of a person.

You mentioon the soul as being part human or part of a human whilst alive, but we all know spirits may exist without material form, ie; Ghosts. So this does not confiem to me that a spirit is classed as something exclusively to those humans whilst alive, for the spirit can continue to exist even after the destruction of the material body.
Posted by sbaik610 4 years ago
sbaik610
No forgiveness necessary! ;]

I was reading this debate as my friend and I were talking about the same exact topic and decided to read the comments to see what people had to say. [There were 40+ comments) and your topic struck interest. That does not mean, however, that I will be a substitution to the original intended recipient. (Don't think she got the message)

Personally, I always viewed spirit as a part of human while the person is living.
and Soul to be part of a human even after the person is deceased.

However, my views might contain hints of theology here and there, which might be why I view them as two separate
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
I just found it very peculiar that somebody would create an account and within 18 minutes respond to a comment I made way down the comments thread. Forgive me if I seemed over concerned, but as I said I found it very peculiar.

I do not consider the spirit and the soul as two separate entity's. they are one and the same.

What is your opinion of how the spirit and the soul are distinct to each other. ?
Posted by sbaik610 4 years ago
sbaik610
I was bored 55 minutes ago, and continue to be bored while sitting at work with nothing to do.

I contacted about your post because you mentioned Danielle didn't take your hand in friendship. Whether it be out of pity, or plain boredom, I decided to ask you what you meant by spiritual soul. In case you were to debate against someone about this "spiritual soul" (an oxymoron in my opinion) I was interested on what "spiritual soul" is.

Anything else I should clear up for you chief?
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
What I find confusing is why your profile was only created 55 minutes ago and within the first 18 minutes was used to contact me about my post which is way down the line in threads.

Who are you really.

Danielle perhaps.?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has two major issues: One, he doesn't prove that loss is necessary, and two, he doesn't prove that the loss is better than the gain. Instead, Pro merely asserts that fighting is a necessary part of life which is neither necessarily valid nor equal to loss itself; people can fight and win. Fighting and losing does not necessarily lead to resilience either. Lastly, while Pro does prove the benefits of gaining love, that's not the debate here. The debate is whether it's better to love and lost than to never have loved at all. Pro's argument ultimately depends on possible lucky instances where the payoff works out, but it's not explained why that payoff will necessarily instantiate.
Vote Placed by youmils03 4 years ago
youmils03
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: 3 points for Con
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter ockatdaddy. Might vote latter.
Vote Placed by ockcatdaddy 4 years ago
ockcatdaddy
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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: i agree tis better to love
Vote Placed by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
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 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the comments.
Vote Placed by MochaShakaKhan 4 years ago
MochaShakaKhan
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: If con had given her personal testimony in an earlier round, it might have worked, but it's against the rules to make new arguments in the last round, especially if by making that argument you end up dropping your opponent's arguments.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I could not really regard the personal testimony as a legitimate argument.
Vote Placed by Nobodycares 4 years ago
Nobodycares
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: I find myself in agreement with Con, largely because it is not possible to empirically determine if it is better to have love and lost than to have never loved at all. For this to be true some positive effect would have to occur for those that lost love; genuinely, I believe love is simply a deep affection manifested by our ego. My presupposition aside I believe Con pointed out that while it was certainly true that being in "love" was a wonderful emotion, losing that "love" does not always or even usually result in a positive effect. Con made a strong case for love being mostly a distraction, as those involved are forced to prioritize and attempt to balance all other pursuits. I was hoping to see someone address the bond of "love" between a parent and child during their developmental years, perhaps the debate was limited to romantic love. Nonetheless a very interesting and intelligent debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Ill post my RFD in the comments section once i can get in front of a computer (im on my phone right now)
Vote Placed by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: 10/10 guys. I thought you were pretty much equal until R3, where L-M pulled out some powerful counter arguments (separation of love from its cause, pointing out Con's inconsistency in arguing against the benefits of love itself). Danielle obviously didn't respond to any of that. Her last round made me a bit emotional imagining her going through such a pervasive and potentially lasting ordeal. Ultimately I couldn't count it as a sound argument, given that it was disconnected from the rest of the debate and represented only her experiences. I have to give the arguments to L-M, but Danielle your last round made me understand a lot better why someone would genuinely take the con position for this resolution.