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

Resolved: A corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no boyfriend/girlfriend

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 5/15/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,076 times Debate No: 4053
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (33)

 

Logical-Master

Con

Good day to you all, ladies and gentleman. In today's case, I shall prove the resolution which states "Resolved: A corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no boyfriend/girlfriend" is false beyond the notion of a doubt. Before starting, I'd like to thank my opponent (whomever that may be) for taking up this debate and I'd ask that the voters vote based on who debated better rather than their own personal opinion. With all of that being said, let us proceed.

===================
CONTEXT:
===================

We're discussing what is in general

===========
DEFINITIONS
===========

Corrupt:

• adjective 1: willing to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. 2: evil or morally depraved. 3: (of a text or computer data) made unreliable by errors or alterations. 4: archaic rotten or putrid. (1)

Better:

• adjective 1: more desirable, satisfactory, or effective. (2)

Due to these definitions, I trust that there will be no confusion as to what the words mean as well as a useless battle over semantics.

Due to laziness, I'm only going to present one contention for the time being, but I'll probably present more in round 2.

=====================================
CONTENTION: Corruption is contagious.
=====================================

The first and most obvious contention to my case is the fact that a corrupt boyfriend/girlfriend can bring about corruption in his/her partner. For instance, a teenage partner who is involved with a corrupt teenage boyfriend/girlfriend will likely be inclined to participate in acts of underaged drinking or illegal drug usage, if they see their corrupt boyfriend/girlfriend participating. In actuality, this is a more advanced than normal peer pressure (which merely involves wanting to fit in with friends) as it involves the possibility of getting some action and feeling good about oneself. Needless to say, this doesn't merely apply to teenagers, but to experienced adults as well (and for the same motives discussed above).

Since this is 4 rounds, feel free to use one round for a quick cross examination. If not, I'll probably do it anyway in round 2.

========
Sources
========

#1. http://www.askoxford.com...
#2. http://www.askoxford.com...
Danielle

Pro

A few definitions of my own:

• Boyfriend/Girlfriend - a person's regular male/female companion in a romantic or sexual relationship [1]

• Companion - a person with whom one spends time or travels [2]

----------

I accept Con's definitions of Corrupt; however, I feel that for the purpose of this debate, only the first two apply. I would also like to note that I will be arguing this debate from the standpoint that I were the person dating somebone who is corrupt (just for clarification). Here we go...

----------

* Considering my boyfriend/girlfriend (here-on after referred to as bf/gf) may be willing to act dishonestly for money, one can only assume that I would reap the rewards of his or her less than noble endeavors. Based on Oxford's definitions of bf/gf and companion, it is logical to conclude that my bf/gf and I like each other, as we choose to spend time together regularly. Therefore the odds of this person acting dishonorably towards me are less than the odds of them being dishonest towards another (someone they like less or don't know). In that case, if my bf/gf achieved some type of monetary gain, it is likely that I would be in better shape than if he hadn't. One, if he or she chose to share some of the profit (via money, gifts, etc), I would inherit some of the wealth. Two, even if my bf/gf hadn't shared what they've acquired, THEY would be more wealthy which in turn would make me look better anyway.

* If the two of us were severely struggling for money, I would have a better chance of surviving due to my bf/gf's willingness to do whatever it takes in order to ensure our survival.

* Many people are corrupt, but are still considered 'good' people by those closest to them. Consider members of a gang or organized crime. While legally they may be considered heinous individuals for their ruthless activity, to their family and friends they may show nothing but love and respect. Seeing as how I would be dating this corrupt individual, I may not be subjected to their antics nor would the people I care about be affected. Thus again we can assume that I would only reap the benefits of my bf/gf's corruption.

* I may only engage in a relationship with a corrupt individual simply for the perks (which I will discuss later on in the round). Therefore I may deem one or more of these perks greater than all of the consequences that may possibly occur due to having a corrupt bf/gf.

* On that note, I may have a "bad boy/girl complex" and particularly enjoy dating ONLY corrupt individuals. Therefore if I only date corrupt people throughout my life, it is fair for me to conclude that I would rather have a corrupt partner (be in a relationship) than be single.

* I myself might also be a corrupt individual, and morally it would only be fair to engage in a relationship with another corrupt person. Otherwise I may not only be judged by them (and we wouldn't be a good 'fit' so to speak), but I may also take advantage of them if they are not wise to my tactics and therefore wind up hurting an undeserving person.

* My opponent's definition of corrupt is established by the phrase morally depraved; in other words, an immoral person. However because morality is subjective, one cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that my bf/gf is corrupt to the point that it would harm me. For instance, almost half the country (46 percent) vehemently agree that abortion is immoral and corrupt [3]. If I had chosen to date a woman who had undergone an abortion procedure, that would mean that many deem my gf to be corrupt. However her 'corruption' really would not affect our relationship.

Under the premise that one would have to do more than one immoral or 'evil' act in order to be considered corrupt, we can say, for example, that my bf/gf used profanity in excess, has cheated on some of his or her exams, and deals drugs. I ask - What does this have to do with me? Sure it MIGHT affect me a little bit, but the same odds are that it might NOT affect me at all. Therefore all we have are the benefits of being in a relationship, with none of the down-sides (in terms of my mate's corruption anyway).

* And finally, the definition of corrupt indicates that one would be WILLING to act dishonestly. If I had a bf/gf who was willing to act dishonestly but simply didn't, I would be no worse off than someone with a non-corrupt bf/gf. Instead, I would only reap the benefits of having a bf/gf.

----------

Just to cover all my bases...

Some Possible Benefits of Having a Boyfriend/Girlfriend:

~ Physical fulfillment (sex, cuddling)
~ Companionship
~ Monogamy
~ Romantic love
~ Dating
~ Pre-requisite to marriage
~ Self-esteem just from being able to say "I have a bf/gf"

... Of course one could experience these things outside of a relationship; however, the perks usually include two or more of those benefits at the same time (especially monogamy). Plus, having a bf/gf is actually essential in order to achieve the last benefit I included in my example.

----------

Rebuttal:

My opponent has offered a single contention in affirmation of the resolution. He contests that corruption is contagious. In addition to some of the responses I have already provided for which this would not even be a factor (the most significant being I AM ALREADY A CORRUPT PERSON), I also conclude that his assumptions have little to no merit. For instance, he mentions that one's likelihood of participating in alcohol/drug use would be increased if their corrupt bf/gf was engaging in that behavior...

First, not everybody deems alcohol and/or drug use to be immoral or corrupt. Second, he offers no proof for this claim. Third, assuming this claim was true, it doesn't do much to prove the resolution at all. For example, it is a known fact that one is more likely to use alcohol and drugs if their parents are users [4]. By his logic, a child would be better off without parents at all than those who might smoke marijuana or enjoy a few drinks after work. That might be his opinion, but it is too presumptious to assume that one would be better off without parents all-together.

I s'pose that's it for now...

I look forward to a good, semantic-free and fair debate with my esteemed opponent.

----------

Sources:

[1] http://www.askoxford.com...
[2] http://www.askoxford.com...
[3] http://query.nytimes.com...
[4] http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Con

Logical-Master forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOGICAL-MASTER'S ABUSIVE ROUND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry - I don't mean to come off as being dramatic, but I'd like to start off my R2 by stating that I do not think *ANY* of the arguments that my opponent has posted in the comment section should be valid in this debate.

First, I find LM's statement that there was a "glitch" in the system to be completely unsupported. He posts "I have an hour and 53 minutes left to post my argument" and subsequently adheres to posting his R2 rebuttal within the next 2 hours. However, how do I know for sure that time had not already run out by the time LM suggested he had nearly 2 hours left? Not only does debate.org not offer the exact time someone makes a post (like it does on Facebook), but LM himself did not mention what time each of his posts were. I also find it a bit odd that "4 hours ago" (from the time that I am writing this) he says he has nearly 2 hours left to post; an hour later he says he has 3 minutes left. Then an hour after THAT he finally posts his rebuttal... so an hour is more than 3 minutes, meaning even if he were telling the truth, he still would not have posted within the allotted time frame.

Furthermore, if that isn't abusive enough, based on the assumption that LM is a "good guy" or that we should just take his word for it, I completely disagree on the merit that his 8,000+ character argument is completely abusive to this debate. For my fellow long-winded debaters, it's common knowledge that the character limit oftens stands in the way of a stellar rebuttal; deciding which points to eliminate can really make or break your case. In noticing Pro's arguments seemed a little lengthy, I attempted to copy and paste his arguments into a round of my own and could not -- debate.org would not let me finish posting because the character limit had been exceeded. Had it only been by a few words, I may not have minded; however, that was not the case -- my opponent's entire argument (not including link abbreviations) was 10,500 characters.

In posting within the allotted section (here) within the time frame given, I am already at a disadvantage due to my opponent's tactics (posting at a random time in the comment section with an illegitimate rebuttal). For these reasons you should not take into account LM's comment posts to be a valid part of this debate; consider I've already had to waste nearly 4000 characters in just bringing this to your attention alone. If you agree that this is completely unfair and/or "shady," to say the least, please do not feel compelled to read the remainder of my round, and just skip down to Pro's R3.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If for whatever reason you actually deem LM's points to be taken into consideration, or if you're just here for the read, please keep in mind that a good portion of my character limit has been taken up by the fact that I've had to call LM out on his abusive tactics in this debate. Further, he had the advantage of posting 2500+ characters more than I will. If you want proof, simply try to copy and paste his rebuttal into an argument space of your own on debate.org ~ it won't work.

Considering that I will have to severely shorten my R2 rebuttal, please remember that I cannot be as detailed as I would like to be, therefore I will be making a lot of generalizations. I will do my best to tie everything together, but if it's completely nonsensical, again I urge you to just void R2 of this debate all-together and skip ahead to R3. Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, don't let the big words fool you - Pro's entire argument revolves around hypocrisy and incosistency. Simply because he has implemented his knowledge of the words "erroneous" and "fallacy" on several occasions does not mean that his accusations have merit. In fact, the entire basis of his rebuttal is invalid any way you look at it. Pro's sole contention is that my points are invalid due to me "equating the role of bf/gf with other roles." Ya damn right I equate the role of bf/gf with other roles. The fact is, roles are interchangable.

For instance, my opponent contests that my bf/gf acting dishonorably for money wouldn't make them a bad bf/gf - it would just make them a bad PROVIDER. I agree. Meaning this corrupt person (corrupt in his/her money making) can STILL be a good bf/gf, which my opponent foolishly tries to refute. However this logic is completely hypocritical from his rebuttal during which he states, "the BF/GF is corrupt (because they use drugs, which he claims shows disregard for the law) and is hence spreading his/her corruption to his/her BF/GF (by pressuring them to do drugs)." In this way he is separating a corrupt person from the corrupt relationship. This is no different than me saying a corrupt person can be corrupt in one role but NOT in the bf/gf role, because they are separate roles... but interchangable, and/or occur simultaneously.

For example, the very concept of a "Sugar Daddy/Mama" establishes my point that in addition to being a person's regular male/female companion in a romantic or sexual relationship (as the agreed upon definition supports), one can also take on another role such as provider. Thus my opponent's entire rebuttal against me has been deemed null (especially his rebuttals for contentions 2 - 4); however, I haven't even gotten to the part where he argues against himself :)

CONT 5 REBUTTAL: "To suggest that most/all 'bad boys/girls' are corrupt is quite an extraordinary claim" ... Is it? Assuming that a bad person is a bad bf/gf is EXTRAORDINARY? Hmm, okay. Well this means you can't contest my point that a corrupt (bad) individual can still being a good gf/bf. Either you're accepting that bf/gf's have dual roles or you're not, but pick a side.

CONT 6: You're missing/ignoring the point. If I'm already corrupt, I may be no worse off than if I were single. Prove that this would be the case instead of just claiming that it is.

CONT 7: You accused me of "confusing" the role of a gf with the role of a mother. So you're saying a woman can't be both a gf and a mother? Surely not both of those roles to ME; however, being a corrupt mother would still make my gf corrupt in some way, and I'd still be her gf. Thus, the resoltion is effectively NEGATED.

CONT 8: you say, "Firstly, I contest the notion that ... dealing drugs would make him/her a corrupt BF/GF." This DIRECTLY OPPOSES YOUR STANCE FROM R1 when you said, "For instance, a teenage partner who is involved with a corrupt teenage bf/gf will likely be inclined to participate in acts of ... illegal drug usage" -- If this example (drugs) doesn't matter, why bring it up at all? Further, in your R1 example, by your logic two people taking drugs together would share the role of DRUG BUDDIES - not bf/gf... 'cause ya know, a bf/gf can't have more than one role, right? In one instance you're saying that the role of bf/gf is what pressures them; in the other, you're saying the bf/gf relationship doesn't matter - the drug use is what's corrupt. If he/she was pressuring to do GOOD, your example would not apply.

CONT 9: You wrote, "In terms of relationship with a bf/gf, if one is truly willing to act dishonestly, it is more than likely that one has acted dishonestly." That is simply not true and entirely based on speculation. For instance, I might be willing to cheat on my bf/gf, but that doesn't mean that I already have. Thus my strongest point in this debate still stands along with all of my others.

For your health argument, you wrote, "they are discussing marriages, but since we're discussing a trait of such a relationship that actually exist in all BF/GF relationships, this is acceptible for this debate." Hmm. Sorry, by your logic, these 2 different relationships CANNOT be compared...

Sorry - I have no more characters to respond, cuz I'm not cheating...
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Con

(inhales with all might)

*initiates pointing stance*

OBJECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is rather apparent that PRO has taken advantage of my misfortune in the previous round and is attempting to utilize it through claiming that I've been abusive. I assure you, the only one who is being abusive here is NONE OTHER THAN PRO (and I'll get to that in a moment)!

Regarding the character limit, look at it this way: We're given 24,000 characters per debate. I've merely used 12,717+ characters in comparison to PRO's 14,342. Thus, even if both of us utilize the maximum amount of characters in this debate, PRO will always be around 1500 characters ahead. Unfair advantage? Ha! Given the advantage I DELIBARETELY gave PRO in round 1, at the VERY LEAST, it balances out.

As for these claims of cheating, none of them impact this debate and PRO has already made the mistake of acknowledging nearly everything I said. So what do I do with points that don't impact the debate? I discuss them elsewhere. PRO is free attempt to rebut my refutation of these absurd claims on my blog here: http://logical-master.blogspot.com...

At best, PRO could potentially argue that you simply discount the extra 2500 characters, but no, she argues that you discount EVERYTHING I say in this debate. This, my fellow users, is A HIGHLY ABUSIVE REQUEST. She is telling you NOT TO HEAR ME OUT; she is TELLING YOU TO VOTE WITH BIAS AND TO DISREGARD ACTUAL DEBATING ON DEBATE.ORG. THAT COMPROMISES THE VERY PURPOSE OF THIS SITE. If you're going to discount what anyone says, you should discount the words of PRO for attempting to ABUSE this website in this manner.

I'm just going to respond to each of PROs paragraphs numerically (from top to bottom)

1) Big words? Nonsense. A big word would be is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. If anything, the words I use illustrate the seemingly BIG problems with PROs case. Take this paragraph for instance. She is suggesting that the roles are interchangable, but according to the very definition which she provides, there is nothing to suggest such. In turn, she is simply compromising her own definition.

2) PRO resorts to some trickery here; her defense here is entirely strawman. She is saying that I said that the corrupt BF/GF was corrupt merely because of their usage of drugs, but I ask you, where did I say that? Nowhere. Allow me to quote what I stated in the previous round: "In unjustly disregarding the law and pressuring their BFS/GFS to do the same. the BF/GF is corrupt and is hence spreading his/her corruption to his/her BF/GF." Notice the conjunction "AND." The BF/GF is corrupt because he/she is corrupting his/her BF/GF. I also cannot help but point out how PRO conveniently ignores the matter of peer pressure (which was the heart of the argument). Given that this is the case, you can see that the corruption is via the romantic/sexual relationship. And unfortunately for PRO, the following statement "it would just make them a bad PROVIDER. I agree. Meaning this corrupt person (corrupt in his/her money making) can STILL be a good bf/gf." If this corrupt provider is not a corrupt bf/gf, then this simply restates what I've been saying, and negates any argument PRO has made on the matter, thus it is foolish to agree.

3) Next, PRO claims that the concept of sugar daddies/mamas proves her argument, but in saying so, this would also mean that she is suggesting that all prostitution is a means of an individual gaining a BF/GF. That's right, so if a guy decides to have a hooker from craigslist come up to his hotel room and have her "let his snake out of the cage and give it a massage that is a little rough at the end" in exchange for 100 big ones, this is considered a BF/GF relationship according to PRO. At any rate, if the relationship is based on provision, you cannot really consider a sugar daddy/mama or a prostitute as being an individuals BF/GF. The only way PRO can possibly avoid this is by compromising her very own definition which she established.

4) A good example of a so-called bad boy is Fonzey from Happy days, but throughout the series, we learn that he is a non-corrupt guy. The bad boy stuff is simply the image, hence how he got the title without anyone really knowing him. Thus, my reasoning as to how one can't really say that all "bad boys" are corrupt. Furthermore, I contested this point with the "role" argument, and as I've shown in this round, it hasn't even come close to being refuted.

5) My previous answer to this was sufficient. My reasoning for PRO being better off single was reasoning that considered the well being of society. Since PRO suggested that it would simply be detrimental to be in a relationship with a non-corrupt individual, there is really no reason to simply enter a relationship with a corrupt individual when upholding morals (which PRO had suggested that it ought to be considered in the previous round) as corruption would further consume the world. Hence, where being single as being the better approach comes in. While being single, you aren't running the risk of ensuing the negative consequences which PRO brought up and you aren't merely sustaining corruption through dating a fellow corrupt BF/GF. Also, one is more capable of getting help (or perhaps therapy at this point) than one is in attempting to drag someone else into it. This contention alone actually helps my case significantly. Weigh it into your vote.

6) It is rather apparent that I'm not saying such. Rather, what I'm saying is that even if a GF is a mother, her role as a mother is not to be taken into consideration for the context of this debate unless it fits into perspective as I've shown with my overpopulation argument.

7) Either PRO has simply made a mistake or she is simply trying to pull a fast one. Whatever the case, let me quote what I said in addition to what she quoted "The only way it would make him/her a corrupt bf/gf would be if the bf's/gf's activities revolved around the relationship." Now if you read my R1 and R2, it is rather apparent that I'm suggesting that the BFs/GFs activities revolve around the relationship. That about KILLS the notion that I'm contradicting myself. As for being drug baddies, I see many problems with this assertion, but wish to give PRO to benefit of the doubt before I capitalize on them. Please define drug buddies.

8) Alas, neglecting that I implied there could be exceptions, PRO misses the point. I would like to ask PRO how she really KNOWs that she is willing to cheat. Should she really trust her own speculations regarding the matter? Ask yourself: How often do we go around claiming we're capable of doing something only to find out that we aren't at the last minute? It's like the guy who raves about how he is gonna ride the biggest roller coaster in the theme park with all of his friends, only to turn around at the last minute. To truly KNOW that you are capable of doing something, it is necessary that you have done it before. As for more evidence though, I'd love to get into this matter more seriously than I already have. In fact, I'm dying for the opportunity. Unfortunately, I cannot help but notice that my esteemed was the one to initiate this claim. Thus, the burden of proof belongs to her. Provided she gives evidence, I'll go into detail concerning this discussion. If not, then you can pretty much discount this point on the grounds that it has not been supported.

As for the response to the health point, it not only disregards the reasoning I use to justify it, but in short, it basically comes off as PRO saying "I disagree."

Finally, she drops my response to her previous rebuttal concerning the "corruption argument", and she drops my overpopulation argument. Mostly taking it and this round's #5 into account, it is apparent that my case benefits society astronomically. Thus, it is rather clear which side is better.
Danielle

Pro

Here's the deal -

LM claims that a mysterious "glitch" in the system (which he cannot prove) has prevented him from posting his argument in the allotted amount of time. Then he tries to justify exceeding the round's character limit by over 2500 characters in noting that I have used up more charaters than him in this debate thus far as a whole. This, fellow debaters, is completely ridiculous.

... We all have lives. We have families, jobs, friends (most of us anyway) and we go to school or have a lot of non-online hobbies, etc. Because life sometimes gets in the way of less important things (such as a debate on debate.org, for example), we cannot always post our arguments within the 3 day time span in which we are given. Sh1t happens, ya know? Many times my web browser has randomly shut down in the middle of me typing a rebuttal with 5 minutes on the clock, or I'll have to accept the fact that my work schedule and family obligations get in the way of typing a less than stellar response in a debate, etc. This is just too damn bad for me. Debate.org is a website where people can swap ideas competitively and thus there are rules, including limits on the amount of time you have to post something, and the amount of characters in which you can make your case.

I don't care if there WAS a glitch in the system; the fact remains that LM did not post within the time frame given. Had the situation been a little different (i.e. he noted this supposed glitch days before his response was due instead of minutes/seconds prior), then maybe his misfortune could be taken into consideration in terms of this debate. However for the rest of us - many of whom have been screwed over in the past - it would simply be unfair to me and a great injustice to the integrity of this site in general to allow someone to post unfairly in the comment section. Since when are people allowed to do that on this site? And if that's allowed, then why doesn't everyone do it?

Further, I am greatly disappointed in my opponent's attempt to justify exceeding the character limit! Instead of apologizing for the mistake (the honorable thing to do) and agreeing to just scrap the round all-together, PRO tries to argue that his round should be taken into account despite the unfair advantage, simply because I have used more characters in this debate than him all-together. That's BULL. I have stayed within the parameters of the 8,000 character limit per round whereas PRO has not. If this site implemented a 24,000 characters per debate rule instead of 8,000 characters per round, we would all just save up our charcters until the end where we can argue our opponent's claims all in one shot.

Anyway, I was never "ABUSIVE" by claiming you should ignore all of what PRO has said throughout this entire debate. I simply stated that you should NOT take his earlier round into consideration, because it was posted in the comment section and exceeded the character limit by far... which is completely against the rules, and entirely abusive to me. If that were acceptable, I might as well just post the rest of my debate into the comment section -- why bother doing it here, right? I also think it's funny that he claims to have given me an "advantage" in R1 supposedly on purpose...? What is he talking about?

So I'm done arguing/debating about this topic for now, and probably for the remainder of the debate. There is nothing to argue here - I'm right. The round was posted outside of the time frame parameters, and outside of the character limit parameters... I mean if these things don't matter, why have them in the first place? Think about that. Now we have spent far too much time discussing my opponent's entirely abusive round, which is why it should be discounted in the first place. The purpose of this debate is to argue the resolution, which clearly (common sensically) favors PRO; however, I figured I'd try to challenge myself and debate it anyway. I wish it could have been done in a more fair way though without giving me even LESS of a disadvantage. Jeez. PRO couldn't just accept the forfeited round and take it like a man? Damn.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alright with 3,700 characters left...

It's pretty clear what this debate comes down to. My opponent and I are simply taking a look at the wording of the resolution, and using it to our respective advantage (gramatically I think we both are correct depending on how you look at it). PRO is using the resolution to discuss someone who is a corrupt bf/gf in the sense that they are, essentially, a bad bf/gf. He's saying that having a bad bf/gf (as in someone who is bad or corrupt to YOU) is worse than having no bf/gf at all. On the other hand, I am using the resolution to state that someone's bf/gf CAN be a corrupt PERSON; however, that does not make them a corrupt (or bad) bf/gf in terms of that particular relationship. So based on my arguments, PRO cannot dispute this fact and in doing so is only cheapening this debate with his attempts at manipulating the facts that I have provided.

For instance, PRO tries to argue that a "sugar daddy" isn't real, because by the "definition I have provided" (though I provided no such specific definition, but rather a loose interpretation based on what is socially accepted regarding that term) because the described relationship = the same relationship as a hooker/pimp dynamic. What kind of semantics argument is that? I find it ironic and a bit hypocritical that PRO went into a little rant about the purpose of debate.org (to debate!!! exchange ideas!!!) yet is attempting to change my wording around instead of attacking my point for what it's worth or better yet making one of his own (he is PRO, after all).

I guess what it comes down to then is whether or not you, the readers, accept that a "sugar daddy" role exists in a bf/gf relationship dynamic. PRO says it cannot but clearly he is wrong, and I hope the readers will agere. We have all been in relationships or witnessed relationships in which either the bf/gf has taken on the additional role of provider (or paid for the majority of material goods). That doesn't mean that these people fulfil the roles of hookers and pimps but rather an interchangable - or rather DUAL (that's a better word to describe what I'm looking for) relationship exists.

Anyway, back to my point. A person can be corrupt in one role and not so bad in another. For instance Joe Smith could be a great accountant but a horrible father. Does that mean Joe is neither an accountant nor a father? No. He is both an accountant AND a father. Now assuming he were even a CORRUPT father (say he forced his kids to do inappropriate things), he may very well be a great accountant. However he is still a corrupt individual in the sense that he is a corrupt father (in other words, in noting his parenting skills, one could refer to him as being corrupt). But to say "Having a corrupt accountant is better than no accountant" would be FALSE. Your accountant could be corrupt (in one role - say as a father) yet he might NOT be corrupt in the sense that he is actually a GOOD accountant. Therefore regardless of the type of father that Joe Smith is - corrupt or not - having him as your account is more beneficial than not having him, because he is good at his job, and there is no evidence stating that Joe Smith is a corrupt accountant.

So as far as that particular point goes (dual roles), I was not saying that having someone who was a corrupt in the bf/gf department was better than having no bf/gf at all, but rather in some cases it is more beneficial (in the bf/gf sense) to be with someone corrupt so long as they weren't corrupt in that one area (as a bf/gf). That's just a clarification of one of my many points.

Hopefully in my final round I can re-cap my progress in this debate and finally conclude on a positive and less redundant note.
Debate Round No. 3
Logical-Master

Con

1) : PRO HAS CONCEDED TO THE RESOLUTION BEING FALSE.

Observe the claims below:

"On the other hand, I am using the resolution to state that someone's bf/gf CAN be a corrupt PERSON"

"I was not saying that having someone who was a corrupt in the bf/gf department was better than having no bf/gf at all, but rather in some cases it is more beneficial (in the bf/gf sense) to be with someone corrupt so long as they weren't corrupt in that one area (as a bf/gf).."

Please take the time to read the resolution for a moment and tell me what it says: "Resolved: A corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no boyfriend/girlfriend." You heard it out of her own mouth, folks; PRO is against the resolution. PRO's job isn't to show that corrupt relationships can be better; PRO's job is to show that corrupt relations ARE better. In short, even if you don't buy into any of the arguments I've presented, you are obligated to turn PRO's own argument (or confession rather) around and use it for my side.

Just because I rebutted every one of PRO's argments, it does not mean that I believe there are no situations where a corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no BF/GF. Rather, my role is simply to negate the idea that corrupt relationships are better that no relationships. Not only have I done this, but PRO has as well. Since the next round is the final round, if PRO attempts to contradict what she said, you are not to take it into consideration.

Also, since she says that this is what her accoutant analogy concludes, I have no reason to address it.

2) Um, I don't recall claiming that she provided a definition for sugar daddy. But if she is talking about her definition of boyfriend/girlfriend, which was a relationship defined as mutual sexual/romantic attraction, then no, a sugar daddy wouldn't qualify. In case you misunderstand the argument, no one is saying that a sugar daddy cannot be a BF. Rather, I'm just saying it's not a BF according to the definition of BF/GF which PRO upholds and insist on arguing against.

3) PRO makes it pretty clear what her rebuttal boils down to. She suggest that we've all seen relationships where people bf/gf's have taken up additional roles. This is her attempt to paint my argument as impossible. But if you scrape off the paint, it is rather apparent that what PRO is arguing against is not my argument, but rather an argument which she created to be refuted. Again, no one is suggesting that a BF/GF cannot also be a provider (in fact, I've been saying this since R2). Rather though, what I'm saying is common sense; I'm saying that a BF/GF isn't defined as an individual who provides. If it were, it would have been mentioned in PRO's definition.

Finally, we must note that my main point which concerns overpopulation as well as how no relationship can prevent corruption from being spread into society has gone completely overlooked by PRO. These points of offense are what show how my benefits outweigh PROs (responding to this in the next round would be abusive). Thus, it is rather clear that I have won the intended debate.

-------------------------------

Now I'm gonna lay out the massive problems with PRO's "forfeit/character arguments" .

1) PRO is more than likely being deceitful if she is denying the existence of the glitch. How do I know this? She is an officer of the debate.org facebook tournament and the problem concerning the glitch has been brought to everyone's attention on the main facebook page more than once. Given that she frequents this page, that would be sufficient evidence for my claim. I would suspect that PRO is simply trying to trick the debaters who aren't aware of the glitch. Interesting for someone who is supposedly attempting to exchange ideas.

2) She ignores the utter refutation I provide concerning whether or not I simply lied/cheated. I PROVED that a glitch occurred. This goes completely ignored. And since the way I presented that point has gone uncontested (as in I considered it of not having enough relevance to post here), this is all the more reason for us to take this as a concession. If PRO responds to this in the next round, ignore it as it would be abusive for her merely to wait until the final round to respond.

3) Her logic on "EVEN IF a glitch did occur" is flat out absurd. If a glitch truly did occur, then I posted in the original intended time frame, end of discussion. All of this "we have families, lives jobs, friends" stuff CANNOT POSSIBLY be compared to my situation as it is the debate.org itself which is to blame

4) If you'll note the comment section, I actually DID apologize to PRO on the OFF CHANCE she was actually offended by my so-called "foul play." Given that this is the case, it is no doubt conclusive that PRO intends to win through being deceitful. At the very MOST (as I had pointed out previously), one could attempt to argue that you simply scrap the extra 2500 characters, but PRO insist you scrap the whole thing. In short, her premise doesn't justify her conclusion.

5) As for the character limit, given the purpose of the character limit in the first place (which is maintain brevity), I have fulfilled said purpose and have maintained the bandwidth of this website moreso than PRO. Furthermore, simply using all 24,000 character response in the last response would suggest that there was no real debating in the other rounds. This tactic would simply be injudicious for any debater to pull.

6) She says that she only said you should disregard what I said in that one round where the glitch kicked in, but THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. Read her comment: "If you agree that this is completely unfair and/or "shady," to say the least, please do not feel compelled to read the remainder of my round, and just skip down to Pro's R3." Um, if you're going to skip down to PRO R3, that would suggest that she wanted you to skip CON R3. This is no doubt substantial evidence that PRO is simply trying to make a fool out of you. Furthermore, if you are to ignore what I say in two whole rounds, are you really gonna feel compelled to read my final round if you don't really even grasp the origin of my rebuttals? Simply relying on PRO's retelling of my arguments (especially since it is her intention to win) won't accomplish that (not to mention that she casually drops arguments in this debate).

7) The advantage is clear. In R1, I simply provided one brief contention. In response, she provided 9 contentions. This is a cheap competition debate tactic defined as "spreading" as providing a high number of arguments can easily serve to limit the amount of arguments the opposition brings to the tables. In short, I gave PRO massive advantage. The fact that she is talking about the lack of fairness in this debate is simply shameless and greedy.

8) PRO has the audacity to say we've spent too much time talking about my so-called abusiveness. Um, wasn't she the one to bring it up? For that matter, wasn't she the one who chose to use over 50% of her character limit talking about this? Why is it that she has used over 5300 characters to say something as simple as "There is no proof that there is a glitch, violating the character limit is against the rules, therefore, your rounds aren't to be taken into consideration." I could ALMOST see if she actually had to present in depth evidence for both of the premises, but she doesn't really even do that. Thus, it is more than likely that PRO is simply milking you on your emotion (as she is well aware that users normally disregard people who forfeit), and is getting out of having to ACTUALLY DEBATE the resolution through pretending that it is really necessary for her to spend most of her character limit saying something ad nauseam and talking about something that could have been pointed out in simply in a paragraph at best.

Thanks for the debate. Vote CON.
Danielle

Pro

To respond to LM's points about the character/time limit:

1) Yes, I have heard of the so-called glitch, though in 40+ debates I have never experienced it myself. However like I said, even if there were a glitch, it doesn't matter as comments left in the comment section do not constitute part of the debate. Sure I could be nice and accept the round as-is, but why should I do that? It really doesn't matter, especially since my opponent places absolutely no value on winning or losing debates on this site in terms of votes. According to him, he only debates to exchange ideas and whatnot. In that case, the readers and I could have read his presented ideas in the comment section, and all of his desires would have been fulfilled without me having to include them as something to respond to in regards to the actual debate.

2) Con did not "prove" that there was a glitch, and even if he did, he would have done it in an outside blog that is not part of debate.org... meaning nobody has to read it, and therefore it has no merit. Further, I have also proved why even if there was a glitch, the times in which LM posted his comments don't add up and he would have been outside of the time limit parameters AND the character limit parameters.

3) See #1

4) Again, I impled you should only scrap that one round based on several factors - not the entire debate or any of Con's other rounds

5) Regardless of whatever logic put forth by Con to argue the character limit, there is nothing he could say to change the fact that it had been breached. I don't care what HE thinks the point of the limit is; the fact remains that each debater is given 8,000 characters to debate per round, and he used 10,500+ in one round. Nothing he can say will justify his disregard for the rules, at least not in this particular debate.

6) I apologize - I did in fact say you should skip down to Pro's R3; however, in all honesty that was an innocent mistake on my part -- I confused the roles of Pro and Con, as I am not used to debating in terms of Con arguing first and Pro arguing last. In fact I just realized I made the same mistake several times in this comment alone, and just went back to edit my post. In any event, I suggested skipping down to the final round and just disregarding that 1 round. I apologize for any confusion (unlike Con I am willing to apologize for things I said while debating ;P).

7) Con never gave me an advantage in R1. By providing only 1 contention to back his claims, he simply gave himself a DISadvantage. Nothing further. I am allowed to back my case up with new arguments. To say that I can only refute his is BS; I simply argued his point and then made some of my own for his to respond to. Just because I wasn't being lazy (as Con admitted to being in R1 to defend his mere one, flawed contention) does not mean that any unfairness has ensued.

8) Yes, I did bring up the unfair round to ensure that it would not be counted as part of the debate. Despite the fact that I am 100% right on this issue, Con refused to leave it alone and accept the one forfeited round (which in a 4 round debate really wouldn't have hurt his case, especially for a competent debater like him). Instead he chose to argue against the clear points that I have made (he even tried to justify 10,500+ characters in one round - lol) which actually proves that HE is the one trying to milk your votes based on emotion here... i.e. Waaahhh there was a glitch in the system Waaaahhhh.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so back to the actual debate:

1) I never claimed that the resolution was false, so for my opponent to put words in my mouth (so to speak) is clearly a straw man and entirely unbecoming. I did say that we INTERPRETED the resolution differently, so his copying and pasting of what I said was really unnecessary because it does absolutely nothing to prove his point. His intention was to repeat the resolution and then quote me as saying something that opposed HIS interpretation. That means absolutely nothing in terms of this debate. Why? Because I could simply copy and paste something HE said which supports MY position of MY interpretation of the resolution, i.e. "it does not mean that I believe there are no situations where a corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no BF/GF" ... this would clearly indicate a Pro vote, as it goes against what the resolution was saying (the resolution doesn't call for me to prove that having a corrupt bf/gf is ALWAYS better...)

So anyway, as I said, his interpretation is no more valid than mine. They are both gramatically correct, but in actuality, mine is even more-so. Take a look - the resolution talks about a boyfriend/girlfriend. In one scenario, someone's bf/gf is corrupt. In the other (i.e. "no bf/gf") the bf/gf doesn't even exist. Therefore all I had to prove was that having a bf/gf - even if that person was a corrupt individual - was better than having no bf/gf at all. I didn't have to prove that this is ALWAYS the case, and if I did, it would imply that Con had to prove that it was NEVER the case... in which case he would have failed, as you can tell from his very own words that I quoted above.

2) Con writes, "Um, I don't recall claiming that she provided a definition for sugar daddy..." OH REALLY? I do. I said, "The very concept of a 'Sugar Daddy/Mama' establishes my point that in addition to being a person's regular male/female companion in a romantic or sexual relationship (as the agreed upon definition supports), one can also take on another role such as provider." So... yeah. Moreover, Con writes, "no one is saying that a sugar daddy cannot be a BF." So um, you're saying that a Sugar Daddy can be a BF, but a BF cannot be a Sugar Daddy? Say what? I'm kind of tired of these inconsistencies, LM *yawns*

3) Now, on a totally unexpected and entirely ironic note, Con concluded his portion of the debate by stating, "we must note that my main point which concerns overpopulation as well as how no relationship can prevent corruption from being spread into society has gone completely overlooked by PRO." This is almost comical to me, because as I look back at Rounds 1-4, I have noticed absolutely NO mention whatsoever by Con relating to ANYTHING regarding over-population. Con also does not talk about the spread of corruption into society, but rather the spread of corruption between one individual and another IN THE CONTEXT OF A BF/GF RELATIONSHIP - nothing further.

If Con is trying to exhaust the argument that having a corrupt bf/gf is not better than having no bf/gf at all, he should not be utilizing the argument he just put forth in R4 regarding the spread of corruption throughout our over-populated society. Why? Because that would mean in addition to negating THIS resolution, by that logic he would have to negate a million other resolutions regarding corrupt parents, friends, lovers, teachers, etc. He is saying that because corruption is contagious, and we are so over-populated (new argument), engaging in relationships of any kind with corrupt people is wrong because of how that corruption will spread. He just opened up a whole can of worms with that one...

Further, this logic of mine is proved even by Con's very own. For instance, corruption shared between friends or even a teacher/student relationship would still mean that corruption is passed on from one to the next... meaning one person becomes corrupt, so they can act as a corrupt bf/gf to someone, etc. Over-population and the easy spread of corruption as factors would support MY position, not Con's. Thus in order for Con to have won this debate, he would have had to prove that any relationship with anyone who is corrupt is bad. Con has not done this, and for that reason PLUS the "abusiveness" of this debate (including new arguments in R4 + the character/time limit), you should vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
. . . yes. ;)
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Isn't everyone corrupt?
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
lol my girlfriend's corrupt and I voted pro
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Forgot to say on balance...
That messes everything up!
:D
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Maybe . . . maybe not. You end up sacrificing a potential reality either way. In my opinion though, I'd agree.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Better to have loved and lost
than to have never loved at all?
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Was gonna forfeit due to another pressing matter. Was even gonna explain why I intend to delete my account soon, but I had a change of heart (on responding to the arguments) at the last second. Anywho, I said I would respond to what was said in another comment section:

First, I simply don't understand your claim about making a debate which hasn't been done before. From what I've experienced, originality is almost impossible nowadays. However, if you mean why I didn't make a debate which simply hadn't been done on this site, that's easy. 1) I cannot think of a single debate which I would be willing to participate in ON Debate.org (as in, I'd more willingly debate many of the ideas I have elsewhere) that has yet to be done on this site. 2) As a lower class individual cannot donate millions of dollars to charities, I cannot donate an innumerable amount of time to an innumerable amount of debates here. Oddly enough, there is much more to me than debate.org

Second, after observing some past debates, I was able to find out that some of the people who wish to "punish me" have justifiable reasons for disliking me and/or my debate style. Thus, I intend to improve it rather than simply dismiss these people as "losers or trolls" and continue on. It's good to exchange ideas, but ideas are often disregarded simply because of one's low level of persuasion. If my persuasive abilities are to improve, I must know and understand my audience. If I've learned anything in all of these years, it's that matters such as bias are by no means impenetrable.
Posted by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
haha let me get this straight. logical posts his argument in the comment section, exceeds the character limit, and still tries to justify it in his next round? wow that's not cool. i'm sure theLwerd will handle it =)
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I cannot help but notice that I am more interested in the character/time limit debate than I am in this debate. Perhaps I shall challenge you to such a debate in the future (and will post 1.5 days in advance for all of my responses).

As for the current debate though, I will apologize if my posting in the comment section was unfair and offended you. With that said though, I won't apologize or regret having done so (primarily because compromising anything I say or do in a debate is strictly against my code). In fact, I shall prove my actions as justified during the debate. till then.
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
I didn't appreciate this 10,500+ character response, Logical. It's completely unfair that I will not be given the same opportunity and therefore your entire round should be negated.
33 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
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 studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasterDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
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:70 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 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 Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
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 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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
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 googzieg 8 years ago
googzieg
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
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