The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
53 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Losing
35 Points

Sleeping with the enemy has a positive effect.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,479 times Debate No: 4702
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (20)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

Greetings herr judges and much greeting to my opponent. Let us begin this battle of wits. I trust you will judge fairly and honestly.

========================================
Definition of "sleeping with the enemy"||
========================================

http://www.wisegeek.com...

"The phrase "sleeping with the enemy" is often used to describe a situation involving a non-adversarial relationship between two individuals or entities that would normally be unfriendly or adversarial. This frequently includes business deals between competitors, joint projects tackled by enemies, and political maneuverings that require the cooperation of competing parties. Sometimes, sleeping with the enemy involves cooperating just for the purpose of gaining inside information or the upper hand in a competitive situation. In other situations, however, opposing parties may actually work together for the good of a common goal."

================================
Why CON cannot win this debate"|
================================

Unfortunately, this is a debate which my opponent literally cannot win as the resolution contains a single flaw that works in my favor; the resolution quite clearly states that "X" has a positive effect. Take notice of the article "a." In other words, this resolution isn't discussing what is on balance or anything of the sort, rather, it is only demanding that I prove that there is A positive effect to sleeping with the enemy. It is the contenders job to prove that there is/are no positive effect/s to sleeping with the enemy. This is indeed a tremendous burden, but such is the nature of this resolution. Basically, as long as you buy at least "one" of the positive effects which I point out, I win this debate.

================================================
What good can come from sleeping with the enemy?|
================================================

The good that comes from "sleeping with the enemy" is a no brainier. Working together, joining forces, becoming comrades (you name it!) promotes an opportunity for peace. And the opportunity to promote peace is indeed positive as we must keep in mind that peace is the destroyer of conflict (which is negative).

Not only that, but in sleeping with the enemy, assets are increased and the enemies who are now working together can get far more accomplished than they could alone.

Also, any of the positive effects implied by my source works too.

Now, whether or not there are any negative effects is completely besides the point, because the point is to demonstrate whether or not there is a positive. For instance, one can argue that there were many negative effects from the atomic bomb being sent down to Hiroshima, but one cannot deny that there was at least one positive effect to come from this occurrence (which was the end of World War II). In other words, I can at any point acknowledge negative effectives while affirming my stance. Thus, if my opponent admits to there being positive effects (or an effect), but contends that there are negative effects, you are to dismiss his case altogether.

======================
Preemptive strike |
======================

Usually, I wouldn't do this so early in the round and would just wait for my opponent to use the arguments I know he/she most likely intends to use, however, I not only have the space to do so, but will get more of an opportunity to argue against these points. Plus, less room for CON to maneuver. If CON doesn't bring this up, you're free to dismiss this contention.

He will probably come back and argue that he can win this debate by listing more than one positive effect as the resolution only refers to "A" positive effect. This would be conceding to the resolution. Allow me to demonstrate with an example: Lets say someone asks you if you have a dollar and you happen to have 9 dollars. Now, in response, would you say "Well no, I don't have a dollar." Colloquially, you would do no such thing. Rather, you'd respond in saying "Yes." This is because you DO have a dollar. In addition to a dollar, you have multiple amounts of dollars. Thus, unless the resolution were to say "There is ONLY a single positive effect", my rendering of it is quite valid.

And that's all for now.
beem0r

Con

Greetings, everyone. I am here to show that sleping with the enemy does not have a positive effect.

=== Sleeping with the enemy
My opponent first defines "sleeping with the enemy." He defines it as any instance where enemies join forces to accomplish something. I must disagree with this definition.

I put forward an alternate definition: quite literally, sleeping with the enemy. As in having sex with the enemy. Why is my definition superior? I'll tell you.

First, my definition is not abusive, whereas my opponent's is. The definition provided by my esteemed opponent almost guarantees a win for PRO, while my definition entails a debate that can be argued either way.
Second, both myself and my opponent thought, upon first seeing this resolution, that it literally meant sleeping with an enemy. Since that's what we both had in mind when we chose this resolution, it's what we should be debating.

I expect my opponent to either accept this new definition or state why his is superior in the context of this debate.

=== "a"
My opponent recognizes that literally, the article a seems to imply that only one positive effect need be shown, not an overall positive effect or a positive effect on balance.

I must disagree with this for two reasons.
First, it causes the resolution to be abusive. There's absolutely no way to win as CON with this definition.
Second, colloquially, it seems to have a different definition.

For instance, if I said "Serial murder has a positive effect," it's clear that I mean the overall effect. Sure, it has individual positive effects [such as reducing CO2 emissions], but it's clear that serial murder does not have a positive effect in the sense I would mean it [overall]. If someone told you, in any normal conversation, that "Serial murder has a positive effect", you would most likely disagree right away, and for good reason.
By capitalizing on this poor wording, my opponent would be destroying the true intent of this debate.

Therefore, I put forward that "Overall" is implied: I will be arguing that "Sleeping with the enemy does not have a positive effect overall". Spirit of the debate over letter of the debate.

=== Pre-emptive strike
No worries, I wasn't going to make that argument anyway.

=== The PRO's and CON's of SWTE [Sleeping with the enemy]
Since my opponent used an inferior definition of SWTE in round 1, most of the benefits he stated no longer apply. For that reason, and in the interest of fairness, I will provide a couple of benefits of sleeping with the enemy according to the definition I provided.

PRO's
A> Sleeping with the enemy no doubt gives both parties a sense of physical euphoria.
B> Sleeping with the enemy allows one to psychologically infiltrate the enemy's mind, perhaps gaining access to important information that would not be had otherwise.

CON's
A> Just as in PRO B, the enemy might psychologically infiltrate your mind, perhaps gaining access to important information s/he would not otherwise have. This directly counterbalances point PRO B.
B> Sleeping with the enemy causes unnecessary feelings towards the enemy. This causes confusion. There are reasons people become enemies, and sleeping with the enemy would unfortunately cause people to become unsure of these reasons for no reason other than hormones.
C> Sex creates a bond between people. The strength of this bond is reduced when having sex with numerous people. Thus, sleeping with the enemy weakens the bond a person can share with the person they'll spend the rest of their life with.
D> Sleeping with the enemy distracts from the task at hand. Rather than sleeping with the enemy, one should be doing more productive things, such as working out the actual problems that caused the animosity in the first place or otherwise dealing with the enemy in a more meaningful way.

I will leave it at that for now, seeing as my redefining leaves my opponent at a clear disadvantage. However, it is clear that the definitions must change - when PRO can literally tell us "Why CON cannot win this debate", something is wrong. If one member CANNOT win, it is not a debate. I believe my definitions are much more suitable for a fair debate, and they are more in line with the intent of the debate than my opponent's definitions.

I'll see you back here for round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

========================================
Definition of "sleeping with the enemy"|
========================================

CON starts by by disagreeing with my definition and stating that he wishes to define the definition in the literal sense. However, if you look at my definition, you'll note that it does not disallow the literal sense of the phrase:

"The phrase "sleeping with the enemy" is often used to describe a situation involving a non-adversarial relationship between two individuals or entities that would normally be unfriendly or adversarial."

Having sex with your enemy would be a situation involving a non adversarial relationship, therefore, CON is not disagreeing with my definition in the slightest. Rather, he is conceding to it.

Also, he says that we agreed upon arguing this debate in a certain way, yet nowhere, do I see any agreement. If anything, my more recent post on face book would suggest that I didn't know what way I would be arguing in this debate. Of course, if you buy his argument, then you must note that I had also stated that my thoughts of the matter concerning the article "a." Nowhere, does CON raise objection to this, therefore, by his own reasoning, he'd have to accept that condition as well. Thus, turn his argument around as it actually works for me instead.

Moreover, he says that my definition is abusive as it prevents him from winning this debate but never tells you why the definition of "SWTE" does this, thus, you are to dismiss this claim for the time being. Furthermore, nowhere in my previous round did I insist that it was the definition of "sleeping with the enemy" that keeps CON from winning.

Definitions: Vantage PRO.

===========================================
Re: Why CON cannot win this debate; the nasty article "a"|
===========================================

1) CON says that this causes the resolution to be abusive as there is no way he can win. Contrary to what I said, if you'll observe my R1, I clearly laid out an honest means for CON to debate in this debate and that is to refute any of the effects I list as being positive. Furthermore, he could just as well go about this debate in a philosophical route by insisting that positive effects do not exist or that all effects are neither positive or negative, but neutral. Both would suffice. All I've really suggested is that CON has a high burden.

2) He says that if he were to say serial killing has a positive effect, I would immediately disagree. I disagree with him suggesting that. Colloquially, if he were going to make the above point about serial killing, he'd say "Serial killing is good or that (as he has attempting to change the terms of this resolution), "overall, serial killing is good." But to insist that it has a positive effect? If anything, individuals may only rise against such a claim due to the strong hatred of murder as well as the belief that no good comes out of it. Not off of any logical basis of course.

As for true intent of this debate, I'm afraid there isn't one. Indeed, there was a reason I had polled the tournament directors about this topic in the first place: http://www.facebook.com...

Note how the first directer confesses that HE DOESN'T KNOW THE INTENT OF THIS TOPIC. As for the creator of the topic, note how he suggests that there is no need for intent as this boils down to who can be more persuasive. I defined the topics as I saw fit (as encouraged by the very directors). It is the contenders job to either deal with these conditions or prove that his conditions are superior, but you are not to take into consideration any of these claims of abuse as none of them hold any water.

=================================================
What good can come from sleeping with the enemy?
==================================================

CON drops this contention, presumably on the gamble that his argument of the matter of the definitions will stand strong. If you don't buy his definition argument, you are to extend this argument. How it shapes the round you ask? He is not only agreeing with me on the positive effects that come from sleeping with the enemy (based on how I define it), but even according to his rendering of the resolution (on the matter of "overall"), he would still be in the wrong as my claim has gone uncontested PERIOD. Therefore, since you've only seen the positive, you are obligated to assume that it is positive overall.

====================================================
If CON cannot win this debate, it is not a debate |
====================================================

I cover this above. In addition

=========
Verdict |
=========

If you end up accepting my argument, then CON has automatically lost the debate (since he is only relying on the claim of abuse to shield against my contentions).

Now to pacify CON as well as judges who dislike the route I've gone, I'm going to pull a rabbit out of my hat; not only will I be maintaining my above argument, but I'm going to be 100% efficient and disprove CON even on his own terms. So yes, let us assume that I'm wrong for the most part . . .

=== The PRO's and CON's of SWTE [Sleeping with the enemy]===

First, in addition to the positive effects CON listed,

PROS:

C> "Sexing the enemies brains out" also brings about the positive effect which I had been discussing earlier; it is an opportunity to promote peace. We must keep in mind that peace is the ultimate goal of every good society as it nullifies ill-will against one another. Just imagine if enough people successfully sleep with their enemies and bring about peace with one another. Soon enough, there will be no enemies. This effect has precedence as this takes into account all of the arranged marriages which have been used to severe war like ties between two enemy tribes.

D> Sleeping with the enemy can no doubt serve to be a thrill. Honestly now, how dull it must be to merely be sleeping around with your friends when your enemies who are essentially forbidden fruit remain in your sights, ripe for the picking? In short, it can offer a nice change in pace (which is good for one in mental terms).

E>Sleeping with the enemy is a masochist/sadist wet dream! For the people who are into domination fantasies, sleeping with the enemy is the way to go. When you think your sexual partner (enemy) has been a bad boy/girl, you will be honest about it! And pulling out that whip as well as those other "toys" which I probably shouldn't be talking about will be a great way to give your enemy what's coming to him/her as well as a means of reducing your own pent up stress which your enemy is no doubt the cause of (and with less stress, the more easily one can complete their daily routines). And the ones who are into submission with reap just as much pleasure.

Now in response to the CONS:

Re A> This is the same as PRO B, so they cancel out and are beyond consideration.

Re B> These unnecessary feelings "as in, admiration and adulation of your enemy" is a chance for peace, so I'd say PRO A defeats PRO B.

Re C> The resolution doesn't encourage sex with numerous people, so this one doesn't even apply. Dismissed.

Re D> This one is also to be dismissed given that one could just as easily reap the benefits of sleeping with the enemy AND try to work out the cause of the aforementioned animosity. Although what really kills this point is PRO A where such animosity can easily be eliminated, thus not being something to worry about.

PRO: 4. CON: 0

The PRO's and CON's of SWTE [Sleeping with the enemy]: Vantage: PRO

Thus, I believe I've shown that EVEN OVERALL, the effects to sleeping with the enemy are positive. As you can see, from both approaches, the instigator is victorious in this debate.
beem0r

Con

Me R2
Created Thursday 10 July 2008

Defs
I concede my opponent's definition of SWTE. It's been shown superior.

I will stand by my analysis regarding the article 'a'. I believe the intent of the resolution was that we debate whether sleeping with the enemy is good or bad overall, not whether or not there is at least one positive effect.

Forks
However, I will do something that is rather, err, precedented. My opponent has no monopoly on hats or rabbits, nor on the ability to pull one out of the other. Therefore, I will be doing just what my opponent asks of me - to show him that all the effects he's listed are invalid in proving the resolution. In addition to this, I will present some more CON's to working with the enemy to support my original case.

My opponent may object to me switching it up like this. He should not. In his R1, he claimed that I "literally cannot win as the resolution contains a single flaw." He scared me into running away from the direct conflict that was open to me, by intentionally lying - claiming that it was impossible. Now that he has cleared that up, and admitted to being contradictory in his original claims. Because of this blatant lie, my opponent should not see it abusive of me to go now, in round 2, to go the route he's asking me to go even now.

Invalidating the 'positive effects'
My opponent claims many positive effects for sleeping with the enemy. He has told me twice so far that all I have to do to win is show that none of his 'positive effects' are valid.

"[...] promotes peace"
Peace is not necessarily positive as my opponent claims. I made this point last round. There are usually reasons people are enemies. The way people should go about making peace is through actually settling their differences, not just by burying their feelings. If peace is acheived solely by working together in this way, no dispute is actually settled. Whatever "beef" there was is still there. Conflict in these cases is good, since conflict is what settles "beef".
Note that my opponent did not respond to this argument last round, he simply stated that one of his points outweighed it. However, this is only if peace is more important than settling the actual root problems, which is not necessarily true. Solving the root problems is much more important, since they can cause much more problems in the long run. Therefore, peace in this case is not neccessarily, and not usually, a positive effect. Conflict is the best way for enemies to settle their differences.

"enemies who are now working together can get far more accomplished than they could alone"
This is usually true, though there are likely diminishing returns. Here's an example.
Two treasure hunters, Bob and Joe, are roughly as good as each other at finding treasure. Bitter rivals they may be, but they decide to work together.
Bob and Joe can each get 2000 dollars of treasure in a week. Working together, due to diminishing returns, they would get something between 2000 and 4000 in that same timeframe. We'll say it's 3600.
Now, in the time either one of them could have gotten 2000, they've each only gotten 1800.
Also, note that enemies work together much worse than friends do. Bickering, discontent, etc, could lower their productivity even more.

Working individually in parallel works much better than working together, at least for enemies.

At least in many cases, working together does NOT let enemies get more accomplished overall. Therefore, it is not a positive effect., since it doesn't even satisfy being a general rule.

Not only that, but the effect can sometimes be negative. Consider two anti-semetic leaders joining forces to commit mass Jewicide. The possibility of them accomplishing more genocide than they would have alone is certainly not positive.

For these reasons "working together with enemies can help you accomplish more!" is not positive as a general rule. Very rarely is it.

"Sex => physical euphoria"
This is one very minor instance of sleeping with the enemy having a positive effect. Most instnaces of sleeping with the enemy, by the definition we both agree on, do not contain this benefit. This too cannot be stated even as a general rule.

"Access to helpful information"
This applies very rarely. When enemies work together, they're likely to hide as much from each other as possible. They are enemies, after all. Just because they're working together doesn't mean they're buddies, otherwise it wouldn't be sleeping with the _enemy_.
So this does not apply as a general rule.

"Sex => peace"
First, sex rarely applies in instances of sleeping with the enemy. Second, as I already pointed out, peace should only be obtained through actually settling differences. For enemies, conflict and negotiation are what's best for settling beef, not some blanket of peace that just covers up all the problems rather than fixing them.

"Sex with enemies = thrill, change in pace"
Once again, sex with enemies rarely applies. So this positive effect does not satisfy being a general rule.

"Sex with enemy => awesome for sadomasochists"
First, most people aren't sadomasochists, so this doesn't apply as a general rule. Second, once again, sex rarely applies when we're talking about sleeping with the enemy. Therefore, it's even less likely that this positive effect will show itself.

I've shown that each of my opponent's supposed positive effects either rarely is present or rarely is positive. Therefore, my opponent has only shown that there is 'sometimes' a positive effect. However, that is a positition that contradicts the resolution, and it is indeed my stance.
My opponent claims that there IS a positive effect, I claim that there is only sometimes a positive effect.

=== Alt
On to the alternate burden.
For this burden, I only must show that sleeping with the enemy is overall not positive.

Many of my previous arguments make my case here.
First, the fact that conflict is better for actually resolving the actual problems between enemies than peace is. Since SWTE brings about peace, which stops conflict, it keeps around these problems. Problems will not be dealt with unless there is conflict.

Second, the point about diminishing returns. It's often better to not work with your enemy, since you'll have more return on investment that way. 100,000 men might be better than 50,000 men for a given task, but not twice as good.

Next, SWTE serves your enemy's interests just as much as it serves your own. It's like giving an Popeye a can of spinach while you're in a fight with him.

Oh, and infighting makes people less productive.

SWTE is not good overall, nor can it be said solidly that SWTE has a positive effect. It could have positive effects, it could have none. However, it almost certainly has some negative effects.
Infighting.
Feeding the mouth that bites you.
Diminishing returns.
Problems are not solved, they're just swept under the rug.

And with that, I've fulfilled the burdens either way.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

=Definition of "sleeping with the enemy"

CON concedes to my definition as well as the reasons he insisted to have it negated, so there is no reason to disconsider it at this point in the debate.

=Re: Why CON cannot win this debate; the article "a"

1) What was marked as #1 previously is gets conceded to, so CON's claims on abuse are declared to be dismissed by him. He brought up his new position for this debate on this matter, so I will deal with that momentarily.

2) In terms of the article "a", I provided a solid rebuttal to CON's explanation on this matter. He is merely hoping that his previous explanation will outweigh mine. However, the fact of the matter is that you are to consider my explanation above his, since he refuses to address my objection to it now. IMPACT: I am correct on the matter of you only having to buy ONE of the effects which I listed previously in order for me to win this debate. Although I know you're familiar with how things generally go in these debates, I'll just restate a rule which I suspect CON may violate: New arguments are prohibited; if CON tries to come back and respond to what was said on the article "a" or anything else which wasn't responded to in his R2, you are not to take any of it into consideration.

=Why CON cannot win this debate

This is indeed a highly abusive practice for him to pull now as it was not what he was advocating in the previous round. I will rebutt his reasons as to why he says this is justified.

He states that he is justified to switch up because I lied and am now recanting what was said. Let us refer back to what I stated in R1:

"It is the contenders job to prove that there is/are no positive effect/s to sleeping with the enemy. This is indeed a tremendous burden, but such is the nature of this resolution. Basically, as long as you buy at least "one" of the positive effects which I point out, I win this debate." This is exactly what I said in R2 as well. If anything, when I said CON couldn't win, it was to be taken in same sense as me saying that an untrained out of shop individual could not defeat Bruce Lee in his prime in a regular street fight; the burden for CON is extremely high (which was also stated during R1). Thus, I've been saying the same thing since ROUND ONE (both that he can't win as well a there being a possible way to win). Therefore, CON is to blame for not having taken heed of a comment until the SECOND time it was uttered. IMPACT: I've blatantly refuted the only defense CON has offered for his actions in changing the overall flow of his argument. Because of this, you are to see what he is doing now as shifting his advocacy.

=What good can come from sleeping with the enemy?; RE: Invalidating the positive effects

Fortunately though, I still wish to maintain 100% efficiency, thus (even though I don't have to), I shall refute CON's new arguments against my case anyway.

"promotes peace"

1) Nowhere in CON's last round did he rebutt the matter of peace, so claiming that he did is false.

2) CON says that no dispute is settled if peace is actually achieved through working together by means of putting aside negative feelings. Keep in mind that I clearly stated that working hand in hand with your foes is a promotion of the opportunity for peace in R1. There's no doubt that temporarily burying negative feelings for one another won't do the job in itself, however, it provides an opportunity for the job to get accomplished. Because honestly, do you really think that two conflicting parties are just going to randomly come together and decide that it's high time they settle their differences? Of course not. If, however, two enemy parties are put into the position to where they must work together, as CON points out, they will have to bury their negative feelings for one another. This will provide the two sides an opportunity to look at each without their hatred, and will be the most effiecient way at which their differences are settled.

3) He says conflict > peace, but this is a very flawed argument as conflict and peace are not mutually exclusive. CON is talking about actually settling differences and since settling differences (or in other terms, solving the root of the problems) leads to peace, CON is contradicting himself. If not, then differences are never settled, which is exactly what he labels as being the case for my argument.

"increases assets/efficiency"

1) CON givens an example, but the immediate problem with it is that CON fails to point out that the time it would take for Bob and Joe to get their money is at least half of the amount of time it would take for them to get the money individually. We must keep in mind that TIME is vastly more valuable than money. This is quite obvious as without time, there's no purpose to money. Since working with someone else (even an enemy) would reduce time, the positive effect is thus.

2) Let us look at another example which CON knows of. In the game Phoenix Wright, Justice for all, one of the main prosecuters and the main defense attorney of the game worked together to do something which neither of them could have done alone (which was to rescue Maya as well as reveal the truth in it's entirety). No doubt will CON insist that both of these characters were friends, however, given that my definition includes "enemies" in the context of "profession", I would say this is valid. Nevertheless, the point being is that through working with someone else (in this case, your enemy), you can accomplish things which you never could alone.

3) Whether or not working with a friend is better is a red herring as that's not what we're here to determine; we just need to now whether or not sleeping with the enemy has a positive effect.

4) CON throws an obvious appeal to moral argument at you with his mass genocide example, however, we must keep in mind that it was how the assets were used the produced the negative effect and not the assets themselves.

"Sex => physical euphoria"

CON brought this up and insisted that it was a positive effect OVERALL in the previous round. The fact that he is changing his advocacy now is abusive.

"Access to helpful information"

Once more, CON brought this up, and brought it up under what is "overall" positive.

"Sex => peace"

CON brought this up earlier. If sex rarely applies in instances of sleeping with the enemy, then he is contradicting what he said in his R2. I've already covered peace, so cross apply what I said on that matter here. Negotiations also lead to peace.

"Sex with enemies = thrill, change in pace"

See above on what concerns sex.

"Sex with enemy => awesome for sadomasochists"
Even if we are to consider this "general rule logic, it wouldn't matter. I clearly said that it appeals to sadomasochists, thus sleeping with the enemy has a positive effect in that it benefits sadomasochist. And once more for what applies with sleeping with the enemy, I've covered this.

At first glance, my opponent's logic on me "there is sometimes a positive effect" seems rather clever, however, taking this position will be CON's undoing. Indeed, because even if you buy his logic, you must accept that there "sometimes being a positive effect" is a positive effect in itself. Likewise, if I can sometimes donate cash to charity, then what I am sometimes doing is a positive indefinetly. Therefore, CON has conceded to the resolution under this route.

= Alt
On to the alternate burden.

1) Cross apply what I said on peace.

2) Cross apply what I said on this matter above. Furthermore, finishing the job in half the amount of time is still a positive effect. Whether or not the returns is negative doesn't matter (you can apply this to the above route if you want).

3) Not quite. In sleeping with the enemy, we've agreed that both sides get assets. Thus, it would b like popeye giving you a can of spinach too.

4) I've covered infighting.

Vote PRO.
beem0r

Con

=== "SWTE"
My opponent's definition has shown itself superior. We're using SWTE as defined by my opponent's source.

=== "A positive effect"
My opponent further clarifies his position on this later in the round; the definition he has set up for this requires only that at least ONE positive effect that is SOMETIMES a result of SWTE. Due to the sheer ridiculosity of this burden, we should instead accept the burden I have continually advocated.
To refresh your memory, I believe the resolution is asking us to argue whether the overall effect of SWTE is positive or negative. Due to the fact that the other burden [the one advocated by my opponent] is ridiculously one-sided, I will assume that we have all accepted my burden at this point. The one I advocated in R1, and the one I held to in R2. As an added bonus, it seems that my definition is most likely what was meant by the resolution: PRO's definition would have been what we call a "technicality". As I stated in one of the prior rounds, the spirit of the debate is more important than the letter of the debate [my opponent never responded to this].

=== Peace
I showed many times that peace is not necessarily positive. Peace stops conflict, and conflict is whaty solves problems. Peace is good IF the problems are already dealt with, but peace through SWTE does not actually deal with any problems that caused animositiy in the first place. It simply sweeps them under the rug.

The "burying" of negative ferelings for one another, as PRO states it, is what's bad about SWTE's peace. Feelings are still there, they're just "buried." Next time there's a dispute, those feelings will come back, ON TOP OF whatever new negative feelings. As I've previously stated, this can cause an explosion of emotion, which usually has obvious negative effects in itself.

Next, my opponent says that peace and conflict are not mutually exclusive. This is ridiculous. If two people are in conflict, they are not at peace. If they are at peace, they are not currently in conflict. That's the very definition of 'peace' - a state of non-conflict.
Yes, conflict LEADS TO peace. But peace should only come about after conflict has settled the problems, not through 'burying' negative feelings for one another.

=== Diminishing returns / Efficiency
My opponent attacks my analogy with Bob and Joe, the treasure hunters. He claims that the time is less for them to get the same monetary returns working together. This is clearly not true - in the analogy, it takes them 1 week to make 2000 each [each working individually]. And it takes them 1 week working together to make 1800 each, due to the law of diminishing returns. Even if we discount the law of diminishing returns, they would each make 2000 in a week in either case. There's no time advantage to SWTE here.
Note that even if we discount diminishing returns [which my opponent never argued against applying here], we still have the issue of infighting. SWTE requires that you work with someone who is an 'enemy.' As I pointed out, enemies don't work very well together. There would be bickering, there would be a lack of good communication, etc.

-- The other example
It's true that in the game, the defense and the prosecution worked together and in doing so accomplished their task more efficiently than they could have otherwise. However, let us consider a few things:
First, it is fiction. Just like the rest of the game, this bit doesn't really translate to real life. It's clearly a game that was made to be sensational, not to be realistic.
Next, they ARE friends at this point. Edgeworth [the prosecution] would not have worked together with Phoenix [the defense] this way if they were not, since Edgeworth had nothing to gain. My opponent says that 'professional enemies' should count in the definition, but the source for his definition makes no such statement. Enemies, as far as the definition is concerned, is 'people who are on unfriendly terms.'
--

It's true that we're not here to determine whether working with a friend is better, but whether working with the enemy is good. However, I've shown above that it is not - it's less efficient per person than working on your own.

=== Sex -> X
My opponent claims that since I thought in round 1 that these arguments applied overall to SWTE, it's clear to anyone reading that they no longer apply overall. Since round 1, I have conceded to my opponent's definition of SWTE, which invalidates these as anything to even be considered when talking about SWTE 'overall'. Sex is so rarely part of SWTE that it would be a waste of time to discuss it [it's probably less than 0.1% of SWTE].

It's not abusive for me to change my position on this, especially when it's a direct result of me CONCEDING a point. Conceding a point can never be seen as abusive, it's simply agreeing with your opponent's viewpoint.

Rather than attacking the arguments I made on these issues, my opponent has taken the route of simply complaining that I changed my position since round 1. Even if it wasn't a result of me conceding a point, I should be able to switch advocacy at any time. Switching advocacy does not invalidate any new points I make.

=== "Sometimes"
My opponent claims that sometimes being a positive effect is a positive effect in itself. However, an effect is something that actually happens, whereas 'sometimes' indicates a possibility that something does not happen.
It is like me saying that a negative effect of swimming is that you might drown. The fact that I said 'might' means that it is not an effect, it is a possibility. It could sometimes be an effect, but swimming does not generally have the effect of causing people to drown.
As I've alreadyt stated, the sometimes argument makes my opponent's burden far too ridiculous. However, with this argument against 'sometimes,' you are free to cmoe up with whatever alternate burden you want, if you accept neither mine nor my opponents.
Keep in mind that my opponent has not shown any positive effect that is always there.

=== Alt
Assuming that we accept the burden I provided, I see no reason to vote PRO.
1. Cross apply what I said regarding peace.
2. Cross apply what I said regarding efficiency [and the argument against the 'less time' argument]
3. My opponent states that we can liken SWTE to being in a fight with Popeye, and each getting a can of spinach. Ouch.
4. My opponent didn't really cover infighting at all. Anyway, infighting is the fact that enemies don't work well together, and this reduces efficiency [covered in my efficiency argument, along with diminishing returns and some examples.]

I believe I have shown that sleeping with the enemy is overall a bad thing, among other things. Thank you to my opponent for an interesting debate, and thank you in advance to the judges for their judgements.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"Congrats on the win LM."

http://doulifee.com...

. . . sorry, but the PW craze remains strong in this one. :P
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I would completely agree with you on this debate being quite a high stakes gamble. In general, at least from what I've noticed on this site, people immediately dismiss arguments that are weighed down on the wording of the topic. Despite that two of the paradigms of our judges checked out (in that it was possible to go this route with them)(Pluto's was the only one I didn't think I'd be able to convince, given the clause of his paradigm which points out that he dislikes these kinds of arguments), I was beginning to think that I would lose this debate anyway.

In any case, good debate. Till next time. :D
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 8 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
I find it funny that the rest of the members of debate.org overwhelmingly voted in favor of Beem0r, but the 3 votes that wouldn't sway the debate.org vote, make L-M the winner. Interesting. So congrats L-M for your Facebook win, and congrats to Beem0r for his debate.org win.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Congrats on the win LM.

Nice fight Beem0r.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Gah. Good Job L-M.

I would say I was a fool to throw so many eggs in the 'ohnoes, you're being unfair!' basket, but there was really nothing better I could do otherwise. At least nothing better that I didn't also do on the side. Oh well.

It's been fun. I'm fairly certain we both put this so high on our lists as a high-stakes gamble [though I did think I was going to miraculously win for a while]. The wording makes it extremely hard to win as CON, unless you're able to convince people to accept a non-literal interpretation in favor of the literal one. Which I failed to do, at least as far as the people who count [judges] are concerned.

Good luck getting to the finals.
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
I'll be judging tomorrow

Debate camp ;)
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 8 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
Hello debaters,

Congratulations to both of you, for coming this far.

I am Fasih Ahsan, judge #2.

THIS WAS A BATTLE OF THE JUGGERNAUTS.

But....

__________
Vote: PRO (Logical-Master)

*You find my full post on Online Debate Tournaments.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Thanks for the pseudo-votes. I'll hold any specific response/clarification/etc until after the judges decide on a winner.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Wow! What a great debate!!!

I decided to post my 2 cents just for fun -- I'm not an official judge of this debate or anything (I haven't judged for awhile). I hope the judges don't take this posting into account; I simply wanted to give my input as a spectator. I also feel it must be said that originally I had every inclination to vote for the Pro, and it wasn't until I actually sat down and wrote it all out for myself that I decided

Vote: Con

Reasoning:

R1 -- Pro has two main points (1) opportunity for peace (2) increased assets. I find the 'article a' argument to be a bit of a stretch, and agree with Con that for the purpose of the debate, the topic of the resolution is meant to indicate which is overall more beneficial. Anyway, in R1 Con provided a positive outcome of SWTE that Pro did not mention. Why would he help his opponent? Even if he countered that point, it was probably unwise in terms of strategy to list an argument for the Pro. Anyway, two of Con's points regard sleeping with the enemy to refer to sex specifically, whereas I didn't really take the pros/cons regarding sexual activity too seriously throughout the debate (i.e. sadomasachists can beat each other in bed lol). Thus the only point really assumed by the Con in this round was (1) distraction. If I were Con, I personally would have elaborated on this point a bit further, but I won't get into it now...

[Pro 2, Con 1]
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
R2 -- Pro essentially affirms his point that SWTE promotes peace, and elaborates on it. This overrides Con's refutation in R1 that claimed SWTE does not solve the problem but merely temporarily hides it. Pro accomplished this through example (arranged marriages) and explanation. Con tries to explain how working together does not exactly promote peace - and it could have been a good argument - but I didn't buy the whole "conflict is good" approach. I still give this point to the Pro, though it could have been executed better from both ends (maybe my elaboration is what always gets me in trouble with the character limit lol oh well). Anyway. I do agree with Con that enemies working together could lead to diminishing returns and/or lower productivity due to the enemies not getting along or what have you, so Pro's original point about increased assets has been successfully argued, IMO. Two enemies working together for something bad is an argument that Con presented, but is cancelled out -- this collaboration could be used for either good or bad and argued by both parties. So at the end of R2, Pro's point about promoting peace still stands over Con's, however Con has made better arguments for the fact that diminishing returns and conflict lead to less productivity/assets, and that by sleeping with the enemy, your opponent gets the same advantages that you do. I won't give this point to Con just yet, but it comes up again in R3...

[Pro 1 , Con 1].
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 7 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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-Masterbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Zero 8 years ago
Zero
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by birdpiercefan3334 8 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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