The Instigator
chip
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
philosphical
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points

'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
chip
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,911 times Debate No: 7425
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (7)

 

chip

Con

I've always been interested by this Lord Tennyson Alfred quote. I find it to be untrue. Heres why:

1. The Story behind It: These lines are a part of In Memoriam, which Tennyson wrote after the death of his beloved friend Arthur Hallam. Tennyson had met Hallam in 1829, when they were both students at Trinity College, Cambridge. Hallam's sudden death in 1833 threw Tennyson into a tormented and near-suicidal state. Clearly it is not true, merely by its context. His grief was almost too much to endure, and this grief could clearly be avoided if this friend had not been in his life in the first place. Clearly this argument shows how i outweigh in terms of magnitude: voting pro can result in death, the ultimate result that we want to avoid.

2. It is physically untrue. According to Bella DePaulo, Professor of psychology at the University of Caifornia, Santa Barbara: "Tennyson has been felled by science - the data show that the phrase is just not true. In happiness, health, longevity, and just about everything else that has been studied, people who have always been single do better than people who were previously married (divorced or widowed). The results are are quite consistently in the opposite direction than Tennyson would have led us to believe." Thus we can see why in no physical sense is the phrase true, and that is enough to vote con, no matter what my opponent says.

3. The phrase leads to more stress in the future. DePaulo continues: "Scholars have a ready response to the phrase. It even has its own name, with three variations: the "stress" or "crisis" or "loss" hypothesis. People who have always been single have not experienced the same depth of stress (or crisis or loss) as people who have divorced or become widowed."
This is important: inherently, therefore, the con is creating less depth of stress in the future than the pro.

4. People who work alone have a greater mastery of the activities of life. Think of all the tasks that married people divide between them. The splits are a little less likely to be traditional than they once were (she takes care of the kids and the cooking, he pays the bills and mows the lawn), but they are often apportioned in some way. While the marriage lasts, this can be useful and efficient. When it is over, though, the newly uncoupled individuals are left with mastery of only those tasks that were once in their domain. So once your loved one leaves, you are left without the skill set necessary to survive in years, while single people always have these abilities.

I am look forward to my opponents rebuttal.
philosphical

Pro

traditionally, i will start this rebuttal by thanking my opponent for such an amazing topic, and i am surprised i did not think of starting a debate like this one earlier.

ok to begin, i will refute the opponents case, then make some points of my own.

OPPONENTS CASE:
1.
MY OPPONENT: "Hallam's sudden death in 1833 threw Tennyson into a tormented and near-suicidal state. Clearly it is not true, merely by its context. His grief was almost too much to endure, and this grief could clearly be avoided if this friend had not been in his life in the first place."

ME: It is true that death does occur in life, and that when it does, it is a very tragic thing, but i would have to oppose that it is still better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. because living a life in loniless, is possibly one of the worst things ever to befall an individual. one may say they are content living in lonliness, but in reality, they would be lying to themselves and to the rest of the world. Because every one wants to be loved, understood, and heard. Everyone needs to have some one there to share their thoughts and feelings with, to care about and, to be there for. because being single means to have lost every oppurtunity at opening up. proven fact: being alone can drive some one crazy. The young eighteen year old at the trolley square incident lived alone with no one to relate to and share his feelings with. so instead he decided to express his feelings of anger towards the world by wreaking havoc upon innocents. same with the virginia tech massacre. all alone and empty with no one there for them.
and people choose this life style of lonliness, because theye are afraid of loss.
there thought train is "if i get too close to this person, they will just leave me like everyone else has. might as well just not even try."
Because someone you loved died, does not mean you should just give up on love in general. Remember all the happy times you had with that person, remember these and know you can have them again with someone else. death should not stand in the way of having love. because love is something everyone can have and experience over again.

2.
MY OPPONENT:"in just about everything else that has been studied, people who have always been single do better than people who were previously married (divorced or widowed). The results are are quite consistently in the opposite direction than Tennyson would have led us to believe"

ME: is this an overall result? and if so where are the statistics? And anyway, it is true, that alot of relationships aren't perfect. there are always going to be hard times, but does that mean it is better to just give up on them?
Not at all. because in the end which benefits you more? living a life of lonliness or living a life of love? even though there are obstacles, doesn't mean it is better to give up on them. Now-a-days there has been an increased rate of divorce, and faltered relationships. but people who divorce, can you really call that love? in todays society, we tend to jump into relationships without fully understanding or caring, about what might happen afterwards. this is one major reason divorce rates grow. These relationships are not true love relationships. Because marriage is an eternal vow of love towards another, and to break that means to lie about your love. but even so, a divorce will not prevent you from loving again, it will just strengthen you to make better decisions for a relationnship;

MY OPPONENT: "and that is enough to vote con, no matter what my opponent says."

ME: i am sorry but i always find it quite insulting to find an opponent makes pre-judgements before i even have even argued one point. you could say something like "with this evidence my opponent will have a hard time refuting me" but to say that it is impossible for your opponent to win before he even makes his first response is a little rude, and contradicts the purpose of debate. that aside, i shall move on.

3.
MY OPPONENT: "People who have always been single have not experienced the same depth of stress (or crisis or loss) as people who have divorced or become widowed"

ME:yes but are you to say all love is, is just stress? what about the stress love cures? having some one to talk to... having some on who will listen to you and help you... having some one who will do anything for you the second they are needed... and again when losing love, all can be gained back. as opposed to being single lonely and hard pressed with work and life.

4.
MY OPPONENT: "So once your loved one leaves, you are left without the skill set necessary to survive in years, while single people always have these abilities."

ME: But does that mean you cant find another to fill in that position?

thankyou for this debate once again. i am hard pressed on time only having so much time to respond, but i enjoyed this debate topic.

-philosphical
Debate Round No. 1
chip

Con

1.My opponent says that death happens, and that if you are lonely you will be sad, perhaps turning you into a crazed murderer.
a.First off, this rebuttal is beside the point. I've shown why LOSING love ensures a large amount of eventual grief, and he has failed to show why this is better than the con alternative, merely saying that bad things can happen in the con world. Look at the topic: Tis BETTER to have loved, etc, etc. Therefore, in order to win he must weigh the harms with the benefits, something he hasn't done.
b.My situation still stands as more probable. Look at topic. We have a 100% CHANCE of grief when losing this person of their affection. The examples of people living alone going mentally insane are overstated. Anyone who has lived alone should know, living alone for a little while doesn't ALWAYS lead to insane people. In that way, my opponent has failed to show why it is better, but has succeeded in reinforcing my point that to love and lose is worse.
c.All of these rebuttals are hinge on the fact that one is being loved back. How can we assume this? I can just as easily give the example of a person you had a crush on, but never paid attention to you, who died a few years later. Who wouldn't agree that this action results in the most suffering?
d.My opponent has ignored the main point of this argument. Look to my quote: "this grief could clearly be avoided if this friend had not been in his life in the first place." He never responds to this point. All possible suffering can be avoided, so anywhere he mentions my creating suffering, disreguard it.
2.There will be hard times no matter what in relationships, and it's not true love.
a.I fail to see how saying that we are going into relationships too quickly and divorce rates have any relevance to the round. He has merely said that the relationships studied were not actually relationships. Let me remind you of what my point was: that people who were previously married have no advantage over those who were never married before "In happiness, health, longevity, and just about everything else that has been studied, people who have always been single do better than people who were previously married (divorced or widowed)"In order to win, he has to prove that people WILL be happier despite losing a loved one. Until he can give a single piece of proof as to why this is true, I should have win with is point. Which also brings me to the complaint he lodged earlier on my point of "that is enough to vote con" This is not a reason to vote pro, so his critiquing my conduct shouldn't be valued, but I am merely trying to drive home the point that the topic HAS BEEN PROVED FALSE by a scientific study. I apologize for offending anyone.
b.This is where I got my stats, Ms. DePaul is a respected member of her field. http://www.amazon.com... http://blogs.psychologytoday.com...
c.Now that we are beyond this, let's look at the big picture: I talked about the scientific evidence as to why I negate the topic, and my opponent ignored this, merely saying that we can't expect all relationships to be perfect. This is also irrelevant. Inherent to the topic is that the relations is finished for whatever reason, so his comments here can be disregaurded. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE RELATIONSHIP FALLS APART. I have proven through science why the topic is untrue, he never responds to this evidence, other than saying that relationships aren't perfect, and doesn't account for widows, a far more relevant example.
3."love is not all stress"
a.This is a misinpretation. I'm saying that the loss of a loved one results in stress that is not present in the con world. He never responds to the fact that pro creates unnecessary suffering, through the crisis hypothesis. This matters; think about Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other issues that accompany this kind of stress. He also says that lost love can be gotten back, but it is not always this easy.
4.You can have another person to fill this position?
a.First of all, there is a clear contradiction. He says that our society has petty relationships and then says "well we can always find a new perfect person to marry"
b.Next, It's never really that easy. It's an assumption to say that we can just go on the streets and pick up a new woman, tailor made.

Here's the overview: He hasn't provided a single way why it is BETTER to have loved and lost. This has major implications. Even if you believe everything he's said so far, he doesn't provide a reason to affirm the topic, so I still win the debate.

In addition to this, we have a choice here: neutral feeling or sadness. Inherent to the topic is that you WILL lose this friend, and that will make you sad. Avoid any sadness: vote con.
philosphical

Pro

MY OPPONENT:
"1.My opponent says that death happens, and that if you are lonely you will be sad, perhaps turning you into a crazed murderer."
ME:
1.yes i did say that, point being that being alone is not as good as having lost some one and still being able to love. catch that?

MY OPPONENT:
" Look at the topic: Tis BETTER to have loved, etc, etc. Therefore, in order to win he must weigh the harms with the benefits, something he hasn't done."

did i not say several times, that it is possible to gain love back after losing it? and with experience for the next relationship to boot. as opposed to the negitivity not experiencing love brings.

MY OPPONENT: "We have a 100% CHANCE of grief when losing this person of their affection. The examples of people living alone going mentally insane are overstated. Anyone who has lived alone should know, living alone for a little while doesn't ALWAYS lead to insane people. In that way, my opponent has failed to show why it is better, but has succeeded in reinforcing my point that to love and lose is worse"

ME: ok i get it. you lose someone obviously its gonna suck. But that doesn't mean its the end of the world and life is thus pointless. You put it out there that it sucks, and everything about it fom then on is going to be worse for you. and because you put it out there, thats exactly what will happen until someone changes their way of thinking. When your loved one dies, you instantly think "oh life is pointless" and you instantly start thinking of how bad things are from then on out. But what if it isn't that way? how would anyone find out? what if instead you thought "this was really sad that this person died, but now they are in a happier place. all is not lost, because i can change it to be something new and make somethign of it."
by doing this you have opened yourself up to a whole new world where anything is possible.
http://www.thesecret.tv...

MY OPPONENT: "All of these rebuttals are hinge on the fact that one is being loved back. How can we assume this? I can just as easily give the example of a person you had a crush on, but never paid attention to you, who died a few years later. Who wouldn't agree that this action results in the most suffering?"

ME:
Ok so in this situation you never actually lose love, because it was lost to begin with. they never liked the other back, therefore, is was never 'lost' seeing as it was never there in the first place. but aside that, just because your crush didnt pull through for you, doesn't mean its impossibe to have a loving relationship from that point on. remember bad things happen when you put bad vibes out. put good vibes out and you will most likely find another love who loves you back. instead of assuming love is a crisis before ever giving it even a second chance.

MY OPPONENT:"My opponent has ignored the main point of this argument. Look to my quote: "this grief could clearly be avoided if this friend had not been in his life in the first place." He never responds to this point. All possible suffering can be avoided, so anywhere he mentions my creating suffering, disreguard it."

ME: ive ignored it?? hmm... (looks over rebuttal)

ME: "It is true that death does occur in life, and that when it does, it is a very tragic thing, but i would have to oppose that it is still better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all"

ME: "Because someone you loved died, does not mean you should just give up on love in general. Remember all the happy times you had with that person, remember these and know you can have them again with someone else."

ME: "death should not stand in the way of having love."

ha so i havent argued it huh?

HA HA just a friendly tip...(read your opponents case) ;)
but being the good fellow i am, i will once again rebut this.

YES the grief would be avoided, but so would the happiness and experiences that the love brought in the first place. and instead you would be confronted with the grief of lonlieness, and seldomness.

MY OPPONENT: "fail to see how saying that we are going into relationships too quickly and divorce rates have any relevance to the round. He has merely said that the relationships studied were not actually relationships. Let me remind you of what my point was: that people who were previously married have no advantage over those who were never married before"

ME: ARGH you fail to see my point. you cant lose love if you dont have it.. And i also brought up how losing love due to divorce strengthens relationships. You have learned from experience and mistakes, ones that you will know how to fix once in a new relationship.

MY OPPONENT:
"In order to win, he has to prove that people WILL be happier despite losing a loved one."

ME: shall i once again show you how i have done this? nah i wont because i have only so much time to argue.
But the point made here is that anyone can choose to be happy or eternally hurt by losing love. If they choose to move on and love again then they can and it will be better for them as opposed to lonliness.

NY OPPONENT: "This is not a reason to vote pro, so his critiquing my conduct shouldn't be valued, but I am merely trying to drive home the point that the topic HAS BEEN PROVED FALSE by a scientific study. I apologize for offending anyone."
ME:
Its not proved false just because a couple people THINK that it is false. or else it would not be a metter of debate rendering this whole thing pointless. and there was no offence taken, just pointing out that no debate is unwinnable and its just a little rude to incinuate that you deserve to win before the opponent even makes a rebuttal.

MY OPPONENT:"This is where I got my stats, Ms. DePaul is a respected member of her field. http://www.amazon.com...... http://blogs.psychologytoday.com...;

ME: the first site is a pic of a book. doesnt do much for me...
the second is just an over extended description of how things can work out when your single. which in no way proves to me how it is better to be single and alone then to lose love and continue to love afterwards. yes i understand that when not in love you can accomplish many things. but i am trying to prove how losing love and continuing to love is better than single status.

MY OPPONENT: "I talked about the scientific evidence as to why I negate the topic, and my opponent ignored this, merely saying that we can't expect all relationships to be perfect. "

ME: love is not a science. therefore inpossible to prove with science. this is a philosphical debate, meaning opinions over opinions.

MY OPPONENT: "He never responds to the fact that pro creates unnecessary suffering, through the crisis hypothesis"

ME: Unnecessary suffering? this is life. life is full Unnecessary suffering. we move on. thats my point ive been making thtroughout this debate.

MY OPPONENT:"He also says that lost love can be gotten back, but it is not always this easy."

ME: nothing in life is "easy". and being alone is certainly not easy either with all the responsiblilty on your shoulders.

MY OPPONENT:"First of all, there is a clear contradiction. He says that our society has petty relationships and then says "well we can always find a new perfect person to marry"

ME: meaning finding true love is up to the individual.

MY OPPONENT: "Next, It's never really that easy. It's an assumption to say that we can just go on the streets and pick up a new woman, tailor made."

ME: Did i say 'go on the streets and just pick up some random woman'? i dont recall... love is more complex then than that. make of it what you will buddy.

MY OPPONENT:"He hasn't provided a single way why it is BETTER to have loved and lost."

ME: re-read my rebuttal.

ok i have much more to say however i am low on CR's so i will finish this off in round three.

thanks!
kudos.

-philosophical
Debate Round No. 2
chip

Con

Okay, so the arguments are getting a little bit all over the place. I'm not going to try to go through every one and reiterate myself on these issues; I'll just try to sum up the debate. I've gotten pretty lost in both sides' rebuttals, so try to stay with me.

Here's what it comes down to:

My case has empirical evidence (I linked to the picture of the book because I OWN that book, and that's where most of this is coming from) as to why the topic is not true.

My opponent says that this is irrelevant because it's only one opinion, relationships aren't perfect, and so this doesn't matter.

First of all, if my evidence can so easily be countered with other evidence, why has my opponent not presented a single piece of evidence other than a link to that ridiculous "the secret" site? Certainly because of this, I've earned your vote on "who has presented the best evidence," and the Bella DePaulo card remains unanswered. Let me once again bring this up.

"Tennyson has been felled by science - the data show that the phrase is just not true. In happiness, health, longevity, and just about everything else that has been studied, people who have always been single do better than people who were previously married (divorced or widowed). The results are quite consistently in the opposite direction than Tennyson would have led us to believe."

That's a clear reason I'm winning: no matter how logical his arguments may be, the pure science proves my point.

Look at the topic:

Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

The only reasons he gives as to why it is not acceptable to live a life of privacy is that you will become a psycho maniac or that you will have constant feelings of depression.

Clearly these people are in the minority, if your going to say that it is guaranteed that you will lose your mind living alone, that's a little abusive.

My opponent admits that it's "gonna suck" if you lose someone. In this case, there is no "if". You WILL lose this person and you WILL feel terrible. He also admits that the con side is avoiding any possible grief. So the choice is yours: vote pro, get a temporary period of happiness followed by a deep depression that will lead to you being worse off than you were in the first place (see the depaulo card), or vote con and avoid this, perhaps choosing other people to love.

This topic looks at a certain period of time: the relationship, and then the aftermath. In my findings, the detriments of the aftermath of a relationship consistently outweigh the supposed harms my opponent has claimed are present despite not citing a single study.

"HA HA just a friendly tip...(read your opponents case) ;)"

Gee thanks. He insults my conduct and proceeds to say this.

That being said, none of the quotes where he says he's addressed my point are relevant. I said: all possible suffering can be avoided. He responds by laughing at me and saying "death should not stand in the way of having love" I fail to see what relevance this has, so that's another reason to vote con: ALL POSSIBLE SUFFERING IS AVOIDED BY VOTING CON. He goes on to make an entirely new argument saying: Grief would be avoided, but so would the happiness and experiences that love brought in the first place" But I've already shown why the resulting harms are far worse than the "grief of seldomness"

"love is not a science. therefore inpossible to prove with science. this is a philosphical debate, meaning opinions over opinions."

I think it certainly helps to cite a scientific study; considering that one of the voting fields is who presented the best evidence, and to prove any practical application of this debate.

My Opponent: "life is full Unnecessary suffering"

If life was "full unnecessary suffering" then it wouldn't it be necessary? He's failed to see my point.

***********************************************************

FOR THE LAZY:

Vote Con because:

-I have presented my position backed up by scientific fact, that the resulting pain is much worse than any thing other harms that the pro presents (unwarranted) See the depaulo card earlier in this rebuttal
-He hasn't presented a single piece of offense. He's rebutted my case, but never makes the points of his own he promised earlier. So maybe he has proven that to never loved is not better than to have loved and lost, but he hasn't provided a reason why the supposed harms are outweighed by all the benefits he claims come from a relationship.
-My opponent has essentially admitted that voting pro means you will purposefully and knowingly cause yourself eventual grief. That's a reason to vote con right there: avoid any sort of grief

Also, before voting try to remember that we are not talking about whether or not to have a relationship with someone, we are talking about knowingly causing yourself grief through the loss of that person. Just think about the grief that could be avoided by voting con. So I know he'll write out this long rebuttal in a mocking tone, he'll probably mock this part too, just try to forget about your thoughts on the topic coming in, and give some thought on who really put the most into this round. Thank you.
philosphical

Pro

ok to save CR's i am just going to jump the gun on this one.

MY OPPONENT:My opponent says that this is irrelevant because it's only one opinion, relationships aren't perfect, and so this doesn't matter.First of all, if my evidence can so easily be countered with other evidence, why has my opponent not presented a single piece of evidence other than a link to that ridiculous "the secret" site? Certainly because of this, I've earned your vote on "who has presented the best evidence," and the Bella DePaulo card remains unanswered. Let me once again bring this up.

Me: I appolagize but i believe you have misread me. I actually believe i said the opposite.

ME: "love is not a science. therefore impossible to prove with science. this is a philosphical debate, meaning opinions over opinions."

that means you cant use a site and say its 'fact' like you did previously. your site was a perfectly good example of your view on opinion as was mine. I never said my source was based on fact either, but its there to support my opinion and i am not going to say it 'fact' oriented.
and about my website- i am using it as the bases of support for my case. if you read anything on it, (which i doubt you did) then maybe there would be a little more understanding as to the purpose of me posting that site. and you say because you have posted more links than i have, that you have more levy over this debate? since when did having more "sources" mean that you should win a debate. I have analyzed your links, and i do not believe they uphold your case. the picture of the book (whether you own it or not) does not show me one thing about why i should not love at all. now a link to a page from the boko giving proper opinions about the issue, would have been alot more efficient. again, a picture of a book doesn't do much for me. your second link i read from top to bottom. all i got from that is that you can accomplish things while in the sigle status. it in no way proves to me why that is BETTER though. therefor, there really is nothing for me to debate on that, seeing as the topic uses the word "better" in the complaritive form.
My cite was to go along with the point i was making about positive thinking. i gave a brief outline about the law of attraction and positive thinking and posted the cite to further inform the reader of the point i was making on the issue.

moving on.

MY OPPONENT: "That's a clear reason I'm winning: no matter how logical his arguments may be, the pure science proves my point."

ME: again assuming you win before the end of the debate? (sigh) well any ways that quote you posted is not 'science' seeing as again this debate is a philosophical debate not a proven fact. this means opinions outwiegh opinions.

My OPPONENT: "The only reasons he gives as to why it is not acceptable to live a life of privacy is that you will become a psycho maniac or that you will have constant feelings of depression."

ME: did you really read anything i have said? i used that as an option of what could happen from being lonely. but lonliness is the big issue, one which you have refused altogether to combat against.

MY OPPONENT:"Clearly these people are in the minority, if your going to say that it is guaranteed that you will lose your mind living alone, that's a little abusive."

ME: i have not once mentioned that is is guaranteed. please dont put words in my mouth. I simply mentioned that people who are like this, are generally people who are lonely and depressed.

MY OPPONENT:" You WILL lose this person and you WILL feel terrible. He also admits that the con side is avoiding any possible grief. So the choice is yours: vote pro, get a temporary period of happiness followed by a deep depression that will lead to you being worse off than you were in the first place (see the depaulo card), or vote con and avoid this, perhaps choosing other people to love."

ME: yes i did say that you will. have you completly ignored the fact that i have said many times now, that you have gained experience fom the lost relationship, and you have felt the glory of feeling love, and can continue to have that feeling with some one again even after death. of course this is completely ignored throughout the debate.

MY OPPONENT:"the detriments of the aftermath of a relationship consistently outweigh the supposed harms my opponent has claimed are present despite not citing a single study."

ME: you dont need a 'study' outline on a debate based on opinions.

MY OPPONENT:
Gee thanks. He insults my conduct and proceeds to say this.

ME: did i not say it was a "friendly" tip? one which he still ignored...

MY OPPONENT: ""death should not stand in the way of having love" I fail to see what relevance this has, so that's another reason to vote con: ALL POSSIBLE SUFFERING IS AVOIDED BY VOTING CON"

ME:you STILL dont understand. Because you have lost some one DOES NOT mean you cannot continue to love. which is what i have been saying this whole time.

MY OPPONENT: "But I've already shown why the resulting harms are far worse than the "grief of seldomness""

ME: hmm really?? (re-reads opponents arguments) nope still cant find it.

MY OPPONENT:"I think it certainly helps to cite a scientific study; considering that one of the voting fields is who presented the best evidence, and to prove any practical application of this debate"

ME: yes but that doesn't apply to philosphical debates, in which no evidence is needed, just thoughtful opinions.

MY OPPONENT: "If life was "full unnecessary suffering" then it wouldn't it be necessary? He's failed to see my point"

ME: that makes absolutely no sense so i wont bother with it. i was reffering to life being full of unneccasery suffering in general. not just when losing love. bigger field than that.

MY OPPONENT: "I have presented my position backed up by scientific fact, that the resulting pain is much worse than any thing other harms that the pro presents (unwarranted) See the depaulo card earlier in this rebuttal"

ME:ugh again, you have not showed any 'scientific fact. you just posted a quote and two irrelevant sites.

MY OPPONENT: "He hasn't presented a single piece of offense. He's rebutted my case, but never makes the points of his own he promised earlier. So maybe he has proven that to never loved is not better than to have loved and lost, but he hasn't provided a reason why the supposed harms are outweighed by all the benefits he claims come from a relationship."

ME: yes i indeed have. its posted all throughout my rebuttal (assuming you read it thouroughly, again wich i doubt, just a thoughtless skimming)

MY OPPONENT:"My opponent has essentially admitted that voting pro means you will purposefully and knowingly cause yourself eventual grief. That's a reason to vote con right there: avoid any sort of grief"

ME: again putting words in to my mouth. i said yes there will be grief and it will hurt, but it is possible to pick up again with the experience you have learned and teh happy memories.

MY OPPONENT: "So I know he'll write out this long rebuttal in a mocking tone, he'll probably mock this part too, just try to forget about your thoughts on the topic coming in, and give some thought on who really put the most into this round. Thank you."

ME: forget about your thoughts on the tpoic coming in? i do believe this is a debate, meaning to people give their thoughts and analysis on a situation, and the voters decide who is more correct.

ok i will quickly go over the points i have made that my opponent said i did not make.

1.although losing love, you can still love again, and with more experience.
2.Being single is lonly and depressing without love.
3.Yes it will hurt to lose some on you love, but its possible to love again.
4.You can find whatever you want in life by simply thinking positively, in which case a relationship.

thankyou.
peace!
-philosphical.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yuanti 5 years ago
Yuanti
Please format your statements and rebuttals better. This was not easy to wade through.
Posted by chip 5 years ago
chip
Agreed, agreed, great debate!
Posted by philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
chip, as standard, i always vote my opponent three points and myself three points. I think you did a good job debating and i thankyou for offering up this debate. I hope you dont take anything i have said in this debate to offence, seeing as it is just debate, and i know you did not intentionally mean to cause any to me. thankyou that was really fun to debate. :)
Posted by philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
yeah i like these type of topics
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Interesting topic and a fun read.
Posted by philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
yeah its fun!
Posted by Yraelz 5 years ago
Yraelz
Oooo strongly Pro this topic! I like this a great deal!
Posted by chip 5 years ago
chip
Alright it's on. Lwerd, i'll debate you anytime
Posted by philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
hey im gonna accept this. this is right along my alley of debates i usually do. sorry lwerd. maybe you and i can do this later?
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
I agree, theLwerd, great idea for a debate and I'm with Tennyson on this one...
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
chipphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Yuanti 5 years ago
Yuanti
chipphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by duckshoe 5 years ago
duckshoe
chipphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
chipphilosphicalTied
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 AlonsoLCS 5 years ago
AlonsoLCS
chipphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by chip 5 years ago
chip
chipphilosphicalTied
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 DesmondTiny 5 years ago
DesmondTiny
chipphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03