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

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.