Online relationships don't work

To my opponent. A heartfelt note."First of all, the fact that i opened up with "lol" proves how superficial the online environment is."Woah! I suppose you have a point, just like how some humans being murderers "proves" that everyone is a murderer and we live in a murder-tastic environment. Golly, superficial environment vs everyone-is-a-serial-killer environment...what to choose?Oh, I know! [impatiently raises hand and jumps up and down***] Maybe this is an argument that doesn't actually "prove" anything, especially since the person who came up with the conclusion was the one who did the event that is the evidence for the conclusion, kinda like when a cop plants drugs on someone and says that that "proves" they're a criminal! I think there's maybe a possibility that generalizing doesn't actually prove anything! Lemme call the President of Logic and let her in on this crazy new factoid!No, it doesn't prove anything. Sorry for the sarcasm if it made you angry, you're welcome if it made you laugh or something, but back to the point. If you saying "lol" proves superficiality, any time you're serious or any time I'm serious proves that the online environment is serious and not superficial. That's just...not the best reasoning, buddy.Onwards...The Cons of Concealment Compared to Computer Concealment Cons"[Showing only parts of you is] a bad thing because in order to make a wise decision concerning relationships, you need to know enough to decide if that person your planning to date/court, etc. is compatible.""Most of my friends are not ok with online relationships for the reason that we can never share an intimate relationship when our significant other is behind a screen."Firstly, I must be blunt: I think it is dreadfully shallow to only make relationships with people if you're planning to date them*. I'm heterosexual, and if I avoided friendships with certain people based on whether or not their genitals protruded, I would have missed out on a lot of the experiences I cherished, a lot of big and little intimate moments with those that I would never have wanted to date on account of not wanting to rub pub hair follicles with them. True love and friendship doesn't care whether or not you have a dick. It's in my quote book, so it's true.No, I don't think one should "need to know" with every relationship if starting a little romance with them is wise because they don't need to start a romance with every person they meet. My opponent seems to have this assumption that I don't think is actually a universal mode of thought."In person, it's alot harder to hide your characteristics...button."Characteristics are hidden either way. Here's the thing. You only ever see someone on the outside. You can induce or deduce or abduce your way into the inside of them. You can use statistics and create a personality matrix and reason that a certain set of behaviors must mean that they are like so and so on the inside, and then you can love the inside of who they statistically are, but you are loving them from the outside and you are doing so because of a belief that this theoretical inside will continue production of things you love on the outside. Is anyone getting what I'm saying? This is a rather difficult concept to get across, but I'm trying to make it as clear as possible.So when you love someone, you are loving how they act, and when you love "who they are," you're loving how you predict them to act. I really hope I'm not just screaming at a wall, I really need someone to get what I'm saying, here.It follows if a relationship is sustained primarily online, if you love them for who they are based on how they act online and how they'll continue to act online, it would be essentially identical in nearly every way to loving who they are in person and how they will continue to act in person.I, of course, imagine that my opponent might say something to the effect of "Love is eternal, it shouldn't matter how someone acts, if you love someone then you love someone forever regardless of what they do." Perhaps not, but given the likelihood, I'll reply to it to save potential time.A harsh fact: Time is a thing. People change constantly, everything changes constantly towards entropy. Life changes to death. Dead people weren't always dead. They changed. Who someone is will not remain, it's not something that stays with you forever as much as people like to believe there's something that stays consistent within them. If that were the case, dead people would still have personality remnants of their living counterparts, in which case you'd act more like them if you ate them or some other backwards ancient logic. Your love for someone, as cynical and as shallow as it is to say, is not for "who they are," but for how they act and think and what that makes you think is who they are.And that brings me back to what I said earlier. Who the f*ck cares if someone acts differently from how they act in person!? Because what did you fall in love with in BOTH SCENARIOS!? How they ACT in that medium, and someone has the same likelihood of changing how they act online in comparison to how they act in person. Both times, you're loving only what they show to be like in that medium, right? I mean, by Pro's logic, relationships with a presence aren't sustainable because it's easier in person to hide how you act online in the same way that how you act online lets you hide how you act in person. "Characteristics" are just ways people act.Also, what's with this "in real life" stuff? That's a very peculiar wording. The internet is something that exists in real life, not just some imaginary concept where nothing that happens ever has any context or impact on reality. I worked at Cracked and made money there. I made money on the internet. Oh no, I guess I didn't make any money in real life! Whoops! And since I bought a house with that money, I guess I'm homeless! It's a very interesting phrase, no? Not really anything to do with the argument, I guess. Just a funny little thing."An online relationship should never...worth-while."Humans not being designed to do something is a horrible argument for not doing that thing.For instance, we were not designed to like sex so we could do it recreationally. (And if we only used sex to reproduce like it was designed, rape would totes be cool.)We were not designed to enjoy external stimulation so we could play games.We were not designed to have a capacity for anger so we could stupidly get drunk and yell racist slurs at our ex-girlfriend to proceed to a very brutal beating by her boyfriend followed by the most confusing threesome ever. (Maybe this one isn't a good thing.)Yeah, okay, Pro is totally right in that when we evolved, we didn't evolve so that we were all okay with not touching anyone ever. I know that more than anyone. I'm extremely intense and touchy-feely. I cuddle with acquaintances. I cuddle with strangers. I cuddle with dogs I find on the street before I find out they have heartworms. However, if we didn't use things in ways they weren't designed, we wouldn't survive either. We were designed to survive like that. I can't think of a single day where I didn't come up with a new invention and made it. My car, my jacket, my everything is so heavily modified that the word "customize" just translates to "my life" for me. I bagged me some sexy degrees in philosophy and science to hang on my wall to impress the poor people I've courted that come to my place with****, and if there's anything I've learned from my degrees: Everything is more than it seems. The internet is more than just transmission of basic information. The internet is a medium of the collective psyche of humanity. The internet is the largest fingerprint of every human soul since its invention.It was invented for basic communication. It became a way of living."I do not believe that our love can penetrate through the cybernetic world. Love is [all this other stuff]."Not much to back this up. Just sorta one of those pamphlets that people read and the audience goes "I guess, sure, I'll sign up for your Christian Camp thingy or whatever it was you were advertising...""To assume [you know what people on the internet are saying] would be dangerous as it is open to misinterpretation."As well as every type of communication ever. Fun little fact, back in the day before I became the hottest ever**, people thought I was, and bear with me here, socially awkward. Talking to someone in person has just as much, if not more, potential of producing miscommunication. Everyone in my life can see my face. Very few people ever see my emotions."...tell me, how many relationships work in person compared to online relationships?"Irrelevant because regardless of which one works more, we're not measuring each medium's dick, we're arguing whether or not online relationships work in general. But taken literally, the internet's dick is bigger because its sex is all selected pornstars.*My opponent, when asked what type of relationships were being referred to in its mention in the title, said relationships in general. That's not in the debate, but it's in the clarification of the debate elsewhere, so I thought this would be important for readers to know.**the most insecure ever***and wets pants and everyone pointed and laughed at me I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT MY CHILDHOOD****not actually true