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

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.