Resolved: Opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part.

My opponent continues to equate attraction to compatibility, and romance to lifelong commitment. This will also answer my opponent's claim that I'm contradicting myself by supporting the link he used in round 1 - I will attempt to explain what the differences are. First, romance can be had in any relationship. It does not have to result in marriage, and the vast majority do not. Romance is not only attained through marriage. Each of these relationships were romantic. Each of them were in part successful in the beginning due to personality differences and the resulting attraction. Each of them came to an end due to incompatibility. Sometimes, attraction and incompatibility can be caused by the same things. My most recent ex was very religious. I was very attracted to this, since I really had no outlook at the time on religion. I still find it endearing that she can find such strength in something I cannot. However, I soon realized I was able to believe less and less. Eventually, it came to the point when I was upset at religion for its trickery, and I realized then that this would cause great problems if we were to get married. She'd want to raise the kid religiously, I'd want to not. It is for this reason that we had to end our relationship. My point? Something does not have to be compatible for it to be an attractive attribute. We both agree that initial interest is largely based on differences and the excitement they bring. This IS attraction. In this sense, opposites DO attract. And this is the sense in which the statement is used. My opponent uses some trickery to make his side seem more valid. He asserts that an attraction based on differences is in fact only an attraction to the feelings those differences bring. However, he refuses to apply the same terms to his side, asserting that attraction based on similarities is attraction to the actual person. As far as I'm concerned, this is rubbish, a baseless claim. Attraction to a person for any reason is attraction to the person. Your second author DOES agree with me. As PRO, she would have said "Opposites are rarely compatible and discourage lifelong relationships for the most part" Romantic relationships do not have to achieve marriage status, and rarely do. Attraction does not imply compatibility either. Almost all my opponent's points are built on this problem. He continually uses one to mean the other, and assumes contradictions for me because of it. And as far as supporting each other's weaknesses, it largely only comes into play with compatibility. I only talked about it because you attacked the notion that this ever happens in round 1. You attacked the very logic behind it. However, the point was not relevant to the resolution, since it concerns compatibility for the long term rather than attraction. I only addressed it because you did, perhaps I should have just left it alone. And also, to be quick about it, I'll just list the main reasons I'm not using your "studies" that show that opposites do not attract. First, the BBC one. It is based on a questionnaire given to college students. People rarely know what they'd feel about a person given attribute X. Much of the time, people find it puzzling why they are attracted to someone. A questionnaire on such a matter will likely be inaccurate for this reason. Second the study mentioned in your second article. THE AUTHOR YOU CITE DISAGREES WITH THE CONCLUSION, for the same reasons I do. The study was about marriage success rates. We're not talking about success. We're talking about attraction and romance. For a statement from the author stating disagreement, here. I've pasted it before. The research suggested that, "there is no evidence that opposites attract." The study was fascinating and comprehensive, but their conclusion wasn't. This means that while they carried out a high quality study, they drew false conclusions from it. About my gender roles argument (man provides and protects family, woman looks after household) - You can largely ignore it, it was dealing more with compatibility than attraction. About my gender PERSONALITY differences argument - This is still valid. Go hang out in a group of solely high school girls... then go hang out in a crowd of solely high school guys. Not only are there vastly different topics, the behavior will be vastly different. And in defense of my effeminate gay argument: You say I'm using stereotypes, but I'm not. You cite the manly warriors of Sparta, stating that they were gay and they were surrounded by only other men. This is WHY they resorted to homosexuality - it's all they could get. Do you think the prison population is largely composed of homosexuals-by-nature? You'd be wrong. I believe that's it for responding to valid points (those that don't rely on equating compatibility with attraction, romance with marriage). I'll respond to my opponent's closing statements now. [I fail at overcoming]... >>The credible research used to suggest that most opposite individuals do not attract towards each other.<< I've addressed this research and why I dismiss it. >>That conflicting personalities are typically bound for failure as suggested in both studies and the author in my citation<< Bound for failure is irrelevant. Attraction does not imply that you're bound for success, nor does romance. >>That attraction to the thrills a potential spouse may produce cannot substitute attraction towards a potential spouse's personality traits.<< It's still attraction to personality traits, just attraction to traits that are different rather than similar. Neither is more valid than the other in regards to 'real' attraction. >>That successful couples with differences between genders physically or mentally has nothing to do with the actual attraction within the couples personalities.<< Because you say so? It's the _personality_ traits of the genders I refer to. Effeminacy is based on largely having the personality of a female. I hold that men are generally attracted to women because of personality differences inherent in the two genders. Not to say that's the only reason, but it is _a_ reason. >>Some of his arguments suffer due to contradictions with each other.<< I've thrown out the 'point' I made with 'supporting each other's weaknesses.' I was only trying to use it as a point because of your second point in round 1. I was forcing it, even though it made it seem I was disagreeing with myself. However, as I've stated, that argument referred to compatibility, not attraction. >>That Luigi Di Serio (who he claims to agree with) disagrees with him as shown in multiple quotes.<< I believe I've shown that I agree with said author, and that you are the one in disagreement. Once again, the author would claim "Opposites rarely are compatible and discourage lifelong commitments for the most part." However, we're not talking about marriage or compatibility, we're talking about attraction and romance. Since I'm approaching the sound barrier (8000 chars) and don't want to have to make comments, I'll end with the following assertions. My opponent has agreed that attraction results from having differences. However, he asserts that these feelings of attractions are merely feelings for the emotions they bring about, while attractions because of similarities are supposedly true attraction to the person. I believe he failed to back this up, and I have shown that these should be treated the same. My opponent agrees that relationships happen because of differences. However, he insists that these relationships are not romantic because they are doomed to never reach marriage. I would deny this with at least 3/4 of the fibers of my being (and my being has a lot of fibers). I enjoyed debating you, look forward to possible future debates.