Online relationships don't work

"I never said that, but ok. This doesn't prove that online relationships work."My opponent said that the reason they and their peers weren't okay with online relationships as a direct result of being incapable of sharing an intimate relationship behind a screen, and that it's hard to have an online relationship because they aren't certain if it's wise to date them. That was my understanding. I responded by saying that not every single relationship that we have in our lives involves dating, especially since Pro said that this debate would be referring to all types of relationships.Pro says that they never said that, but Pro offers absolutely no correction. I wasn't proving that online relationships work. I was proving that my opponent's argument for online relationships not working was short-sighted and shallow.With that out of the way, I will move on to the bulkier arguments.Cumbersome Contentions Countered by Con (Cave (That's my name))"Do you really want to spend your life with someone over the computer screen? Do you want to get married through a video call? Most people in this country probably wouldn't. Eventually, you'll want to see each other in person."Anecdotal EvidenceIn terms of spending my life over a computer screen: That is an extreme way of wording it. Talk about argumentum ad absurdum. I'm obviously going to do other things, it's not like I spend my entire life solely doing one thing, but I do have online friends that I hold dear to me, even with the low likelihood of ever seeing them. Of course, the problem with Pro's question is that if I answer it with all my friends I've met online and our experiences together and how I feel about them and how they feel about me and the philophical discussions we've had, even though there are no more rounds, this is how Pro is probably gonna want to answer."But that's not REAL love, and EVENTUALLY, you're gonna have a burning desire to see each other! JUST YOU WAIT!"And the problem with this type of argument, which Pro has been doing this entire debate, is it's the hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy, and when you say that something will happen or you say that had something in the past not happened, the present would indubitably be like so, you invoke this fallacy. To say "Oh, but you WILL want to see each other" is such a horrible argument because it doesn't actually require any sort of thought or reasoning to be put into it. You can say anything when you're not stating facts, when it's all just hypothetical.I could equally make the same baseless argument. "You will never eventually want to see each other" and just end it at that just as my opponent likes to say "Eventually, you'll want to see each other in person" based on...what? Their own experience? How does this person's needs dictate the needs of everyone? This argument is extremely unfair. Don't you hate it when your parents use this same fallacy? "Oh, you'll understand when you're 18." And then they shut down the argument and say that their choice is best. Now, no matter how well you argue or debate, there's nothing you can say that can convince them otherwise no matter how reasonably or logically you argue. No matter how many facts or truths you throw, this argument essentially means "I'm right and you're wrong. I will not listen to you, now."And other parts of this quote...MarriageAgain, argumentum ad absurdum, when one argues by taking something to its extreme. I pointed this out before, my opponent's tendency to only look at the most extreme forms of relationships like significant others and marriage, to which they only replied "I never said that, but ok."No, I don't want to get married through a video call. True, most of this country probably wouldn't. That doesn't at all prove that online relationships don't work. Pro keeps coming back to these types of relationships and I can't understand why. They're insignificant in the grand scheme of this debate. With so many intimate moments to be shared, it does not stand to reason to have such extreme tunnel vision."If you invest too much time in online relationships and less in human interactions guess what? Your going to lack confidence, lack trust, probably lack empathy, your communication will be weak, it's just going to ruin your social life."Okay. "If you have too much of X, it will hurt you, so X is bad."!?Too much of anything is bad for you, buddy. I'm not saying ONLY HAVE ONLINE RELATIONSHIPS EVERVJKSAQTIOM, you obviously need a balance of both, and I'm saying that if you have a balance of relationships in person and online, you'll be fine with all of them. Once again, argumentum ad absurdum."The world is so much bigger than the internet, so go out there and talk to people, spend time with family, join clubs with people of similar interests, practice communication. Expectations change over time and eventually you outgrow the need for online relationships."The Idea of Growth: Its Arbitrary AspectsI am rather irritated by Pro's constant treatment of online relationships as though talking to people online is a childish thing that needs to be outgrown.The world is big, yes. So why limit yourself to your location? Your location is arbitrary. There are certain types of people that are compatible with each other. Sometimes, these people are born far apart. Sometimes, people are born into cultures that they don't agree with. It's not their fault, they didn't choose to be born there. So why should they carry the burden of arbitrary factors?Why are all those things listed exclusively for things done in person? Why do I need to "outgrow" certain friends just because I haven't seen their face? I didn't befriend their face, did I? I befriended someone online. I'm not going to cut off people dear to me off of this totally baseless reasoning."Online relationships eventually end with people getting bored or just moving on with their lives. By you putting up pics of yourself, you admit that you want some realness to the relationship. Real relationships that require you to eventually pay the bills, help your wife around the house, help your children with their homework, struggle with your wife to find solutions to life's problems last longer than just sharing casual interest online."AGAIN WITH THE SAME ARGUMENT. "Online relationships don't work because they don't end up with you bagging a wife. I mean, dude, if you're not hittin' that, what's the point, amirite, fellas? Yeaaaaah."LOOKNOT EVERYONE I MEETIS SOMEONE I WANT TO HAVE KIDS WITH SO I CAN HELP THEM WITH THEIR HOMEWORKAnd yes, maybe a marriage is a stronger relationship than an online friendship. You know what else a marriage is typically prioritized above? FRIENDSHIPS IN GENERAL. Should I STOP HAVING FRIENDS because I'm not gonna help their children with their homework or help them around their house or pay their bills!? I'm getting extremely agitated by Pro constantly making this argument, then when I shoot it down, Pro looks around cluelessly and plays it coy. "Oh, who? Little ol' me? Don't be silly. I wasn't saying anything of the manner. I daresay, you've gone and lost your bolts and nails!"And once again, the first sentence arguing that people will eventually move on because they get bored is hypothesis contrary to fact. No statistical evidence. Nothing. Just a random hypothetical thrown in there and then never mentioned again. This isn't an M. Night Shayamalan movie or a David Cage story, okay? Things need to be coherent and need to be actual arguments.Rendering Response RatioThroughout this debate, one of my biggest disappointments would be the lack of my opponent replying to many of my points. I believe I adequately made a counterpoint to the majority of what my opponent said, but this favor was not returned. During one round, my opponent had, literally, one quote. This might have been Pro's way of trying to demonstrate a point. "Look, you can't even have conversations right online," but I've demonstrated that you can, in fact, reply to all the points.I feel that Pro has not exhausted the options of this debate and didn't go into depth with enough of their arguments. I did enjoy replying, but I must admit that I really, strongly wished that Pro took this debate to its full capacity or, at the very least, tried. Probably was just spread too thin amongst other debates. Ah, well.That's all. Thank you for reading this whole thing, I know it was a lot to read and there was a lot of content to be sorted through, and for anyone that made it all the way through and thoroughly read everything, you have my gratitude and appreciation, and regardless of how you vote, it's reading through the whole thing that really makes most debaters here happy and I hope you're aware of the good deed you've done by absorbing everything.