RESOLVED: It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.

CASE CON has acknowledged that failings in love will allow us to mature, learn and grow in some capacity. Her concern is whether the tradeoff of a failed relationship is worth acquiring this knowledge. It sure is! As CON herself has pointed out, we as humans have a tendency to gravitate towards love. It is something most people want to experience. Thus the trade-off of a sour relationship simply puts one in a position to better themselves in their experience. Throughout this debate, CON has gone to great lengths to discuss the various pitfalls humans experience during their dealings with love. Indeed, some people enter abusive relationships, some people spend too much money, some people display poor judgment. Failure offers one the potential to overcome these errors. To love and to lose is trial and error. CON says she wins today’s debate because she has pointed out negatives specific to love. Not true. Her criticisms of love can simply be summed up as instances of people taking love and its virtues too far (i.e. killing in the name of love), people approaching love immaturely (i.e. her friend in an abusive relationship, overspending on a failed romance, poor judgment, distraction) and people being overwhelmed by failure/rejection (i.e. depression, etc). None of these are specific to love, but are risks/possibilities that one can succumb too in just about any facet of life. CON starts off her R2 by claiming that this debate is not about choosing to reject love in the future, but that is ABSOLUTELY what her positions entails. Her job is to demonstrate to you that never having loved at all is a superior alternative to experiencing love lost. In laymen terms, she is essentially building a case demonstrating to you why you shouldn’t bother with love the first place. Her arguments indicate as much. She says eros/philia love is better, says love is blind therefore detrimental, says love is subjective , love is distracting, etc. All of these are reasons not to bother with love PERIOD rather than to reject love on the sole basis of loss. CON is trying to have her cake and eat it. In adopting her position, she is effectively persuading you to reject romantic love. Even observing this debate from her mindset, her understanding of it still doesn’t follow. If Bob had never loved at all and has benefitted from never having loved at all as opposed to experiencing lost love, it follows that Bob is better off not loving again in the future. CON addresses my response about her friend in an abusive relationship. I pointed out that that the feeling of love she was experiencing was good, despite the abysmal origin. I did so reasoning that causes and their effects can easily be distinguished (see nazi analogy). In response, she brings up the pleasure a criminal gets from crime. These analogies are both poor and unpersuasive. She brought up her friend’s abusive relationship in attempt to show that love is subjective. As shown in R2, my rebuttal was not that her friend’s relationship was somewhat worthwhile, but that we can distinguish her friend’s ‘love’ from its cause. After all, this is not a debate about abusive relationships, but about love itself. CON mischaracterizes the example I provided regarding the Nazi’s medical search. She points out that we would have been better to NOT have had the Holocaust happen despite any good derived. That goes without saying. But when considering the example of the holocaust, the lesson to be learned is not that ‘a few certain positives’ are indicate of an overall worthwhile experience, but that good can sprout from even the most terrible of places. It is thus important that we distinguish them. I certainly wouldn’t try and suggest the medical advances derived from the holocaust made the holocaust worthwhile or that the souls searching effects cancer can have on people makes cancer worthwhile. Nevertheless, in looking at what we know to be the worst sources of pain/destruction, it is clear that good can and has sprouted from both of them. I’m sure we can agree that love loss isn’t remotely within the league of cancer or the holocaust. CON addresses my mention of Obama. She says that my assertion regarding our leader is unsubstantiated. Quite the contrary. It was CON that claimed that love is blind and detrimental to one’s judgment. In response, I cited Obama, a man who has experienced love lost yet has worked his way to acquiring the highest position in the land. CON is simply trying to shift the burden here. If love is in fact the detriment she says it to be, why then has it not deterred our standing president from acquiring his positions? Not just Obama, but scores of individuals in high places. The notion that love is to be avoided because it creates weakness is unpersuasive. CON says that my ecstasy explanation is flawed since this debate is NOT about being in love. Note, once again, however, that most of her arguments are critiques on being in love (i.e. her friend in the abusive relationship, love is blind, some kill in the name of love, etc). Even this argument citing ecstasy was meant to provide a viable alternative to being in love. CON addresses my Christmas anecdote. She says this strengthens her case. Untrue. I used this example to demonstrate the folly of her disregarding love itself and solely focusing on love having been lost. She claimed this debate isn’t about the then, but “the now”. As my example shows and as she has just agreed, the ‘then’ is quite important to evaluating the now. Love, even if lost, still allows for cherishable memories. As to having warm experiences outside of romantic love, this is true, but just as irrelevant as the suggestion that ecstasy is alternative to the warm feelings that love provides. Once again, one isn’t restricted to choosing between romantic love and alternatives. One can experience both and make an educated decisions about them. CON says that her eros/philia love point is the strongest aspect of her case. Quite the contrary. This is by far the weakest aspect of her case. As shown with her example of ecstasy, one need not limit themselves. Both philia/eros and romance are loves both worth exploring. In experiencing both, one is in a fine position to determine what they are suited towards. Unfortunately, we’re not here to compare the different forms of love, nor are we here to compare love and ecstasy. As for her argument about love being a distraction, CON says that these other areas of life should be abundant for a healthy balance in one’s life. She says that love lost means you’ve sacrificed excelling in areas due to focus on a relationship that would ultimately fail. However, this unpersuasive. People fail/sacrifice constantly in all other areas of life. Many do poorly school/work. Are we to believe that those who’ve done poorly in their studies should just give up? Of course not! CONCLUSION You as voters likely do have a bias towards my position, but in taking my case for its merits, CON has failed to negate what my position entails. Her criticisms are equally applicable to any other area of life. As both CON and I have agreed, life is filled with risk, turmoil, pain, suffering. As these are inherent elements of life, coping with them is simply part of the process. Her alternatives are irrelevant since each can be tried without rejecting romantic love. To love and to lose is to face the challenges of life head on. As we desire love and strive towards it, it is better for us to strive towards gaining strength from loss than to have never gained at all. Simultaneously, however, as one marches forwards in life, it is important to look back on the good times of the past. As shown throughout this debate, love benefits one not just physically, but mentally. One who has experienced love lost knows this quite well and should cherish the memories of love, hoping and being better prepared to experience it once more in the future. . . . cheers, Danielle & DDO. Always a pleasure!