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

1. My opponent says that death happens, and that if you are lonely you will be sad, perhaps turning you into a crazed murderer. a. First off, this rebuttal is beside the point. I've shown why LOSING love ensures a large amount of eventual grief, and he has failed to show why this is better than the con alternative, merely saying that bad things can happen in the con world. Look at the topic: Tis BETTER to have loved, etc, etc. Therefore, in order to win he must weigh the harms with the benefits, something he hasn't done. b. My situation still stands as more probable. Look at topic. We have a 100% CHANCE of grief when losing this person of their affection. The examples of people living alone going mentally insane are overstated. Anyone who has lived alone should know, living alone for a little while doesn't ALWAYS lead to insane people. In that way, my opponent has failed to show why it is better, but has succeeded in reinforcing my point that to love and lose is worse. c. All of these rebuttals are hinge on the fact that one is being loved back. How can we assume this? I can just as easily give the example of a person you had a crush on, but never paid attention to you, who died a few years later. Who wouldn't agree that this action results in the most suffering? d. My opponent has ignored the main point of this argument. Look to my quote: "this grief could clearly be avoided if this friend had not been in his life in the first place. " He never responds to this point. All possible suffering can be avoided, so anywhere he mentions my creating suffering, disreguard it. 2. There will be hard times no matter what in relationships, and it's not true love. a. I fail to see how saying that we are going into relationships too quickly and divorce rates have any relevance to the round. He has merely said that the relationships studied were not actually relationships. Let me remind you of what my point was: that people who were previously married have no advantage over those who were never married before "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)"In order to win, he has to prove that people WILL be happier despite losing a loved one. Until he can give a single piece of proof as to why this is true, I should have win with is point. Which also brings me to the complaint he lodged earlier on my point of "that is enough to vote con" This is not a reason to vote pro, so his critiquing my conduct shouldn't be valued, but I am merely trying to drive home the point that the topic HAS BEEN PROVED FALSE by a scientific study. I apologize for offending anyone. b. This is where I got my stats, Ms. DePaul is a respected member of her field. . http://www.amazon.com... . http://blogs.psychologytoday.com... c. Now that we are beyond this, let's look at the big picture: I talked about the scientific evidence as to why I negate the topic, and my opponent ignored this, merely saying that we can't expect all relationships to be perfect. This is also irrelevant. Inherent to the topic is that the relations is finished for whatever reason, so his comments here can be disregaurded. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE RELATIONSHIP FALLS APART. I have proven through science why the topic is untrue, he never responds to this evidence, other than saying that relationships aren't perfect, and doesn't account for widows, a far more relevant example. 3. "love is not all stress" a. This is a misinpretation. I'm saying that the loss of a loved one results in stress that is not present in the con world. He never responds to the fact that pro creates unnecessary suffering, through the crisis hypothesis. This matters; think about Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other issues that accompany this kind of stress. He also says that lost love can be gotten back, but it is not always this easy. 4. You can have another person to fill this position? a. First of all, there is a clear contradiction. He says that our society has petty relationships and then says "well we can always find a new perfect person to marry" b. Next, It's never really that easy. It's an assumption to say that we can just go on the streets and pick up a new woman, tailor made. Here's the overview: He hasn't provided a single way why it is BETTER to have loved and lost. This has major implications. Even if you believe everything he's said so far, he doesn't provide a reason to affirm the topic, so I still win the debate. In addition to this, we have a choice here: neutral feeling or sadness. Inherent to the topic is that you WILL lose this friend, and that will make you sad.