Sleeping with the enemy has a positive effect.

=Definition of "sleeping with the enemy" CON concedes to my definition as well as the reasons he insisted to have it negated, so there is no reason to disconsider it at this point in the debate. =Re: Why CON cannot win this debate; the article "a" 1) What was marked as #1 previously is gets conceded to, so CON's claims on abuse are declared to be dismissed by him. He brought up his new position for this debate on this matter, so I will deal with that momentarily. 2) In terms of the article "a", I provided a solid rebuttal to CON's explanation on this matter. He is merely hoping that his previous explanation will outweigh mine. However, the fact of the matter is that you are to consider my explanation above his, since he refuses to address my objection to it now. IMPACT: I am correct on the matter of you only having to buy ONE of the effects which I listed previously in order for me to win this debate. Although I know you're familiar with how things generally go in these debates, I'll just restate a rule which I suspect CON may violate: New arguments are prohibited; if CON tries to come back and respond to what was said on the article "a" or anything else which wasn't responded to in his R2, you are not to take any of it into consideration. =Why CON cannot win this debate This is indeed a highly abusive practice for him to pull now as it was not what he was advocating in the previous round. I will rebutt his reasons as to why he says this is justified. He states that he is justified to switch up because I lied and am now recanting what was said. Let us refer back to what I stated in R1: "It is the contenders job to prove that there is/are no positive effect/s to sleeping with the enemy. This is indeed a tremendous burden, but such is the nature of this resolution. Basically, as long as you buy at least "one" of the positive effects which I point out, I win this debate. " This is exactly what I said in R2 as well. If anything, when I said CON couldn't win, it was to be taken in same sense as me saying that an untrained out of shop individual could not defeat Bruce Lee in his prime in a regular street fight; the burden for CON is extremely high (which was also stated during R1). Thus, I've been saying the same thing since ROUND ONE (both that he can't win as well a there being a possible way to win). Therefore, CON is to blame for not having taken heed of a comment until the SECOND time it was uttered. IMPACT: I've blatantly refuted the only defense CON has offered for his actions in changing the overall flow of his argument. Because of this, you are to see what he is doing now as shifting his advocacy. =What good can come from sleeping with the enemy? ; RE: Invalidating the positive effects Fortunately though, I still wish to maintain 100% efficiency, thus (even though I don't have to), I shall refute CON's new arguments against my case anyway. "promotes peace" 1) Nowhere in CON's last round did he rebutt the matter of peace, so claiming that he did is false. 2) CON says that no dispute is settled if peace is actually achieved through working together by means of putting aside negative feelings. Keep in mind that I clearly stated that working hand in hand with your foes is a promotion of the opportunity for peace in R1. There's no doubt that temporarily burying negative feelings for one another won't do the job in itself, however, it provides an opportunity for the job to get accomplished. Because honestly, do you really think that two conflicting parties are just going to randomly come together and decide that it's high time they settle their differences? Of course not. If, however, two enemy parties are put into the position to where they must work together, as CON points out, they will have to bury their negative feelings for one another. This will provide the two sides an opportunity to look at each without their hatred, and will be the most effiecient way at which their differences are settled. 3) He says conflict > peace, but this is a very flawed argument as conflict and peace are not mutually exclusive. CON is talking about actually settling differences and since settling differences (or in other terms, solving the root of the problems) leads to peace, CON is contradicting himself. If not, then differences are never settled, which is exactly what he labels as being the case for my argument. "increases assets/efficiency" 1) CON givens an example, but the immediate problem with it is that CON fails to point out that the time it would take for Bob and Joe to get their money is at least half of the amount of time it would take for them to get the money individually. We must keep in mind that TIME is vastly more valuable than money. This is quite obvious as without time, there's no purpose to money. Since working with someone else (even an enemy) would reduce time, the positive effect is thus. 2) Let us look at another example which CON knows of. In the game Phoenix Wright, Justice for all, one of the main prosecuters and the main defense attorney of the game worked together to do something which neither of them could have done alone (which was to rescue Maya as well as reveal the truth in it's entirety). No doubt will CON insist that both of these characters were friends, however, given that my definition includes "enemies" in the context of "profession", I would say this is valid. Nevertheless, the point being is that through working with someone else (in this case, your enemy), you can accomplish things which you never could alone. 3) Whether or not working with a friend is better is a red herring as that's not what we're here to determine; we just need to now whether or not sleeping with the enemy has a positive effect. 4) CON throws an obvious appeal to moral argument at you with his mass genocide example, however, we must keep in mind that it was how the assets were used the produced the negative effect and not the assets themselves. "Sex => physical euphoria" CON brought this up and insisted that it was a positive effect OVERALL in the previous round. The fact that he is changing his advocacy now is abusive. "Access to helpful information" Once more, CON brought this up, and brought it up under what is "overall" positive. "Sex => peace" CON brought this up earlier. If sex rarely applies in instances of sleeping with the enemy, then he is contradicting what he said in his R2. I've already covered peace, so cross apply what I said on that matter here. Negotiations also lead to peace. "Sex with enemies = thrill, change in pace" See above on what concerns sex. "Sex with enemy => awesome for sadomasochists" Even if we are to consider this "general rule logic, it wouldn't matter. I clearly said that it appeals to sadomasochists, thus sleeping with the enemy has a positive effect in that it benefits sadomasochist. And once more for what applies with sleeping with the enemy, I've covered this. At first glance, my opponent's logic on me "there is sometimes a positive effect" seems rather clever, however, taking this position will be CON's undoing. Indeed, because even if you buy his logic, you must accept that there "sometimes being a positive effect" is a positive effect in itself. Likewise, if I can sometimes donate cash to charity, then what I am sometimes doing is a positive indefinetly. Therefore, CON has conceded to the resolution under this route. = Alt On to the alternate burden. 1) Cross apply what I said on peace. 2) Cross apply what I said on this matter above. Furthermore, finishing the job in half the amount of time is still a positive effect. Whether or not the returns is negative doesn't matter (you can apply this to the above route if you want). 3) Not quite. In sleeping with the enemy, we've agreed that both sides get assets. Thus, it would b like popeye giving you a can of spinach too. 4) I've covered infighting.