Debate.org classic: FINAL ROUND: LOGICAL-MASTER VS THELWERD

[ Re: Defining Love ] PRO proposes that not only love, but almost any act is relative upon perception. He uses the example of killing in the name of science. Clearly this is a failed attempt at proving any point but my own. I am not arguing that the Nazi "scientists" from his example could claim that they killed in the name of science. In fact, I agree with that sentiment entirely. We see people debating over whether or not science is good or bad all the time... so what's PROs point? He proved that everything including love (especially love) has an infinite number of connotations, hence why I suggest this debate focus on a specific aspect of love, i.e. Romantic Love. At least then this debate can have some sort of actual focus. [ Why The Definition Matters ] PROs original citation proposed *28* definitions of love, all of them positive. I have already proven that love can have negative connotations as well. For PRO to suggest that all 28 positive aspects of love are acceptable for the purpose of this debate, that would mean that I can just as easily describe 28 NEGATIVE aspects of love for which PRO must defend. For example, if "making love" is a sufficient definition, then the heinous and violent crime of rape - which encompasses the same physical actions of making love - should also be considered, for a rapist can say that they are 'making love' to their victim if that is how they perceive it. If a 60 year old man was romantically in love with a 5 year old boy, and wanted to 'make love' to him, it would be considered love using my opponent's cited definitions. However, that doesn't make the act any good, moral or justified. It also doesn't support the notion that the 5 year old boy was better off or beneficial in either receiving or making that love. In fact, it proves my point that it was better to have not loved and lost than it was to give/receive that love. The point: Love can be defined as destruction. If we use PROs positive definitions of love, the worst that could happen regarding not having loved at all is that someone doesn't gain the unnecessay experience of being in a failed relationship. Using a negative definition of love - say destruction - it would be far better to have never loved at all (especially if said destruction negatively impacted or resulted in death for more than 2 people, as a direct loving relationship involves 2). [ Re: Experience ] A) To argue that failure is not a necessary aspect of success, PRO offers that one is more likely of acing a test, for example, if one studies beforehand. This is absolutely irrelevant; the analogy is flawed as one does not have to fail a test in order to ace it! Nor does failing on one test necessarily mean that one will do better on their next test. Moreover, I never argued that one is more likely to succeed at love before or more often than they fail. Instead, I stated that one can gain experience (PROs given benefit of loss) without ever having had love and lost it. In that case, losing love provided absolutely no benefit to the individual and therefore the CON stance rings true. One does not always have to make a mistake in order to know what the right thing is. I have never 'cheated' on a loved one but I know that doing so would be a negative thing. I have the knowledge necessary to make an "experienced" decision without ever having to actually experience it. For his point to work, PRO would have to prove that It Is Better To Have Wronged Someone To Gain The Experience Of How To Behave Better In The Future Than To Never Have Wronged Them At All. Bottom line: There is an absolute fallacy or perhaps logical opposition with PROs major point (experience). Nowhere is it guaranteed or even implied that there will be a 'next' love for which said experience would be necessary. Further, since the majority of people believe in the concept that one has a "love of their life," then in losing their love - that one person - they will be losing the being or relationship that is the most prominent in their life. B) PROs next point is easy to argue, as I only have to turn his own logic against him in order to successfully dismantle his flawed ideology. He makes the claim that while one could agonize over a lost love, that another could just as easily agonize over sheer loneliness and never having experienced love... However, if experiencing love is so amazing (and better than not having loved as PRO has argued thus far), then wouldn't an individual be better off only considering the possibilities of love instead of knowing what they had loved and no longer had? If you feel that thinking about the wonder of love could never compare to the grandeur of actually being in love (i.e. you agree that it's an ineffable emotion that cannot be distinctly defined), than clearly my point has won -- It would be better to be ignorant to your loss than to know the amazing relationship you had and no longer have. A suicide, for example, would be tragic regardless of the cause - it would result in a death. However, we can assume that the one who died over lost love was in more pain than the one who never knew what they were missing. In order for this to be invalid, PRO would have to prove that love in general is what gives life its meaning. Because he has not done so (and cannot during the final round), one cannot interject their own opinion on life and love in terms of judging this debate. [ Love as Sex ] Even if you bought into the flawed notion that sex = love, consider some possible effects that sex/love could have; they range from feelings of physical euphoria to getting an STD such as AIDS. In that case, PRO would have to argue It Is Better To Have Had Sex And Acquire AIDS Than To Not Have Had Sex At All (and avoid said disease). In other words, PRO would be arguing that the physical euphoria of one sexual encounter was worth the deadly virus that has become a global crisis. While PRO of course would like to argue the reality that one would probably have sex and *not* get AIDS, and therefore the physical euphoria was worth having the encounter, the fact remains that this debate topic is structured intentionally as to argue extremes, so we must consider the overall positive aspects and possibilities of love vs. the overall negative aspects or possibilities of love. I have made consistent points proving how the negative greatly trumps even the most positive rewards. B) PRO stated that love/sex is necessary for reproduction. After conceding this point, he tweaks this contention to read that people wish to perpetuate humanity (have kids) for the sake of love and loving relationships. Unfortunately that is not always the case. People have children for the wrong reasons all the time, i.e. to manipulate a romantic relationship; to receive additional government aid; because they have low self-esteem or other issues; etc. Many people also greatly abuse their children, and let us not forget the millions of abortions performed annually. So, if we were to buy into PROs notion that sex = love and love = babies, PRO would be given the nearly impossible task of proving that 'making love' to create a child would be the right thing to do even including those negative examples which I have stated. You cannot automatically assume that child rearing is a completely LOVING experience. [ Final Note ] Life isn't a story book - there's not always a happy ending like in the Disney movies PRO has described (Note: None of those movies end with the absolute loss of love - it's too painful). Sometimes being in love can lead people to comprimise themselves, and more importantly, other loving relationships. Consider one who turns their back on their friends and family in the name of love. In that case, many loving relationships are ruined because of one. If you believe that a failed relationship is worth losing other loving relationships, vote PRO. Otherwise, CON.