"Famer's debate tourney, Skepsikyma VS Buddamoose Round#1"

His first premise is that the amount of friends has a positive impact on physiological health. His strongest source appears to be a study on breast cancer and social networks; however I would argue that this study far from conclusively shows this. It notes that “However, women who were socially isolated were more likely to be current smokers and engaged in lower levels of physical activity. They also had lower protein consumption and were more likely to be taking hormone replacement if postmenopausal. ” [1]. I see it as perfectly possible that either these traits themselves, or some other personality trait which lead to them, also lead to social isolation. In this case the number of friends would not be the causative agent, just a manifestation of a deeper root cause. I cannot find in the article any mention of this possible shortcoming, though they do mention another: “if health care providers are overrepresented in nurses' networks, these findings may overstate the per se benefits of social networks and exemplify the need for adequate care after diagnosis. ” [1] In other words, since the sample size consists entirely of nurses it is also possible that an extensive social network includes a disproportionate number of doctors, and that it is access to their advice, not friendship per se, which brings about the disparity in mortality. The other very strong study, the one concerning very old Australians (ages 70 and up) is to be expected of people who live in a state of dependence and is not reflective of the overall population. The heart disease study also lists smoking as another cause. While I am not disputing that friendship has an effect, I do argue that the Times article which was referenced hyperbolically rephrases and selectively cites research to make the impact seem much larger than it actually is. His second premise is that friendship has a positive impact on psychological health. His second source does not cite peer-reviewed research to support their claims, while the third seems to contradict my opponent’s point. It links to another article which states that “a widowed man might feel lonely over the holidays even though he is surrounded by his family and friends” [2] and that loneliness spreads through social groups. For these reasons I would argue that loneliness has little to do with friendship, as they are not at all mutually exclusive, and networks of friends can become a vehicle for the spread of loneliness. In any case, I do not dispute this point, though I have argued that relationships which do not meet the threshold of friendship as per our definition can still instill such benefits and cited peer reviewed research which supports that point in my own arguments. [3] Though my opponent’s third premise is supported anecdotally, I do not dispute it. My opponent’s fourth premise, upon further examination, falls apart quite readily. All but one of his examples use money. When it comes to Schwermer, “The only payment she accepts, however, is enough to cover her train fare. ” [4] The family article states “Though Fellmer uses no money, he said Palmer does use a little, mainly in the form of child support she receives from the government, which is granted to all children. ” [5] Since they are a family, they cannot really say that they use no money if one person uses it for family expenses. Mr. Suelo, though he does live without money, hardly fulfills the requirement of ‘many friends’ in his hermit-like existence, nearly died after misidentifying a cactus, and accepts the idea that he will simply die if he ever falls seriously ill. I don’t think that this state of existence is one that many people would call better than the alternative presented by the resolution, even if it did meet the requirements set forth therein. [6] [1] . http://jco.ascopubs.org... [2] . http://psychology.about.com... [3] . http://www.sciencedirect.com... [4] . http://www.businessinsider.com... [5] . http://shine.yahoo.com... [6] . http://www.details.com...