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

MY OPPONENT: "1.My opponent says that death happens, and that if you are lonely you will be sad, perhaps turning you into a crazed murderer." ME: 1.yes i did say that, point being that being alone is not as good as having lost some one and still being able to love. catch that? MY OPPONENT: " 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." did i not say several times, that it is possible to gain love back after losing it? and with experience for the next relationship to boot. as opposed to the negitivity not experiencing love brings. MY OPPONENT: "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" ME: ok i get it. you lose someone obviously its gonna suck. But that doesn't mean its the end of the world and life is thus pointless. You put it out there that it sucks, and everything about it fom then on is going to be worse for you. and because you put it out there, thats exactly what will happen until someone changes their way of thinking. When your loved one dies, you instantly think "oh life is pointless" and you instantly start thinking of how bad things are from then on out. But what if it isn't that way? how would anyone find out? what if instead you thought "this was really sad that this person died, but now they are in a happier place. all is not lost, because i can change it to be something new and make somethign of it." by doing this you have opened yourself up to a whole new world where anything is possible. http://www.thesecret.tv... MY OPPONENT: "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?" ME: Ok so in this situation you never actually lose love, because it was lost to begin with. they never liked the other back, therefore, is was never 'lost' seeing as it was never there in the first place. but aside that, just because your crush didnt pull through for you, doesn't mean its impossibe to have a loving relationship from that point on. remember bad things happen when you put bad vibes out. put good vibes out and you will most likely find another love who loves you back. instead of assuming love is a crisis before ever giving it even a second chance. MY OPPONENT:"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." ME: ive ignored it?? hmm... (looks over rebuttal) ME: "It is true that death does occur in life, and that when it does, it is a very tragic thing, but i would have to oppose that it is still better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all" ME: "Because someone you loved died, does not mean you should just give up on love in general. Remember all the happy times you had with that person, remember these and know you can have them again with someone else." ME: "death should not stand in the way of having love." ha so i havent argued it huh? HA HA just a friendly tip...(read your opponents case) ;) but being the good fellow i am, i will once again rebut this. YES the grief would be avoided, but so would the happiness and experiences that the love brought in the first place. and instead you would be confronted with the grief of lonlieness, and seldomness. MY OPPONENT: "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" ME: ARGH you fail to see my point. you cant lose love if you dont have it.. And i also brought up how losing love due to divorce strengthens relationships. You have learned from experience and mistakes, ones that you will know how to fix once in a new relationship. MY OPPONENT: "In order to win, he has to prove that people WILL be happier despite losing a loved one." ME: shall i once again show you how i have done this? nah i wont because i have only so much time to argue. But the point made here is that anyone can choose to be happy or eternally hurt by losing love. If they choose to move on and love again then they can and it will be better for them as opposed to lonliness. NY OPPONENT: "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." ME: Its not proved false just because a couple people THINK that it is false. or else it would not be a metter of debate rendering this whole thing pointless. and there was no offence taken, just pointing out that no debate is unwinnable and its just a little rude to incinuate that you deserve to win before the opponent even makes a rebuttal. MY OPPONENT:"This is where I got my stats, Ms. DePaul is a respected member of her field. http://www.amazon.com...... http://blogs.psychologytoday.com...; ME: the first site is a pic of a book. doesnt do much for me... the second is just an over extended description of how things can work out when your single. which in no way proves to me how it is better to be single and alone then to lose love and continue to love afterwards. yes i understand that when not in love you can accomplish many things. but i am trying to prove how losing love and continuing to love is better than single status. MY OPPONENT: "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. " ME: love is not a science. therefore inpossible to prove with science. this is a philosphical debate, meaning opinions over opinions. MY OPPONENT: "He never responds to the fact that pro creates unnecessary suffering, through the crisis hypothesis" ME: Unnecessary suffering? this is life. life is full Unnecessary suffering. we move on. thats my point ive been making thtroughout this debate. MY OPPONENT:"He also says that lost love can be gotten back, but it is not always this easy." ME: nothing in life is "easy". and being alone is certainly not easy either with all the responsiblilty on your shoulders. MY OPPONENT:"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" ME: meaning finding true love is up to the individual. MY OPPONENT: "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." ME: Did i say 'go on the streets and just pick up some random woman'? i dont recall... love is more complex then than that. make of it what you will buddy. MY OPPONENT:"He hasn't provided a single way why it is BETTER to have loved and lost." ME: re-read my rebuttal. ok i have much more to say however i am low on CR's so i will finish this off in round three. thanks! kudos. -philosophical