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

[ Introduction ] Thanks again to Johnicle for starting/running the tournament, Phil for sponsoring it, the debaters who participated and the judges for judging. I would also like to congratulate LM for making it this far in the tournament -- he is certainly an esteemed and formidable opponent! I look forward to a fun and challeneging debate. That said, Welcome to the Final Round. Let's go!!! [ Defining Love ] What is love? It is a word composed of 4 letters - 2 vowels, 2 consenants (in English) in an attempt to define a truly ambiguous, controversial and ineffable emotion. Unfortunately the dictionary.com definition provided cannot suffice as a true indicator of what the term actually means; my opponent himself discusses the various 'types' of love one can have or share. One interpretation of Protagoras' take on relativism is the notion that "Man is the measure of all things," which was a concept expanded by Plato when he stated, "Knowledge is nothing but perception." Socrates agreed, "What seems true to anyone is true for him to whom it seems so." In other words, how one perceives or defines love is relative, and that discrepancy provides many holes in my opponent's argument (especially his first contention). The point here is that one can define love in many ways, for instance by measure of acceptance, trust, happiness, etc. At the same time, you hear phrases like "fatal" or "poisonous" love in an instance where 'love' leads to negative consequences such as death or destruction, be it figurative or literal. If my opponent wishes to introduce the argument that love is a broad term (i.e. not limiting the debate to romantic love specifically, but encompassing all types of love such as the love between a parent and a child, for instance), then we must acknowledge that subsequently a perception of love can also include highly negative connotations as well. An example of this includes killing in the name of love. Consider, for instance, the millions of lives lost in holy wars throughout the ages where people have waged destruction based on the idea that god = love and that their god and consequently love is worth killing for. Under my opponent's parameters for the debate (in terms of the definition), this idea must be considered as a way in which the indistinguishable term 'love' can equivolate to not only positive terms, but also negative realities such annihilation, genocide, evil and hate. [ Contention 1 - Love as Experience ] Ignoring the fact that my opponent has presumptiously and falsely eluded to what my arguments for this debate must entail, let us simply evaluate the facts -- Pro argues that failure (in this case failure = losing love) incorporates the valuable life lesson of experience, which helps formulate the concept of maturity. There are two huge flaws with this ideology: A) Pro has not proved that a loss of love is necessary or even beneficial in terms of one's growth as an individual. For instance, say Tom Jefferson failed numerous times at 'creating' the light bulb. Let us also suppose that at the inception of his journey; however, Person A was simultaneously after the same goal as good ol' Tom. Assuming that Person A had the opportunity and the know-how to accomplish such a goal, and that Person A not failed numerous times as Jefferson had, then he or she (Person A) could have invented the lightbulb even before Jefferson had succeeded. In that case, the result would have been the same (artificial light), but without an unnecessary waste in time, materials, resources, etc. And if you try to argue that Jefferson's failures could have sent him down a different path in terms of his discoveries, I could just as easily argue that the resources and efficiency saved in having invented the lightbulb sooner would have left more opportunities for Person A to further his development and create something even more creative or advanced than the lightbulb. * The point here is that failure is not always a pre-requisite for success. * B) Pro writes, "through gaining the knowledge and experience of love and losing, one is better able to decide whether or not they feel that the pain of lost is too great to pursue love any further." If we are to buy into this contention, we must also realize that via the same logic, someone can also choose NOT to pursue love any further. Anyone who has experienced true heartbreak can attest to the unequivocal and incommunicable suffering such a loss may elude to. For some, the pain of losing love is so great that they may choose to close themselves off entirely to new relationships and experiences, or even go so far as to end their own lives. Consider the various Shakesperean plays or other works of art which supports the notion that love can lead to permanent damage or irreparable anguish which can destroy a person's sanity/soul. [ Contention 2 -- Love as Sex ] For this premise, my opponent wishes to define love as a sexual act, and the flawed logic he uses to sustain such a notion is abundantly evident: A1) Simply because the phrase 'making love' is sometimes used to describe physical intimacy does NOT make love a necessary or even commonality when referencing sexual intercourse! Let us not confuse love and sex just because certain beliefs - religious, moral, social or otherwise - promote this unsupported, highly disputed and illogical ideal. That said, my opponent cannot suggest that the topic reads, "It is better to get laid and no longer get laid by the individual you've gotten laid with than to have never gotten laid at all." It is simply and blatantly false, as it does not actually pertain to the topic of debate at all. A2) For laughs, even if we did assume that love = sex, my opponent is wrong in suggesting that losing sex/love "is not really that big of a deal considering that just about any other potential partner can offer it." This disregard for the 'act of love' tells me that 1 - he already argued his own point that sex = love if sex is so easily replacable, and 2 - that he has probably not had a lot of sexual experiences, as those who are sexually active can attest to the fact that no two lovers are the same or offer the same or even especially similar physical/emotional reactions/results. B) Perhaps most absurdly of all, Pro argues that 'love' a.k.a. sex is necessary as it is the basis of the continuation of our species - reproduction. This could not be more wrong! Surely Pro and the judges alike are aware of technological advances which have made sex (not to mention love!) a completely unnecessary aspect of reproduction. Religious and moral implications aside, it is not only possible but increasingly popular for the use of "unnatural" means to pregnancy, such as in vitro fertilization, 'test-tube' babies, surrogate mothers, sperm donation, etc. Thus no type of love OR sex is required by any means for the continuation of our species. [ Re-Cap ] My opponent points out that his sole points have been: love as experience; sex as pleasurable; and sex as a means of reproduction and the continuation of humanity. The latter 2 points have been entirely disputed by the reality that sex does NOT equal love, for starters. And in regard to experience, I have made the claims that 1 - one can gain life experience without having lost love, i.e. It Is Better To Have Loved and Not Lost, and 2 - Sometimes the experience of lost love can have far more damaging effects to an individual than never having loved at all. Let us also recall my contention that the concept of love can also lead to horrible fatalities and other tragedies causing severe harm to the human race and individuals alike. That said, like Pro I am also reserving the right to mention any additional arguments in Round 2 as well as elaborate on the former proposed contentions. I look forward to a fun and interesting debate -- Good Luck, LM! -- L