A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

I want to start where my opponent ended. Her last argument: "This quote by my opponent admits that a bird in the hand is NOT equal to two birds in the bush. Our resolution is that A bird in the hand IS equal to two in the bush."No, it isn't. I never said that x is EQUAL to x+y; for most values of y, that would be a ridiculous statement. Our resolution is that the bird you hold is WORTH the two you do not have. It is a value statement, a weighing of the costs and benefits against the odds. My opponent says: "The proverb is about risking one bird for two birds. We already know that two birds are double the amount of one bird."This is a very simplistic and literal way of understanding the proverb. I've given sources to show that the proverb is not talking about literal birds, but about opportunities and advantages. If we are to assume it is only talking about the absolute value of birds, then a) it'd be completely wrong and counter-intuitive, and b) it would only apply to hunting. Proverbs are meant to boil down a weighty truth about everyday life into a simple memorable aphorism. The good thing you have now is better than all the good things you merely hope to have. Better to enjoy the advantages you have now then to sacrifice them for the mere possibility of gaining more later. A certain good is better than an uncertain better. I gave dictionary and cultural sources at the beginning to establish that this is the meaning of the proverb; my opponent may not argue a different meaning. She may only argue if it is right or wrong. I contend it is right, and I gave an entire page of logic breaking down all the possibilities, showing how it is right. She did not touch these. I showed how, in the vast majority of cases, it is better to keep what you have, as the odds are against you gaining anything by its sacrifice. She did not dispute my logic, or the conclusion. Disputing the meaning of the proverb would carry more weight if she had given sources equal and opposite to mine, showing a division amongst authorities over the meaning. She did not; there isn't any. I actually had to trim two dictionaries ad a blog post showing further agreement about the accepted meaning of this proverb. I can provide them and more if she continues to dispute the meaning. Extend all of my R2 arguments. To take the remainder of my opponent arguments, in order now:1. As I just pointed out, we aren't necessarily talking about 1:2 ratios here. The "birds in the bush" may be worth anything or nothing, we can't know for sure until we have them. We also have no guarantee that we will get them. As I pointed out, belaboured, and drudged over in R2, the number of cases in which we gain by sacrificing what we have are outnumbered by the cases in we lose everything.If the odds are 5 to 1, in four cases we lose our bird and gain nothing. Only in one case do we get the other birds.If the odds are 65 to 1, in 64 cases we'd lose everything. The hungry man with a dollar may not have much, but he has a dollar. For that dollar he can buy five or six packs of ramen noodles, and have three meals a day for three days. He could save it, rake someone's lawn, earn $10, add his $1 to it, and have $11 to spend at a steakhouse. Or he could buy a lottery ticket for the MEGA Millions California Lottery at the current odds of 1 in 40 of winning anything, 1 in 176 million of winning the jackpot;[1] [2] lose, and have nothing at all. Hey, he had a chance of winning $75,000,000! That's worth sacrificing your only real chance of eating that night, isn't it?No, it's not. 1 in 176 million is not a reasonable chance to take. 1 in 40 is very long odds to risk anything valuable on. The reasonable thing to do is to keep what you have, not to gamble it on the off-chance that you might get something better.2. For your love argument, the option always remains that you could try enjoying the companionship of the partner you have, instead of betraying them. You have no real reason to believe that you can find someone else better, and no real reason to be dissatisfied with the one you have (remember, the bird you have is a good thing, not an indifferent one. I went through that already at the beginning of R2. The value of x must be greater than 0 for the proverb to apply).It could just be your attitude towards your partner that needs to be changed. Either way, unless you have another prospect, and you are certain of gaining them, and you know that they are better for you than your current, and if and only if you have no sense of loyalty, it may be in your best interests to change partners. Otherwise, better not. A mildly good and pleasant partner is far better than no partner at all, and much better than a slightly better partner that you cannot enjoy because you feel so guilty about being a cad to your last one by dumping them.Human emotions are tricky things; you can make all the cost-benefit analysis you want, but they don't behave in a strictly logical way. This argument is hardly helping your case. This is the last time I will touch , unless you can set an objective number on human happiness. Subjective feelings about your partner prove nothing about this proverb.3. Again with the squishy emotions. Hope and happiness are not tangible goods that you can barter your possessions for. Making emotional arguments may sway the voters, but it proves nothing about the resolution, which is clearly talking about opportunities, valuables, and advantages. If giving all your earthly possessions to the poor and sealing yourself up in a hermit's cell brings you utter bliss, it probably will be worth it to you; you cannot argue that this proverb is generally wrong off your isolated case, though. The vast majority of humanity seem to think that they are happiest living a non-ascetic lifestyle; whether they are right or wrong in this is beyond the scope of this debate. I agree, the bush may well hold something more valuable than you have. My point is, in most cases if you drop what you have to reach for the bush, you end up losing everything and gaining nothing. In those cases, it is better to keep what you have, no matter how good the birds in the bush are. 4. I am going to ignore your quotes. These men had a right to have these opinions, but that is all they are. To attempt to prove this proverb is generally wrong from these quotes is an appeal to authority, and is a fallacious argument.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Finally, let me point out that - because my opponent has chosen to argue against a meaning the proverb does not carry - my entire analysis from last round stands unchallenged. In no way does she attack my logic, she merely asserts that it is irrelevant since the proverbs means something else. I established the meaning of the proverb at the beginning of R2; I gave three different cultural dictionaries, who agreed in all essentials. I ask my opponent to address the current debate topic.Conclusion:We do not usually know for certain the value of the other birds. My opponent has given no real argument to dispute this.We do not usually know the odds of gaining the other birds, but it is usually less than 1 in 2. My opponent has not disputed this.My analysis, given last round, shows in most cases it is better to keep what you have, because in most case sacrificing it will not gain anything. My opponent has not disputed my analysis.Therefore, in most cases, is is better to keep what you have than to give it up for the possibility of uncertain gain. A bird in the hand is worth (not equal to, but worth) two in the bush.[1] http://www.calottery.com...[2] http://www.calottery.com...