Life is a party.

Thank you for an exciting debate thusfar and good luck in the polls. "ok so the first point that my opponent makes, says that while life CAN be a social gathering, it is not in every case. He says he has times when he is alone and solitary. AS DO WE ALL. right now, i'm not crowded among tons of people in my room.... that would be weird." Yes, it would be. But she's already admitted in her first paragraph that I was right and thus conceded to my first contention. She claims life is not always a party/social gathering and therefore, we see that life is NOT in it's entirety, a social gathering. "Though we have our moments of solidarity, we as humans still must interact with each other in order to survive." Not so. You can spend your entire conscious life surviving without interacting with people. All you need to do to survive is eat, sleep, drink, produce waste, have a metabolism, pass through time, and all other functions of living. "No human completely isolates themselves completely." Just for the record, you said completely twice. And regardless of what mioght possibly be true, what is is what matters. "They would die. " No they wouldn't. Review the functions of living above. "In life, as my opponent has agreed to, we do interact and meet with others. My opponent however, did not refute my point that we are gathered in sooo many ways. And interact through all of them. This is why we even have a language, and soooo many ways of communication." This doesn't change the fact that simply because we may gather some of the time, we don't gather all of the time which means life isn't a party. Also, I did refute that point in my R2. "So why not communicate happily? my opponent says that it is "unhealthy"." No, I say to always be happy and socially gather would be unhealthy as you aren't experiencing the wonders of exo-spective life. "haha. one of the most false claims on this site. (well, maybe thats an exaggeration...)" Just for the sake of argument: This may be the most false statement on this site "and it's not slander of the highest degree if it really is any slander. if I really wanted to offend to the highest degree, I'd run around butt naked screaming HAHA IM A NATZI ROTFLOLZ" (A quote from my dbaldwin v draxxt debate with sexycracker.) "People who are happier in their daily lives have healthier levels of key body chemicals than those who muster few positive feelings, a new study suggests. This means happier people may have healthier hearts and cardiovascular systems, possibly cutting their risk of diseases like diabetes." But if a person cannot perceivable be happy all there life. As I've said, it's unhealthy to be JUST healthy (which by the way is completely off topic. My opponent's resolution is "Life is a party" not "Everyone should be happy all the time.") "Previous studies have shown that depression is associated with health problems compared to average emotional states. But few studies have looked at the effects of positive moods on health. Now, researchers at University College London, UK, have linked everyday happiness with healthier levels of important body chemicals, such as the stress hormone cortisol." Depression can also be cause by repressing sad or angry feelings. Again, off topic. "Researchers have long noted that happier people tend to be in better health than those who are persistently stressed, hostile or pessimistic." What does this have to do with parties? Parties are not defined as happiness. In fact, I've been to some rather awkward parties in which a drunken sophomore... Nevermind. The point is, parties and happiness are not synonymous. True, you have defined them as "A special event, often a celebration." That is not a similar definition provided in either Merriam-Webster or Dictionary.com. Therefore, we cannot assume that all parties are happy or lead to happiness. "and also, my opponent claims it to be "unhealthy" to be even somewhat joyous when a family member or friend dies. These things happen." I never said somewhat, I said at all times, which is the claim you've made. Please, stop making false assumptions and leading the topic astray. "He proceeds to say, "do the healthy thing- vote con." Voting con would mean that you DONT think life should be celebrated, and you think that we should just sit in our own sorrows (clinging to our little teddy bears), and not seeing things opptimistically." No, voting Con would mean that you believe that life isn't all about parties and isn't always a celebration. "These things happen." Yes, these things happen. If we are sad, we should express our feelings instead of bottling them up. "I've proven above from several researched studies how CON will give you/ increase your diabetes, Cancer, high blood pressure, etc." No, you've shown studies as to how being happy can help you be healthier. I'm not in negation of happiness, I'm in negation of the above resolution. Stay on topic. "I've proven above from several researched studies how CON will give you/ increase your diabetes, Cancer, high blood pressure, etc." I'm sorry, I just had to repeat the quote as it cracked me up. "Even more so, if you want to avoid cancer, be happy, celebrate, and stop crying in a corner with your little teddy bear," No. If you want to avoid cancer, stay away from radiation and overexposure to the sun. Happiness doesn't cure or prevent cancer. And if you're sad, let it out. Teddy bears can empathize on a personal level in some cases. "If you agree, vote pro." No because if you agree, you agree to failed logic, lack of consistency, and an off-topic argument. Let us recap: 1) We have gone over the lack of synonymity between "life" and "party" 2) There is no one event or occurrance in life that will always remain persistant in one's life. 3) Happy and Party are not synonymous 4) Cancer is not caused by depression. 5) Being happy will not prove this resolution true. For the above reasons and refutations, there is only one logical approach: Vote Con. Thanks agin for this debate. -EG