On human relationships

For my response, I will condense the arguments pro made in his initial constructive. 1. Only exists to make sure human society stays in tact and knit together 2. War and pestilence annihilate the existence of sacred friendship 3. "Mutated concept of the human bonds for survival. " 4. Friends cannot exist without enemies. Pro has not made any substantial arguments in his case but has instead given me a long-winded and ranting chunk of text. I will now rebut the pro arguments to the best of my understanding. 1. Pro assumes that without friendship humans would not share a common bond or stay "knit together. " It is clear that in all governments, societies, and economies that humans must work together and associate to some extent in order to provide for their country's needs. This is also evident in primitive and emotionally detached environments such as bee hives or ant hills. I conclude that society can stay knit together and share a common bond without friendship. By the cross-application of your 4, enemies cannot exist without friends so clearly you concede that there is such a thing as friendship but question the existence of a "sacred human" one. I define sacred according to the 6th definition on dictionary. com, "regarded with reverence. " A question for pro: to our knowledge, are meaningful friendships and relationships formed outside of our species? 2. Pro admits that, "some things are good and we know it. " He gives examples of the love of a mother, the protection that our fathers provide, and the joy that our friends bring us. He assumes that everyone receives love from their mother, everyone receives protection from their father, and everyone has friends that they share joy with. He also assumes that everyone enjoys each of these things respectively. Pro goes on to state that afterward, the only thing that's left is "a day that has run us to the ground and left its marks etched across our spines. " These are not even arguments but attempts at philosophical insight. He seems to be arguing that nihilism outweighs the simple good in life but this is purely a personal perspective. If you let nihilism outweigh happier things from your personal outlook then it will but it does not debunk the merit or existence of these simple goods. Within this argument my opponent insults patriotism and concludes that friendship leads to patriotism (common pride may be a more accurate label) which in turn leads to xenophobia. This is not even aimed towards friendship but towards nationalism and its result in national conflict. My opponent presents an awkward juxtaposition that nationalism and common pride relate directly to friendship and links them all to xenophobia. This is unwarranted and not accurate on a human to human level which the debate is about. It also does nothing to demolish the existence of sacred HUMAN friendship. 3. Friendship has nothing to do with survival. That is all in reproduction and necessities for life such as food and water. Humans could live like gorillas in the wild but we have some innate ability to chose not to that no other species has to our knowledge. Therefore, friendship has nothing to do with survival. Pro said that "as long as the idea of friendship exists, then the idea of the enemy will never disappear. " Pro, is friendship just an idea or an actual bond that exists? You seem to be using the two concepts interchangeably. Also, friendship is not the cause of enemies. Pro is proposing the following logic. 1. Idea of friendship 2. Conflict 3. Idea of enemies 4. Therefore, friendship causes conflict which in turn builds enemies. His logic is nonsensical and vague. *Pro goes on to argue that there must be someone against the grain and if no such someone exists, we will create them. * Pro is assuming social norms v. social abnormalities but norms can be in place without friendship. I agree with the former outlook but it does nothing to debunk the existence of friendship; it is merely stating that friendship leads to enemies which doesn't make sense anyway. 4. I touched on this a bit in 3. His logic does not make sense on a human to human level. If you are to say the presence of friendship leads to the presence of enemies, an adequate comparison statement would be the presence of vinegar leads to the presence of honey. I successfully rebutted all of pro's arguments and demand a con vote in return.