RESOLVED: It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.

Pro has argued from the perspective that one shouldn't reject the potential of romantic love on the basis that they fear the repercussions of love lost. As I pointed out, this debate is NOT about choosing to reject romantic love, but instead a comparative analysis of a person's well-being before and after a failed relationship. On a cost-benefit analysis, was the failed relationship worth it? This debate is about a retrospective POV and not about choosing to reject love in the future. I've acknowledged that our audience will have an inherent bias toward the Pro position. Love is something that most people want to experience. However, do most people want to experience (TRUE) love lost? Instinctively our desire to experience as many profound life experiences as possible would compel us to automatically say that yes, the risk is worth it. While that may be so, the value of the risk is subjective, and it wouldn't be possible or fair to expect me to argue from the position that we should ignore our innate human desires, fueled by evolution, to seek romantic companionship. Instead, I am acknowledging the reality of our feelings, but arguing that the repercussions of lost love aren't necessarily sufficient to make the relationship worthwhile regardless of our feelings. Feelings are unreliable, and our strongest desires aren't necessarily the ones that serve our well-being. Pro touches upon this notion when he points out that despite my best friend being in an abusive relationship, she is probably feeling good and therefore the relationship is at least somewhat worthwhile. Can what "feels good" be the sole basis of merit? Obviously not. To a crazed serial killer, mass murder feels good; to a drug addict, heroin feels good and in fact they may become physically dependent on the substance in order to survive (so you would assume that criteria alone would make it a positive thing, but it is not). Again, I am asking the audience to ignore all emotional ties to whatever experiences they've had, and consider only the objective facts that Pro and I compare. Specifically, we must analyze what Pro puts forth in this debate and not our own perspectives. Pro's arguments thus far have been weak. L-M has acknowledged that romantic love is not a prerequisite for maturity. Indeed, almost every human experience we have will allow us to mature, learn, and grow in some capacity. Attending college, changing careers, perfecting a craft, participating on DDO, or going sky-diving: all of these things will teach us about life, other people and ourselves to a varying degree. Of course romantic love would teach us lessons as well, but would the trade-off of that relationship going sour be worth it? Obviously this question is subject to an infinite number of variables. If a couple's marriage failed, but they produced smart, healthy, and wonderful children, we might say - and I'm sure they would say - that their love was worth it despite the relationship's demise. But what if their relationship produced destructive, unproductive, venomous children? We could go back and forth with anecdotal extremes. The fact remains, Pro's provided two affirmative contentions: the potential for maturity, and awesomeness. Considering we mature from just about every life experience, and some people don't mature at all and in fact regress from failed relationships, this isn't a strong argument for Pro. My opponent brings up the medical research conducted by the Nazis and how that was a positive byproduct of a negative situation. Of course, lost love might teach us a few lessons, but we must observe the scenario in its entire context. When reflecting on Nazi Germany, we can acknowledge the benefits (like medical research) but see that overall it would have been better to NOT have had the Holocaust happen despite any "good" derived. A few or certain positives is not indicative of an overall worthwhile experience. The same concept applies to the cancer example. On that note, is cancer analogous to love in this debate? "It is better to have cancer and lost [died] than to have never had cancer at all...?" No, that would only make sense if we said it was better to have cancer and BEAT IT (win, not lose) than never have cancer at all. Of course experiencing love and not losing it would be preferable to not having love at all. Love lost however can be detrimental without a positive on the horizon. L-M points out that President Obama has experienced lost love, yet became president so his growth through loss helped him achieve greatness. This is a completely unsubstantiated assertion. Obama has experienced loss and hardship in many ways, some of which are more pertinent to a political career than romance. Pro wrote, "It"s a painful life filled with painful experiences. We live in a world where negative feelings are simply part of the process." I agree, so people can still grow without losing love. The reason this is important is because I have pointed out negatives specific to love, whereas Pro hasn't been able to point out any positives (maturity, awesomeness) specific to love. When we compare the pros and cons of lost love, we need to consider that inherent negatives to love and love lost are what gives me the edge in this debate. Realistically, there's no other way to win, as all other arguments are based on subjective variables. Pro hasn't proven that it was because of lost love, specifically, that Obama was able to achieve the presidency. Loss and rejection have even been known to destroy people and deter or stifle their success. This impacts not just the individual but everyone around them. This phenomena even has a name, the "Yoko Ono effect," in which the significant other of an individual is known to have negative repercussions on that person's career, talent, friendships and other aspects of their lives [1]. Perhaps Obama's promise and growth was even hindered by his alleged lost love because he was distracted, either personally or professionally. Pro's ecstasy explanation is flawed. He says that someone in love can experience double pleasure by simultaneously being in love and on E. This debate is about NOT being in love (love lost), so it would not be "the best of both worlds." Pro writes, "Regardless of what one is feeling when they have lost their love, it doesn't change the warm experiences they had when they had love in the first place." True, but they may not be worth it. There are all types of warm experiences one can have outside of romantic. For example, consider Pro's anecdotal example of Christmas growing up. This debate is about romantic love in particular. Citing notions of warm, happy, familial love actually strengthens MY case and is not an argument for the Pro. It goes along with the fact that I pointed out humans have the capacity to experience deep, passionate feelings, sex, and strong love of all kinds outside of romantic love that enable them to grow, feel happy and fulfilled. In fact, this is the strongest aspect of my cases and Pro ignored it. Please extend the second to last paragraph of my R2, in which I cited the difference between philia and eros. I explained how eros --> philia, and why philia is the more important, preferable, and ultimately dominant types of love. It is love beyond romantic love, a.k.a. hormones and whimsical passions, and pair bonding reinforced through evolutionary processes in the brain that we have no control over. As for my argument that love takes time and resources away from other areas of life, Pro says this assumes that the other areas (school, work, etc.) are more important. Not necessarily, but they are abundant - or should be for a healthy balance in one's life - and love lost means you've sacrificed excelling in those areas due to focus on a relationship that would ultimately fail. [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com...