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

I'm sorry he didn't find time to reduce the amount of characters in his argument -- I myself have a hard time with this so I feel his pain! But since a forfeiture of *two* rounds is necessary for an automatic win, I must post a final Round 3 argument. I would like to thank the judges ahead of time for their consideration, and again thank Phil, Johnicle, etc. [ Defining Love ] Because love can be defined in innumerable ways, I feel the debate topic at hand ought to have been narrowed down to defining one type of love (namely romantic love). Otherwise, while my opponent continued to propose numerous positive examples of the broad term, I could have easily countered his definition with negative examples of love for which the result would have been severely costly or even deadly. In that case, it would have been impossible for PRO to win. Here's why: If we accepted all variations of love as acceptable for this debate, we could consider nationalism, for instance, which is the love of one's country, or racism, the love of one's race. It is those sentiments precisely that have led to major world wars (those two examples in particular were especially deadly and important regarding the inception of WWI). Now assuming PRO had in fact conceded to debating specifically romantic love in the final round, I would have countered this in 2 ways -- One, people have done all sorts of horrific things in the name of love (i. e. raped, maimed, killed, and even started wars; i. e. Helen of Troy). And two, consider my final point of R2 in that often people comprimise several loving relationships for the sake of one romantic lover. [ Re: Love as Experience ] Even if you are a bleeding heart, die-hard romantic who believes that love is worth fighting and losing for, keep in mind that this love would have inevitably been lost as per the debate topic at hand. Moreover, the loss of that one love could have caused someone to shut down completely in terms of being open to future loving relationships. In other words, the EXPERIENCE of losing love could have severely hurt or cost one in the sense that a failed relationship could have prevented future, more successful loving relationships. Additionally, people often mistake infatuation or adoration for love. So, as I've stated, a loss of "love" could have comprimised a future relationship where 'love' actually existed. Again, this would be the concept of EXPERIENCE as working *against* PROs argument. On that note, PRO has even failed to explain how or why that experience with (lost) love is even necessary, as I've pointed out that nowhere is it guaranteed or even implied that one would find love in the future after having lost it. Now, PRO has pointed out that while love can lead to one's inevitable destruction, he mentioned that one could choose to end their lives or find it not to be worth living based on sheer loneliness. This is FALSE; one cannot miss something they have not experienced. This is a huge flaw in PROs argument. Even if you buy into his infinitely broad definition of the term love, one cannot be lonely if they are ignorant to loving relationships in general, including amongst family, friends or partners. Therefore it would be better to have never experienced love at all than to know and fully understand the concept of loneliness. Loneliness can only be experienced after one has experienced a loss of love. Therefore, the contention that one would rather die than feel lonely is an absolute fallacy. Finally on this point, I mentioned how one did not necessarily have to lose something in order to gain an experienced perspective, i. e. the notion that one does not have to cheat on a significant other in order to know that it is wrong and should not be tolerated. Oh, and because I can't resist (( SPOLIER ALERT) ) --> I find it quite comical that PRO used the "recent hit film" Twilight as an example for which he notes is a "fictional story which encourages the theme of love and/or portrays love in a purely positive light" . .. Um, Twilight concludes as a typical 'star crossed lovers' tale often does, in which love winds up *destroying* both characters (( END SPOILER )). [ Re: Love as Sex ] I don't even know where to begin with this flawed contention. Going back to PROs Round 2 argument, he claims that while love (sex) is not necessary in terms of reproduction, that people "mostly" choose to reproduce based on concepts of love. Well, in addition to the numerous examples which I have provided that completely dismantle this argument, let us not forget that this debate topic is structured around an ABSOLUTE. Therefore, the terms 'mostly' and 'sometimes' are irrelevant, as PROs contentions have to apply absolutely. However, once again - just for fun - let us take PROs "maybe" or "sometimes" into consideration. Recall my example of the 2 absolutes regarding sex as love. On one hand, a sexual endeavor would MOSTLY result specifically with an orgasm; a feeling of intense physical euphoria. However, on the basis that a sexual encounter SOMETIMES leads to the acquisition of an STD, can PRO defend the absolute that It Is Better To Have Loved (Had Sex) And Lost (A Lover) Than To Never Have Loved At All? Another thing - If love is defined as SEX, as PRO has argued, how then does one LOSE LOVE? You cannot undo a sexual encounter. And losing a lover - a person, a human being - is far different than "losing" sex. This is just ANOTHER reason why PROs contention was incredibly flawed and useless to this debate. [ Re-Cap / Conclusion ] Assuming PRO had not forfeited the final round, I am confident that I could have and would have argued this debate effectively until the bitter end. Clearly my points have consistently dismantled his flawed ideology. Nowhere has he sufficiently proved why it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. I have pointed out why his two contentions are not only entirely flawed, but more often than not actually helped *MY* case as opposed to his. He mentioned that character limits were a huge issue for him in the final round; While I can sympathize with that notion entirely, he also mentioned that they were spent mostly arguing the definition of love. Again, love is a subjective term. Dictionary. com nor even the highly regarded Oxford Dictionary could put an absolute definition on the term, ESPECIALLY if PRO intended to argue not one but numerous examples of love (familial, romantic, etc. ) However even considering those ideals, consider also a situation in which loving a family member prevented you from loving a romantic partner or vice versa. That is just one of MANY ways which I could have and would have argued PROs point. * PRO also failed to establish how one can miss something or feel incomplete without something that one has never experienced. * Moreover, he failed to compete with my implied notion that one can gain experience regarding relationships without ever having lost love (i. e. other sources - movies, observing friend's relationships, etc. ). Also keep in mind he cited a fictional story in which love led to destruction and heartbreak as opposed to happiness or achievement with his example of Twilight which he noted as a 'positive' example of love. Considering that love may be defined as sex in the dictionary, I have proven why love as sex can be unhealthy, dangerous or immoral. Therefore one cannot say absolutely that it is better to have love (sex) than to not. And finally, even if you - the readers/judges - could find loopholes with this ideology or ANY ideology mentioned within the parameters of this debate, the fact remains that PRO has not (and/or has not pointed them out, and therefore they cannot be considered). Thus, I consider this debate a clear and consistent win for the CON. Thank you. -- L