Online relationships don't work

My opponent hasn't defined what I would consider to be a sufficient number of the terms in the contention, so here's my interpretation. If my opponent disagrees, I say we compromise in the comment section.The ContentionPro: When a relationship is sustained primarily online between two individuals, neither individual can be satisfied to an extent where the net satisfaction would be considered sufficient by either party.Con: In the same situation, both parties have a chance of being satisfied sufficiently.My first round will be arguing with these as the understanding of the overall debate.Woolgathers of the World Wide Web's WondersOn the web, you are you mandatorily as dictated by your words, your rhetoric, your charm, your knowledge, or your ability to copy and paste. When dwelling the blagoblag, the following is all optional: Sex Gender identity Race Age Ethnicity Nationality Culture Religion Physical looks Physical presence Physical smell Gestures Body movements Body in general That weird thing you do with your tongue when you talk sometimes In person, all of these are not optional. They are there for people to see. In day to day life, in person, people will judge you based on arbitrary and random factors due to various kinks in societies and cultures as well as lenses for perception evolved through random historical events. People will often be shallow, whether it's consciously or unconsciously. Who hasn't, by now, already read tons of research on how humans will treat you differently based on what color your shirt is, how much you fidget with your fingers, what tone of skin color you have, or what angle you tilt your head at? People judge your presence not based on your values, your thoughts, your philosophies, or your words, but on a million different things that don't affect anything remarkably or matter to who you are. Online, it doesn't matter. It gets tiring when people like me just because of the way you look or what race I am. Doesn't it exhaust you when someone admits they they hang around you, not because you're funny or because you're a good friend, but because damn you've got nice tits? Online, you choose what parts of you you want to reveal, and they don't have to be the shallow parts. You can show who you really, truly are. People see you beyond your nice tits, is what I'm saying. Putting aside the contention, whether or not it reflects reality, something I'll argue later, wouldn't you want humans to have relationships online that work? Isn't it very cynical and sad if we're unable to get along once we remove the shallow factors? But that doesn't mean anything. I'm arguing whether or not this applies in real life, and I can want this to be real all I want, it doesn't mean it is. However, you have no need to worry, because here's the truth: Pro is wrong. We can have online friends. Our love can penetrate all the cybernetic passwords and firewalls to reach another person, and I'm willing you argue this side to the death. In reality, I'm a pessimist, I'm a cynic, and I regularly anticipate the downfall of humanity and lament on the ugliness of the phenomenon of life, but in this instance, just for once, I believe that the cynical side is wrong and I'm very happy to argue against it. Without further ado, let's begin my rebuttals. I Couldn't Think Of An Alliteration Here, But You're Wrong (so far), Pro! "I argue that online relationships don't work for the reasons that we as humans need physical interaction..." This is a ridicuous argument. A bit rude to say, but I think it needs to be understood how I feel about this. Yes, humans need physical interaction, but because this is a need that cannot be satisfied through a primarily online relationship, that makes online relationships infeasible? Question: Do you know what else is needed by humans? Answer: Water. Yet you will meet many people that will leave you thirsty and not every human you meet will be wet. Answer: Air. And yet, in both online and offline relationships, being with others does not increase your supply of oxygen. If anything, it does the opposite. When humans need certain things, they don't only limit themselves to interacting with things that offer each and every single one of those needs. We have multiple things for our multiple needs. This argument was very weak and Pro should've known that it would be shot down like this. "While yes, they might work for an extent, eventually, you will need to see each other in person." I'd like my opponent to provide where this information came from. Experience? That's unreliable. The contention should then be "Online relationships don't work FOR ME." Is there an actual study that supports this? Where the hell did Pro get this!? I'd also like to point out that all relationships only work for an extent. Then we die. "Online relationships of any kind can never substitute for real life relationships." Both absolutist and doesn't actually argue the contention. "Online relationships can get superficial as you both cannot know who the real person is. Just because they act a certain way online does not mean they are like that in person." This argument really irks me. What the f*ck does Pro mean by "the real person...?" Yes, we act differently in different situations. In a specific sense, just because I throw lit matches on wood, it doesn't mean that I throw lit matches on people. In a more general sense, I might be very politically correct during a job interview while very crass and offensive to society's values while casually debating on a large debating website. If you act differently online, you're suddenly taken over by a totally different person and are now someone else? How you act in different situations are all parts of a sum that make who you are. You can't just arbitarily cut out certain situations like my opponent implies and go "You're you, except when you're online, then you're the holy Internet monster that makes people do things when they encounter the internet. INTERNET IS MAGIC VOODOO." In a sense, you can't really ever know "who the real person is" if you only ever interact with a part of them, a mere footprint of their soul. This argument is completely ridiculous and doesn't apply to anything in any way. An Imploration To My Adversary Perhaps it's because it's the first round, perhaps it's because the opponent doesn't take this subject very seriously as evidenced by the "...lol..." in the first sentence, but these arguments are very weak and almost insulting. I beg Pro to take this more seriously and put more thought into the next round in order to ensure that this debate is fulfilling and exciting for everyone involved. Thank you.