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

[MY CASE] CONT #1 Love is not a prerequisite to the maturity that failure can bring. Nevertheless, as CON points out, we as humans have a tendency to gravitate towards love. We not only tend to desire companionship, but romantic companionship too. What I’m proposing is that we confront this head-on and accept the consequences it brings. In doing so, one not only has the benefits of being in love, but also the opportunity to learn from the experience they’d had after loss has taken effect. CON claims that many people respond negatively to rejection. I don’t deny this. In fact, I’d say just about everyone responds negatively to rejection. Nonetheless, what I’m proposing is that people should deal with rejection head on rather than the worry about the negative feelings that will come with it. As most of you realize, a large percentage of life is filled with failure and disappointment. Some people don’t get that promotion they’ve been wanting, some people do poorly in school, some people are dirt poor and some people deal with the death of their loved ones. It’s a painful life filled with painful experiences. We live in a world where negative feelings are simply part of the process. Therefore, to reject love on the basis that you might have to deal with negative feelings in the future is not a good reason as there’s no escaping the struggle that is life. CON says “What doesn't kill you doesn't always make you stronger.” This is true. She cites cancer as an example, however, I couldn’t disagree more. Cancer has had a positive effect on a number of people who have been stricken by it. It has served as a wake-up for people to turn lives around for their remaining days alive and right every wrong they’ve committed. CON claims that one can only identify love with their own experience. I couldn’t agree more, but would go as far as to say that the love CON’s best friend is feeling is good, despite her being in a horribly abusive relationship. Sometimes, good things come from bad circumstances. The Nazi’s performed heinous experiments on many of the Jews they captured. Nonetheless, the medical data gathered from these experiments has provided a wealth of medical knowledge. Do I condone the Nazi’s experiments? No, but at the same time, we ought not to discard the medical knowledge gathered. In essence, it’s important to distinguish the cause from the effect. Here specifically, the effect is good, but the cause is bad and should not be tolerated. It should be noted that should CON’s friend end her relationship with the abusive partner, she will have lost that partner. In losing him/her, she can learn from her experiences and pick a more suitable partner in the future. CON claims that love can be negative, painful or dangerous. She cites people having killed in the name of love as well as having committed other bad behaviors while associated with love. This is true. Many jealous lovers have done just that. However, although people often commit evil acts in the name of something, it doesn’t mean that that something is inherently bad. Throughout history, human beings have killed in the name of all sorts of things. Some have killed in the name of peace, but we certainly don’t consider peace to be dangerous. All my opponent proves here is that love is not painful/dangerous, but humanity itself. After all, human history is filled to the brim with pain and violence. CONT #2 CON points out that love has both positive and negative effects--that this debate isn’t about the ‘then’, but the now---specifically the love lost. However, this doesn’t follow. 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. I’m sure each of you can think of a very fond point in your lives that you occasionally look back upon. For me, it was the Christmases I got to celebrate with my family as a child. Due to unfortunate circumstances, those days are gone. Nonetheless, I still have these memories to cherish and look back upon. Not only that, but should I begin a family in the future, I can replicate these experiences. The past certainly isn’t irrelevant. Rather, it’s what paves the way for the future. CON questions the reasoning I provided about the benefits of love. She says that none of the benefits I mentioned are specific to love. Assuming this is true, it’s irrelevant. As one is not restricted to choosing a single method on how to acquire these benefits, you can quiet easily aggregate these resources. In other words, take CON’s mention of ecstasy for example. Not only can one experience love, but they can simultaneously take ecstasy, hence effectively doubling their resources of pleasure while experiencing the best of both worlds. For someone who never loves at all, this isn’t an option. CON claims that this debate isn’t about whether or not love can be chosen, but love lost in general. This is correct. Her position in this debate is that romantic love/loss is not worth bothering with in the first place due to negative effects and benefits accessible elsewhere. In light of this, my stance holds. Love/loss is indeed worth bothering with. One of the many reasons for this is that you can experience love again and again, regardless of loss. From this perspective, it’s a process of trial and error and one can potentially improve their romantic experiences over time, maturing in the art of love, increasing its benefits and simultaneously decreasing its cost. [ Her Case ] CON claims love is a distraction. She says it takes time/ concentration away from school, work, family, friends, etc. This contention makes an assumption about life. That school, work, family, friends, goals and hobbies take precedent over everything else---or at very least, love. Since people have different views/aspirations, I reject this line of reasoning. She says lost love is generally not worth the initial sacrifices as it means time/resources were wasted on a relationship that only deterred you from finding or being with the right person. This goes right back to my contention that loss allows for maturity. One can ask themselves what they can do better next time and can better deal with other sources of heartache, knowing they’ve just dealt with the heartache of love lost. Finally, one can cherish the memories they have had about the good feelings love had given them. CON claims love is blind. That when people’s emotions are clouded by passion and hormones, rationality and judgment decrease. Whether this is, this debate is about love lost. Therefore, I submit that love lost grants one the potential to ‘do better next time’ and not allow their passions to cloud their judgment. For example, our standing president, Barack Obama, is in love with his wife Michelle. He has acquired success and notoriety of the highest kind despite being in love. It should be noted that Obama too has experienced love lost [1]. Now does this mean that loving and losing will make you president? No. It is, however, illustrative of one’s opportunity to better perform after experiencing loss. CON claims love is expensive. Some people blow lots of their cash on dates/jewelry. However, there are two things consider in regards to this contention. First, in experiencing love lost, one can learn a valuable lesson (i.e. ‘don’t waste your money,”). A lesson that is applicable in a wide variety of life’s many facets. Second, expenses (even on what will ultimately be a failed relationship) can make the experience that much more memorable. There’s a big difference between spending a romantic evening at McDonalds and spending one on a luxury cruise. CON tells us that people can get anxious over the pressure of finding the right person, the fear of dying alone, etc. However, again, life is filled with anxiety, pain and disappointment. This is all part of the experience that is life. One should confront life’s troubles directly. Source: [1] http://tinyurl.com...