Resolved: Opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part.

IMPORTANT NOTICE (MUST READ): Due to the character limit in the system, I cannot post my entire response in this reply, so I'm going to post the remainder of my arguments in the comments section. My opponent (if need be) is free to do this as well. The webmaster of this forum has okay' d this action as acceptable, so I would ask that you do not dismiss everything in the comments section. Now, without further ado . . . In this round, things will seem a bit out of order as I first intend to address the Con's continued rebuttal to my third contention. Based on my opponents stance, I believe this to be the most crucial part of his case as it links to the rest of his argument. Through refuting it first, his case will diminish. Now, let us proceed: First, my opponent quotes Luigi Di Serio with the following: "The research suggested that, "there is no evidence that opposites attract." The study was fascinating and comprehensive, but their conclusion wasn't. The word "attraction" usually refers to the initial feelings a person has that spark an interest in the other. So in the realms of courting dating and sexuality, being opposite and different, is fulfilling in many ways. Mystery, anticipation and excitement, curiosity and adventure all come from experiencing something different. Sure opposites clash, but that is often where the sparks and the passion is created." Basically, the author's point was that he wasn't satisfied with this research. The quote my opponent refers to is actually further proof that he supports my case as he surely would have had more to said more than "The study was fascinating and comprehensive, but their conclusion wasn't." If you'll notice, the author goes on to talk about attraction in that thrills are experienced through opposites while dating, but unlike my opponent, never goes on insinuating that a couple supports each other's weaknesses. In fact, he insinuates just the opposite. Observe the following quote: "Frequently people are too involved by the time they realize the differences and people often "settle" while feeling unfulfilled." This conflicts with my opponents argument as the author expresses that differences frequently lead to unfulfillment. If you don't buy that, lets look at another quote from the article: " If people don't want the same things, or have different values and beliefs, the relationship is bound for failure." I mentioned this one before, but allow me to elucidate even further: This also conflicts with my opponent's idea that a couple's conflicting characteristics support each other's weaknesses because the author deems that couples with such differences are bound for failure. Through notification of both of these quotes, it is quite clear that the author is against my opponent's case. In the next round, my opponent will likely respond by advocating that the two above quotes are dismissible (for my argument) since they concern relationships (which he states concerns compatibility and commitment rather than attraction). If he does that, just take into account the following: The resolution: Opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part. The circumstances behind the success rate of relationships is the heart of this debate. Therefore (contrary to what he has stated), compatibility is indeed relevant to this debate. Anyway, as for the rest of the author's quote, he insinuates that conflicting personalities can be where the spark starts. In other words, where the excitement begins. The author is indeed correct as having a great time while socializing with one another can give a couple the chance to know each other and recognize their respective similarities that can push to relationship to a full blown romance. Next, my opponent follows by stating the following: "Opposites don't discourage romantic relationships either, they just don't often have very successful relationships." I'd usually ask for a clarification, but since this is my final round, I submit that my opponent is contradicting himself here. He says opposites don't discourage romantic relationships and that opposites just don't have very successful relationships. Given that the author doesn't refer to any other kind of relationship, that statement would clearly suffer from internal contradiction. Then, my opponent poses the following question towards me: "So when differences cause feelings about someone, they're not real feelings, but when similarities do, they are?" My answer: Yes. As the author of the article I presented insinuates, conflicting characteristics present attraction towards mystery and excitement. Allow me to elaborate with an illustration: In public speaking, one of the best tactics in winning over your audience is to appeal to someone they are interested in or to simply tell a witty joke that has some relevance to the topic at hand. Often times, neither of these tactics have a great a great deal to do with the topic at hand, but in using them, one can grab his/her audience's attention in even the most boring of topics. An expert on the subject, David Norelius, explains why this tactic is extremely beneficial is his article here: http://www.whitman.edu... . In any case, the point being made is that an audience interest almost always has to be appealed to before the audience can accept the meat of the issue which the speaker is attempting to deliver. The same applies with relationships in that something that doesn't have anything to do with an individuals personality can be used as a means to spark another individuals interest to the point that he/she is willing to explore and become attracted to his/her potential lovers values/beliefs. Next, my opponent states that it is my job to show how "Opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part." My job has been successful as the article which I had presented (which my opponent has no problem with) suggest that opposite pairings are bound for failure and that individuals will likely be attracted to the thrills (that can come from a conflicting relationship) rather than his/her potential lover. Moving on to my opponents continued rebuttal to my first contention: He states that compatibility and commitment is needed for a successful marriage whereas attraction isn't. I agree that the kind of attraction (the attraction to mystery, excitement, and adventure) is unnecessary (as noted in my above rebuttal). It is unnecessary because it has nothing to do with the actual potential spouse and is merely self-serving. However, the kind of attraction that is needed is the attraction to personalities. As my research citations indicate, this kind of attraction is best manifested between couples who have similar personalities. As for the matter of individuals supporting each other's weaknesses, I had covered this in my above rebuttal, but will reiterate the same point: As the author from my citation suggest, a relationship which involves two individuals of different values and beliefs is bound for failure. And as my first research citation concludes, most successful marriages (which are usually considered the epitome of successful romantic relationships) involve two individuals with synonymous traits. FOR THE REST OF MY ARGUMENT, SEE THE COMMENT SECTION: