Sleeping with the enemy has a positive effect.

Greetings, everyone. I am here to show that sleping with the enemy does not have a positive effect. === Sleeping with the enemy My opponent first defines "sleeping with the enemy." He defines it as any instance where enemies join forces to accomplish something. I must disagree with this definition. I put forward an alternate definition: quite literally, sleeping with the enemy. As in having sex with the enemy. Why is my definition superior? I'll tell you. First, my definition is not abusive, whereas my opponent's is. The definition provided by my esteemed opponent almost guarantees a win for PRO, while my definition entails a debate that can be argued either way. Second, both myself and my opponent thought, upon first seeing this resolution, that it literally meant sleeping with an enemy. Since that's what we both had in mind when we chose this resolution, it's what we should be debating. I expect my opponent to either accept this new definition or state why his is superior in the context of this debate. === "a" My opponent recognizes that literally, the article a seems to imply that only one positive effect need be shown, not an overall positive effect or a positive effect on balance. I must disagree with this for two reasons. First, it causes the resolution to be abusive. There's absolutely no way to win as CON with this definition. Second, colloquially, it seems to have a different definition. For instance, if I said "Serial murder has a positive effect," it's clear that I mean the overall effect. Sure, it has individual positive effects [such as reducing CO2 emissions], but it's clear that serial murder does not have a positive effect in the sense I would mean it [overall]. If someone told you, in any normal conversation, that "Serial murder has a positive effect", you would most likely disagree right away, and for good reason. By capitalizing on this poor wording, my opponent would be destroying the true intent of this debate. Therefore, I put forward that "Overall" is implied: I will be arguing that "Sleeping with the enemy does not have a positive effect overall". Spirit of the debate over letter of the debate. === Pre-emptive strike No worries, I wasn't going to make that argument anyway. === The PRO's and CON's of SWTE [Sleeping with the enemy] Since my opponent used an inferior definition of SWTE in round 1, most of the benefits he stated no longer apply. For that reason, and in the interest of fairness, I will provide a couple of benefits of sleeping with the enemy according to the definition I provided. PRO's A> Sleeping with the enemy no doubt gives both parties a sense of physical euphoria. B> Sleeping with the enemy allows one to psychologically infiltrate the enemy's mind, perhaps gaining access to important information that would not be had otherwise. CON's A> Just as in PRO B, the enemy might psychologically infiltrate your mind, perhaps gaining access to important information s/he would not otherwise have. This directly counterbalances point PRO B. B> Sleeping with the enemy causes unnecessary feelings towards the enemy. This causes confusion. There are reasons people become enemies, and sleeping with the enemy would unfortunately cause people to become unsure of these reasons for no reason other than hormones. C> Sex creates a bond between people. The strength of this bond is reduced when having sex with numerous people. Thus, sleeping with the enemy weakens the bond a person can share with the person they'll spend the rest of their life with. D> Sleeping with the enemy distracts from the task at hand. Rather than sleeping with the enemy, one should be doing more productive things, such as working out the actual problems that caused the animosity in the first place or otherwise dealing with the enemy in a more meaningful way. I will leave it at that for now, seeing as my redefining leaves my opponent at a clear disadvantage. However, it is clear that the definitions must change - when PRO can literally tell us "Why CON cannot win this debate", something is wrong. If one member CANNOT win, it is not a debate. I believe my definitions are much more suitable for a fair debate, and they are more in line with the intent of the debate than my opponent's definitions. I'll see you back here for round 2.