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

RE(2): DEFINITIONs: It would seem that the contender doesn't agree with my dictionary.com interpretation of the love. In order to clarify, she asserts that how one perceives or defines love is relative (we'll get to the so-called notion that this places holes in my argument in a moment). She uses this as an excuse to make mention of the notion that love (used as a broad term) can be a means of referring to love which has highly negative connotations and demonstrates this through citing those who have used their gods (god=love) to justify killings. However . . . If "killing in the name of love" is considered a negative connotation of love, then we can just as easily say that every idea possesses the same negative connotation given that individuals are capable of killing in the name of anything of their choosing. For instance, the Nazi related scientists performing experiments on the Jews during WW2 could have very well been justifying their heinous acts by suggesting that they were killing in the name of science. Or rather, what about the US's decision to bomb the innocents in Hiroshima? That was done in the name of peace, was it not? Given that any act which our society deems as "wrongful" can be done in the name of something else (in particular, something which is generally identified as "good'), there really isn't much reason for CON to be citing the Holy Wars as if it actually demonstrates a negative quality of love. Rather, all she manages to prove is that people can do bad things while claiming to follow good ideals. >>>RE(2): CONTENTION #1 A) Rather than directly address CON's example, I shall go the easier route and address what she claims to be the point to it. As she has suggested, the point behind it is that failure is not always a prerequisite for success. I agree, just as studying is not always the prerequisite for acing an exam . That said, what I'm insisting is the failure boost one's chances of inevitable success and at the same time, makes one more knowledgeable and experienced. To use a more well known valid interpretation of what I'm referring to, it is the age old process known as "Trial and error." Every time you make an error, you have the knowledge necessary not to repeat it; you essentially gain more knowledge on how to behave successfully. This is literal improvement. B) CON states that by my same logic, someone can choose NOT to pursue love any further. I agree with this,hence why I made this claim initially (. . . 'decide whether or NOT they feel that the pain of lost' . . .). As far as those who have gone through emotional trouble or having had committed suicide . . . Yes, there are those who experience emotional pain as well as the desire to commit suicide due to having lost love just as there are those who experience emotional pain and go about desiring to end their lives based on sheer loneliness. Making either decision can possibly lead to such turmoil, hence you have no reason to consider her objection. As far as citing fiction goes, if CON considers it as being a valid reference point, then we could just as easily make note of the so many fictional stories which encourage the theme of love and/or portray in a purely positive light (such as the oh so many Disney princess films, harlequin novels, Pride and Prejudice or even that recent hit film Twilight. :D ) >>>RE(2): CONTENTION #2 A1) I referred back to the phrase "making love" for no reason other than for clarification. I base my 'sex = love' point merely based on the fact that it is defined that way. Of course, if my opponent desires a astronomically more credible source, then lets go with the Oxford Dictionary definition. http://www.askoxford.com... As shown above, sexual intercourse is defined as a form of love. Why is this the case? Simple really. I believe CON's disbelief rest on the fact that she merely wishes to equate love to romance. However, although not as potentially strong as romantic love, loving one on a physical level is still rather common. Furthermore, given the fact that it was our very own contender who insisted that there could be many different interpretations of love, I fail to see how this is necessarily a problem. A2) Not at all. In terms of being easily replaceable, I would equate it to food (though this should by no means be taken as me saying that 'getting it on' is as important at eating . . . I'm speaking figuratively)). Each group of food may taste differently (better or worst; average or supreme), but ultimately, the same amount produces the same result in that one is temporarily not hungry. This was what I meant. One could have sex just as one could eat a sandwich, yet one doesn't tend to be upset when the sandwich is already devoured/used up (no matter how much they enjoyed it) seeing as how they can just get another one. B) As for my argument on love/sex, let us keep in mind my exact words: "We must remember that it is mostly "love" which keeps our species alive given that "love" enables reproduction." Note the term "mostly." I am well aware of there being other means, but this doesn't help PRO's argument. We're talking about "loving and losing" vs "never loving." My argument is that "never loving" does not benefit in terms of reproduction. I'll give it to CON for making note of the fact that sexual love wasn't necessary, but if we are immediately to refer back to other forms of love, well . . . Making use of all of those alternative means of reproduction is mostly used by those who in LOVE or wish to perpetuate LOVE (such as homosexual couples, those who can't quite give birth for genetic reasons, but want to have family, etc) in the first place. For CON to successfully win this point, she would have to demonstrate that those with no love-related feelings would fall into the category of the type who would wish to perpetuate a family (hence build a parent/child relationship, which we've already covered as being an example of love) as it's highly unlikely that individuals (with no interest in love) would just start contributing to those means of reproduction for the heck of it. >>>RECAP (R2) So far, CON has failed to show any actual problem with my definition of love, has straw manned my experience argument (by insisting that failure isn't necessary for success) while arguing against their being benefits through the basic practice of trial and error, has failed to demonstrate problems with "loving and losing" which couldn't apply to having never loved at all, has insisted that physical love is nonexistent in response to me pointing out that sex is a benefit of loving (which even my Oxford dictionary definition supports) and has given us no valid reason to disbelieve the benefits which sexual loving and losing has. Above all though, I still hold the stance that the most important point made in the debate is that an individual deciding whether or not love is worth it should be something which is based on experience (this works even on the off chance you buy into the notion that this debate ought to revolve around romantic love). As continually insinuated, individuals are going to have different feelings towards love (again, something which the contender implied to be true at the beginning of the round). There will be some who love it (pun not intended) and some who hate it, but one will never be sure until they try it out. And since it would seem that I have no reason to offer up any additional arguments . . . I'll end my round here. Back to you, Lwerd. :D