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

With that said, let us proceed: First, I would like to state that my opponent's rendering concerning the meaning behind the actual resolution is correct (for the most part anyway) in that we're debating romantic relationships "for the most part. " Once again, the meaning behind those last four words concerns a successful romantic relationship. A successful romantic relationship is generally defined as marriage, although it can be in the form of a long-committed non-marriage relationship. Now, I shall respond to my opponent's rebuttal concerning my points. He accuses my BBC news report citation as being ill-thought-out. His reasoning behind this notion is that any other outcome would not have taken place due to the categories listed. I would like to remind the audience that these four categories are each broken up into a series of questions on the matter of the individuals beliefs. Contrary to what my opponents alludes to, there is no such simplicity in the manner this research was carried out as a series of questions would be a means to determine the LEVEL of each category rather than if one is merely interested in said category. It certainly isn't as simple as "both Bob and Sue being pro-family", thus being that they are well attracted to each other. My opponent then dismisses my second link by claiming that he is sure that it has the same ill-thought-out criteria, but the problem with this, ladies and gentleman, is that he is essentially claiming that he is going to dismiss my second citation simply because he has a HUNCH that it's fallacious. As one may or may not realize, a hunch (or in better terms, an opinion) does not make a refutation. In short, his reasoning for my citations being useless to this debate are heavily flawed and cannot be considered in your judgment; I implore you to dismiss his 'dismissals. ' My opponent then attacks my logic concerning the AFF of the resolution by claiming that people need others to fortify their own weaknesses (and vice versa) and that people are attracted to people who can guarantee them new activities. I believe the writer (who my opponent claims to agree with) covers this (more on that in a moment), but a question I would like to ask to my opponent is whether or not he is advocating that a relationship can be successful between two individuals WITHOUT any common interests whatsoever. If that is the case, then i would like to ask him how an "odd couple" (no pun intended) could get along. If their basic values and criterions for life conflict, wouldn't there always be heated arguments and other such negative activities between the two? Surely, such a relationship would end in failure. Next, my opponent elucidates that the author from my citation agrees with his side of the debate, but with statements such as "Many relationships are built on the foundation of sexual attraction or simply lust. Those are fleeting feelings and certainly not enough to make a relationship work. If people don't want the same things, or have different values and beliefs, the relationship is bound for failure", this is simply not the case. Keep in mind of what the resolution is: "Opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part. " In my quote from the author, the author states that many relationships are built on attraction to sex and that this type of attraction is bound for failure. In that essay, the author's point was that dating concerned mystery, anticipation, excitement, curiosity, and adventure. Surely if the author were in favor of the negative side of the resolution, he would have mentioned a term synonymous to romance. But that's just it, isn't it? According to the author, during the early stage of a relationship, it isn't the potential lover which the individual is attracted to. No, it is these feelings of excitement which the individual is attracted to. The resolution concerns two individuals as well as a romantic relationship; it concerns nothing about thrills. In noticing that key difference, the author's stance is quite clear. My opponent also suggest that marriage concerns compatibility whereas dating concerns attraction, but as I've mentioned above , an individual is attracted to the thrills that can be divined from dating rather than his/her potential lover (according to the author who my opponent states he agrees with). I would also advocate that a successful romantic relationship requires both. I'd also like to make it known that the author from my citation was the one to post the results from the second study I mentioned earlier. So again, if my opponent is to agree with Luigi Di Serio, he is essentially conceding to my case. Finally, lets look at my opponent's constructive. Basically, my opponent attempts to prove that opposite attraction is common by appealing to the differences there are in genders. First, this is a fallacious argument for this debate as there are successful romantic relationships that occur between individuals of the same gender. Second, craving for domination from the other partner is most easily explained through an individuals upbringing. If an individual is raised with the notion that the "man" is supposed to be the one who protects the family and whatnot whereas the "woman" is to one who is to cook and clean, the individual will likely seek that kind of relationship. Thrills of being around a different social setting have nothing to do with it. And with that said, I now stand ready for my opponent's second rebuttal.