Sleeping with the enemy has a positive effect.

======================================== Definition of "sleeping with the enemy"| ======================================== CON starts by by disagreeing with my definition and stating that he wishes to define the definition in the literal sense. However, if you look at my definition, you'll note that it does not disallow the literal sense of the phrase: "The phrase "sleeping with the enemy" is often used to describe a situation involving a non-adversarial relationship between two individuals or entities that would normally be unfriendly or adversarial." Having sex with your enemy would be a situation involving a non adversarial relationship, therefore, CON is not disagreeing with my definition in the slightest. Rather, he is conceding to it. Also, he says that we agreed upon arguing this debate in a certain way, yet nowhere, do I see any agreement. If anything, my more recent post on face book would suggest that I didn't know what way I would be arguing in this debate. Of course, if you buy his argument, then you must note that I had also stated that my thoughts of the matter concerning the article "a." Nowhere, does CON raise objection to this, therefore, by his own reasoning, he'd have to accept that condition as well. Thus, turn his argument around as it actually works for me instead. Moreover, he says that my definition is abusive as it prevents him from winning this debate but never tells you why the definition of "SWTE" does this, thus, you are to dismiss this claim for the time being. Furthermore, nowhere in my previous round did I insist that it was the definition of "sleeping with the enemy" that keeps CON from winning. Definitions: Vantage PRO. =========================================== Re: Why CON cannot win this debate; the nasty article "a"| =========================================== 1) CON says that this causes the resolution to be abusive as there is no way he can win. Contrary to what I said, if you'll observe my R1, I clearly laid out an honest means for CON to debate in this debate and that is to refute any of the effects I list as being positive. Furthermore, he could just as well go about this debate in a philosophical route by insisting that positive effects do not exist or that all effects are neither positive or negative, but neutral. Both would suffice. All I've really suggested is that CON has a high burden. 2) He says that if he were to say serial killing has a positive effect, I would immediately disagree. I disagree with him suggesting that. Colloquially, if he were going to make the above point about serial killing, he'd say "Serial killing is good or that (as he has attempting to change the terms of this resolution), "overall, serial killing is good." But to insist that it has a positive effect? If anything, individuals may only rise against such a claim due to the strong hatred of murder as well as the belief that no good comes out of it. Not off of any logical basis of course. As for true intent of this debate, I'm afraid there isn't one. Indeed, there was a reason I had polled the tournament directors about this topic in the first place: http://www.facebook.com... Note how the first directer confesses that HE DOESN'T KNOW THE INTENT OF THIS TOPIC. As for the creator of the topic, note how he suggests that there is no need for intent as this boils down to who can be more persuasive. I defined the topics as I saw fit (as encouraged by the very directors). It is the contenders job to either deal with these conditions or prove that his conditions are superior, but you are not to take into consideration any of these claims of abuse as none of them hold any water. ================================================= What good can come from sleeping with the enemy? ================================================== CON drops this contention, presumably on the gamble that his argument of the matter of the definitions will stand strong. If you don't buy his definition argument, you are to extend this argument. How it shapes the round you ask? He is not only agreeing with me on the positive effects that come from sleeping with the enemy (based on how I define it), but even according to his rendering of the resolution (on the matter of "overall"), he would still be in the wrong as my claim has gone uncontested PERIOD. Therefore, since you've only seen the positive, you are obligated to assume that it is positive overall. ==================================================== If CON cannot win this debate, it is not a debate | ==================================================== I cover this above. In addition ========= Verdict | ========= If you end up accepting my argument, then CON has automatically lost the debate (since he is only relying on the claim of abuse to shield against my contentions). Now to pacify CON as well as judges who dislike the route I've gone, I'm going to pull a rabbit out of my hat; not only will I be maintaining my above argument, but I'm going to be 100% efficient and disprove CON even on his own terms. So yes, let us assume that I'm wrong for the most part . . . === The PRO's and CON's of SWTE [Sleeping with the enemy]=== First, in addition to the positive effects CON listed, PROS: C> "Sexing the enemies brains out" also brings about the positive effect which I had been discussing earlier; it is an opportunity to promote peace. We must keep in mind that peace is the ultimate goal of every good society as it nullifies ill-will against one another. Just imagine if enough people successfully sleep with their enemies and bring about peace with one another. Soon enough, there will be no enemies. This effect has precedence as this takes into account all of the arranged marriages which have been used to severe war like ties between two enemy tribes. D> Sleeping with the enemy can no doubt serve to be a thrill. Honestly now, how dull it must be to merely be sleeping around with your friends when your enemies who are essentially forbidden fruit remain in your sights, ripe for the picking? In short, it can offer a nice change in pace (which is good for one in mental terms). E>Sleeping with the enemy is a masochist/sadist wet dream! For the people who are into domination fantasies, sleeping with the enemy is the way to go. When you think your sexual partner (enemy) has been a bad boy/girl, you will be honest about it! And pulling out that whip as well as those other "toys" which I probably shouldn't be talking about will be a great way to give your enemy what's coming to him/her as well as a means of reducing your own pent up stress which your enemy is no doubt the cause of (and with less stress, the more easily one can complete their daily routines). And the ones who are into submission with reap just as much pleasure. Now in response to the CONS: Re A> This is the same as PRO B, so they cancel out and are beyond consideration. Re B> These unnecessary feelings "as in, admiration and adulation of your enemy" is a chance for peace, so I'd say PRO A defeats PRO B. Re C> The resolution doesn't encourage sex with numerous people, so this one doesn't even apply. Dismissed. Re D> This one is also to be dismissed given that one could just as easily reap the benefits of sleeping with the enemy AND try to work out the cause of the aforementioned animosity. Although what really kills this point is PRO A where such animosity can easily be eliminated, thus not being something to worry about. PRO: 4. CON: 0 The PRO's and CON's of SWTE [Sleeping with the enemy]: Vantage: PRO Thus, I believe I've shown that EVEN OVERALL, the effects to sleeping with the enemy are positive. As you can see, from both approaches, the instigator is victorious in this debate.