Resolved: A corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no boyfriend/girlfriend

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOGICAL-MASTER'S ABUSIVE ROUND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry - I don't mean to come off as being dramatic, but I'd like to start off my R2 by stating that I do not think *ANY* of the arguments that my opponent has posted in the comment section should be valid in this debate. First, I find LM's statement that there was a "glitch" in the system to be completely unsupported. He posts "I have an hour and 53 minutes left to post my argument" and subsequently adheres to posting his R2 rebuttal within the next 2 hours. However, how do I know for sure that time had not already run out by the time LM suggested he had nearly 2 hours left? Not only does debate.org not offer the exact time someone makes a post (like it does on Facebook), but LM himself did not mention what time each of his posts were. I also find it a bit odd that "4 hours ago" (from the time that I am writing this) he says he has nearly 2 hours left to post; an hour later he says he has 3 minutes left. Then an hour after THAT he finally posts his rebuttal... so an hour is more than 3 minutes, meaning even if he were telling the truth, he still would not have posted within the allotted time frame. Furthermore, if that isn't abusive enough, based on the assumption that LM is a "good guy" or that we should just take his word for it, I completely disagree on the merit that his 8,000+ character argument is completely abusive to this debate. For my fellow long-winded debaters, it's common knowledge that the character limit oftens stands in the way of a stellar rebuttal; deciding which points to eliminate can really make or break your case. In noticing Pro's arguments seemed a little lengthy, I attempted to copy and paste his arguments into a round of my own and could not -- debate.org would not let me finish posting because the character limit had been exceeded. Had it only been by a few words, I may not have minded; however, that was not the case -- my opponent's entire argument (not including link abbreviations) was 10,500 characters. In posting within the allotted section (here) within the time frame given, I am already at a disadvantage due to my opponent's tactics (posting at a random time in the comment section with an illegitimate rebuttal). For these reasons you should not take into account LM's comment posts to be a valid part of this debate; consider I've already had to waste nearly 4000 characters in just bringing this to your attention alone. If you agree that this is completely unfair and/or "shady," to say the least, please do not feel compelled to read the remainder of my round, and just skip down to Pro's R3. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If for whatever reason you actually deem LM's points to be taken into consideration, or if you're just here for the read, please keep in mind that a good portion of my character limit has been taken up by the fact that I've had to call LM out on his abusive tactics in this debate. Further, he had the advantage of posting 2500+ characters more than I will. If you want proof, simply try to copy and paste his rebuttal into an argument space of your own on debate.org ~ it won't work. Considering that I will have to severely shorten my R2 rebuttal, please remember that I cannot be as detailed as I would like to be, therefore I will be making a lot of generalizations. I will do my best to tie everything together, but if it's completely nonsensical, again I urge you to just void R2 of this debate all-together and skip ahead to R3. Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, don't let the big words fool you - Pro's entire argument revolves around hypocrisy and incosistency. Simply because he has implemented his knowledge of the words "erroneous" and "fallacy" on several occasions does not mean that his accusations have merit. In fact, the entire basis of his rebuttal is invalid any way you look at it. Pro's sole contention is that my points are invalid due to me "equating the role of bf/gf with other roles." Ya damn right I equate the role of bf/gf with other roles. The fact is, roles are interchangable. For instance, my opponent contests that my bf/gf acting dishonorably for money wouldn't make them a bad bf/gf - it would just make them a bad PROVIDER. I agree. Meaning this corrupt person (corrupt in his/her money making) can STILL be a good bf/gf, which my opponent foolishly tries to refute. However this logic is completely hypocritical from his rebuttal during which he states, "the BF/GF is corrupt (because they use drugs, which he claims shows disregard for the law) and is hence spreading his/her corruption to his/her BF/GF (by pressuring them to do drugs)." In this way he is separating a corrupt person from the corrupt relationship. This is no different than me saying a corrupt person can be corrupt in one role but NOT in the bf/gf role, because they are separate roles... but interchangable, and/or occur simultaneously. For example, the very concept of a "Sugar Daddy/Mama" establishes my point that in addition to being a person's regular male/female companion in a romantic or sexual relationship (as the agreed upon definition supports), one can also take on another role such as provider. Thus my opponent's entire rebuttal against me has been deemed null (especially his rebuttals for contentions 2 - 4); however, I haven't even gotten to the part where he argues against himself :) CONT 5 REBUTTAL: "To suggest that most/all 'bad boys/girls' are corrupt is quite an extraordinary claim" ... Is it? Assuming that a bad person is a bad bf/gf is EXTRAORDINARY? Hmm, okay. Well this means you can't contest my point that a corrupt (bad) individual can still being a good gf/bf. Either you're accepting that bf/gf's have dual roles or you're not, but pick a side. CONT 6: You're missing/ignoring the point. If I'm already corrupt, I may be no worse off than if I were single. Prove that this would be the case instead of just claiming that it is. CONT 7: You accused me of "confusing" the role of a gf with the role of a mother. So you're saying a woman can't be both a gf and a mother? Surely not both of those roles to ME; however, being a corrupt mother would still make my gf corrupt in some way, and I'd still be her gf. Thus, the resoltion is effectively NEGATED. CONT 8: you say, "Firstly, I contest the notion that ... dealing drugs would make him/her a corrupt BF/GF." This DIRECTLY OPPOSES YOUR STANCE FROM R1 when you said, "For instance, a teenage partner who is involved with a corrupt teenage bf/gf will likely be inclined to participate in acts of ... illegal drug usage" -- If this example (drugs) doesn't matter, why bring it up at all? Further, in your R1 example, by your logic two people taking drugs together would share the role of DRUG BUDDIES - not bf/gf... 'cause ya know, a bf/gf can't have more than one role, right? In one instance you're saying that the role of bf/gf is what pressures them; in the other, you're saying the bf/gf relationship doesn't matter - the drug use is what's corrupt. If he/she was pressuring to do GOOD, your example would not apply. CONT 9: You wrote, "In terms of relationship with a bf/gf, if one is truly willing to act dishonestly, it is more than likely that one has acted dishonestly." That is simply not true and entirely based on speculation. For instance, I might be willing to cheat on my bf/gf, but that doesn't mean that I already have. Thus my strongest point in this debate still stands along with all of my others. For your health argument, you wrote, "they are discussing marriages, but since we're discussing a trait of such a relationship that actually exist in all BF/GF relationships, this is acceptible for this debate." Hmm. Sorry, by your logic, these 2 different relationships CANNOT be compared... Sorry - I have no more characters to respond, cuz I'm not cheating...