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

A few definitions of my own: • Boyfriend/Girlfriend - a person's regular male/female companion in a romantic or sexual relationship [1] • Companion - a person with whom one spends time or travels [2] ---------- I accept Con's definitions of Corrupt; however, I feel that for the purpose of this debate, only the first two apply. I would also like to note that I will be arguing this debate from the standpoint that I were the person dating somebone who is corrupt (just for clarification). Here we go... ---------- * Considering my boyfriend/girlfriend (here-on after referred to as bf/gf) may be willing to act dishonestly for money, one can only assume that I would reap the rewards of his or her less than noble endeavors. Based on Oxford's definitions of bf/gf and companion, it is logical to conclude that my bf/gf and I like each other, as we choose to spend time together regularly. Therefore the odds of this person acting dishonorably towards me are less than the odds of them being dishonest towards another (someone they like less or don't know). In that case, if my bf/gf achieved some type of monetary gain, it is likely that I would be in better shape than if he hadn't. One, if he or she chose to share some of the profit (via money, gifts, etc), I would inherit some of the wealth. Two, even if my bf/gf hadn't shared what they've acquired, THEY would be more wealthy which in turn would make me look better anyway. * If the two of us were severely struggling for money, I would have a better chance of surviving due to my bf/gf's willingness to do whatever it takes in order to ensure our survival. * Many people are corrupt, but are still considered 'good' people by those closest to them. Consider members of a gang or organized crime. While legally they may be considered heinous individuals for their ruthless activity, to their family and friends they may show nothing but love and respect. Seeing as how I would be dating this corrupt individual, I may not be subjected to their antics nor would the people I care about be affected. Thus again we can assume that I would only reap the benefits of my bf/gf's corruption. * I may only engage in a relationship with a corrupt individual simply for the perks (which I will discuss later on in the round). Therefore I may deem one or more of these perks greater than all of the consequences that may possibly occur due to having a corrupt bf/gf. * On that note, I may have a "bad boy/girl complex" and particularly enjoy dating ONLY corrupt individuals. Therefore if I only date corrupt people throughout my life, it is fair for me to conclude that I would rather have a corrupt partner (be in a relationship) than be single. * I myself might also be a corrupt individual, and morally it would only be fair to engage in a relationship with another corrupt person. Otherwise I may not only be judged by them (and we wouldn't be a good 'fit' so to speak), but I may also take advantage of them if they are not wise to my tactics and therefore wind up hurting an undeserving person. * My opponent's definition of corrupt is established by the phrase morally depraved; in other words, an immoral person. However because morality is subjective, one cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that my bf/gf is corrupt to the point that it would harm me. For instance, almost half the country (46 percent) vehemently agree that abortion is immoral and corrupt [3]. If I had chosen to date a woman who had undergone an abortion procedure, that would mean that many deem my gf to be corrupt. However her 'corruption' really would not affect our relationship. Under the premise that one would have to do more than one immoral or 'evil' act in order to be considered corrupt, we can say, for example, that my bf/gf used profanity in excess, has cheated on some of his or her exams, and deals drugs. I ask - What does this have to do with me? Sure it MIGHT affect me a little bit, but the same odds are that it might NOT affect me at all. Therefore all we have are the benefits of being in a relationship, with none of the down-sides (in terms of my mate's corruption anyway). * And finally, the definition of corrupt indicates that one would be WILLING to act dishonestly. If I had a bf/gf who was willing to act dishonestly but simply didn't, I would be no worse off than someone with a non-corrupt bf/gf. Instead, I would only reap the benefits of having a bf/gf. ---------- Just to cover all my bases... Some Possible Benefits of Having a Boyfriend/Girlfriend: ~ Physical fulfillment (sex, cuddling) ~ Companionship ~ Monogamy ~ Romantic love ~ Dating ~ Pre-requisite to marriage ~ Self-esteem just from being able to say "I have a bf/gf" ... Of course one could experience these things outside of a relationship; however, the perks usually include two or more of those benefits at the same time (especially monogamy). Plus, having a bf/gf is actually essential in order to achieve the last benefit I included in my example. ---------- Rebuttal: My opponent has offered a single contention in affirmation of the resolution. He contests that corruption is contagious. In addition to some of the responses I have already provided for which this would not even be a factor (the most significant being I AM ALREADY A CORRUPT PERSON), I also conclude that his assumptions have little to no merit. For instance, he mentions that one's likelihood of participating in alcohol/drug use would be increased if their corrupt bf/gf was engaging in that behavior... First, not everybody deems alcohol and/or drug use to be immoral or corrupt. Second, he offers no proof for this claim. Third, assuming this claim was true, it doesn't do much to prove the resolution at all. For example, it is a known fact that one is more likely to use alcohol and drugs if their parents are users [4]. By his logic, a child would be better off without parents at all than those who might smoke marijuana or enjoy a few drinks after work. That might be his opinion, but it is too presumptious to assume that one would be better off without parents all-together. I s'pose that's it for now... I look forward to a good, semantic-free and fair debate with my esteemed opponent. ---------- Sources: [1] http://www.askoxford.com... [2] http://www.askoxford.com... [3] http://query.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov...