On human relationships

Pro, what exactly are you instigating? Please state what you are trying to prove because it's not clear. In other words, please give to me a resolution. Also, you're really not arguing against my points as much as you are me. I will respond only to the parts where my opponent attempted to refute my arguments and didn't throw cheap punches at me via ad hominem. 1. Vinegar/honey ordeal. I now understand what you mean, pro. Thank you for clearing that up, dismiss that particular argument as I misunderstood. 2. Friendship and survival. And thank you for agreeing with me then contradicting yourself. Pro states it is his point that friendship has nothing to do with survival but goes on to assert, "It is a given fact that societies have a higher survivability rate than individuals." You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Also, societies can exist without "friendship" as you define it. My example was ant hills and bee hives which you actually spoke about. I'll address it later within this argument. 3. Social dogma and nationalism. What on earth are you going on about? Your resolve appears to be about sacred HUMAN friendships but you've done nothing but talk about dogma and nationalistic dangers. I approve of neither but your debate is about sacred human friendship, NOT nationalism and "manure." Seriously, you're pulling a total red herring. I define a friend as one who gives selflessly and friendship as two people who there for one another and give to each other selflessly. Your definition of friendship is basic and hackneyed. Obviously, the definition of a friend pertains directly to those and the friends they have in life which makes it a subjective term. I provided my definition as objectively as possible. "People have differing views as to what constitutes a "friend", but the basic, underlying premise is that social bonding WAS extremely important for human survival." - Well, *was.* So everyone's premise for befriending others lies within survival? You state the opposite numerous times. It is up to people to judge the character and the friendliness of their associates before they truly consider them a friend and act accordingly. Mankind seeks out friends because it is instinct to validate one's existence. However, that doesn't make the friendships any less sacred or real. "What if there could be simple, human-to-human bonding untouched by nationalistic tendencies?" - Notice that pro generalizes that there is no such thing as human-to-human bonding untouched by nationalistic tendencies. This is not true and holds no weight. Dismiss it entirely. "I see the word...predigested concepts...only sway the less learned." - Total ad hominem and no refutation present. Pro is being incredibly condescending in hopes it will make his logic look better. "I would hope that you are not trying to speak for the bees and the ants. Had they a profile on this site I have no doubt that they will take issue against your ignorant assumption that they are primitive and emotionally detached. It is precisely this sort of thinking, that anyone outside our pre-drawn social circles does not deserve their own objective analysis, that I wish to dispel." - It's not like bees and ants can speak for themselves, pro. They are primitive beings as being relatively simple in comparison to humans and emotionally detached because they do not have emotions [1]. My argument stands. "Again, you assume that our pets view their relationships towards us the same way we view them." - You did not understand my question. "Our species" would be the species of homo sapien which includes all nationalities, none of which I hope to discriminate against. It has nothing to do with cats or pets. Your resolve is specifically about the species homo sapien, as you stated *sacred HUMAN friendships.* You have not answered my question so I will wait for a response. "Your naive assumptions...government during Cold War...thrived on democracy." - You aren't arguing about anything here. Communism doesn't sound like an unholy disease to me and democracy doesn't sound like any sort of salvation to me personally. Also, another ad hominem. I conclude that pro has made no clear resolution or arguments present. Pro is simply ranting and performing multiple red herrings full of empty rhetoric and ad hominem. Vote con for sake of argumentation and logic. 1. http://en.allexperts.com...