Sleeping with the enemy has a positive effect.

=== "SWTE" My opponent's definition has shown itself superior. We're using SWTE as defined by my opponent's source. === "A positive effect" My opponent further clarifies his position on this later in the round; the definition he has set up for this requires only that at least ONE positive effect that is SOMETIMES a result of SWTE. Due to the sheer ridiculosity of this burden, we should instead accept the burden I have continually advocated. To refresh your memory, I believe the resolution is asking us to argue whether the overall effect of SWTE is positive or negative. Due to the fact that the other burden [the one advocated by my opponent] is ridiculously one-sided, I will assume that we have all accepted my burden at this point. The one I advocated in R1, and the one I held to in R2. As an added bonus, it seems that my definition is most likely what was meant by the resolution: PRO's definition would have been what we call a "technicality". As I stated in one of the prior rounds, the spirit of the debate is more important than the letter of the debate [my opponent never responded to this]. === Peace I showed many times that peace is not necessarily positive. Peace stops conflict, and conflict is whaty solves problems. Peace is good IF the problems are already dealt with, but peace through SWTE does not actually deal with any problems that caused animositiy in the first place. It simply sweeps them under the rug. The "burying" of negative ferelings for one another, as PRO states it, is what's bad about SWTE's peace. Feelings are still there, they're just "buried. " Next time there's a dispute, those feelings will come back, ON TOP OF whatever new negative feelings. As I've previously stated, this can cause an explosion of emotion, which usually has obvious negative effects in itself. Next, my opponent says that peace and conflict are not mutually exclusive. This is ridiculous. If two people are in conflict, they are not at peace. If they are at peace, they are not currently in conflict. That's the very definition of 'peace' - a state of non-conflict. Yes, conflict LEADS TO peace. But peace should only come about after conflict has settled the problems, not through 'burying' negative feelings for one another. === Diminishing returns / Efficiency My opponent attacks my analogy with Bob and Joe, the treasure hunters. He claims that the time is less for them to get the same monetary returns working together. This is clearly not true - in the analogy, it takes them 1 week to make 2000 each [each working individually]. And it takes them 1 week working together to make 1800 each, due to the law of diminishing returns. Even if we discount the law of diminishing returns, they would each make 2000 in a week in either case. There's no time advantage to SWTE here. Note that even if we discount diminishing returns [which my opponent never argued against applying here], we still have the issue of infighting. SWTE requires that you work with someone who is an 'enemy. ' As I pointed out, enemies don't work very well together. There would be bickering, there would be a lack of good communication, etc. -- The other example It's true that in the game, the defense and the prosecution worked together and in doing so accomplished their task more efficiently than they could have otherwise. However, let us consider a few things: First, it is fiction. Just like the rest of the game, this bit doesn't really translate to real life. It's clearly a game that was made to be sensational, not to be realistic. Next, they ARE friends at this point. Edgeworth [the prosecution] would not have worked together with Phoenix [the defense] this way if they were not, since Edgeworth had nothing to gain. My opponent says that 'professional enemies' should count in the definition, but the source for his definition makes no such statement. Enemies, as far as the definition is concerned, is 'people who are on unfriendly terms. ' -- It's true that we're not here to determine whether working with a friend is better, but whether working with the enemy is good. However, I've shown above that it is not - it's less efficient per person than working on your own. === Sex -> X My opponent claims that since I thought in round 1 that these arguments applied overall to SWTE, it's clear to anyone reading that they no longer apply overall. Since round 1, I have conceded to my opponent's definition of SWTE, which invalidates these as anything to even be considered when talking about SWTE 'overall'. Sex is so rarely part of SWTE that it would be a waste of time to discuss it [it's probably less than 0.1% of SWTE]. It's not abusive for me to change my position on this, especially when it's a direct result of me CONCEDING a point. Conceding a point can never be seen as abusive, it's simply agreeing with your opponent's viewpoint. Rather than attacking the arguments I made on these issues, my opponent has taken the route of simply complaining that I changed my position since round 1. Even if it wasn't a result of me conceding a point, I should be able to switch advocacy at any time. Switching advocacy does not invalidate any new points I make. === "Sometimes" My opponent claims that sometimes being a positive effect is a positive effect in itself. However, an effect is something that actually happens, whereas 'sometimes' indicates a possibility that something does not happen. It is like me saying that a negative effect of swimming is that you might drown. The fact that I said 'might' means that it is not an effect, it is a possibility. It could sometimes be an effect, but swimming does not generally have the effect of causing people to drown. As I've alreadyt stated, the sometimes argument makes my opponent's burden far too ridiculous. However, with this argument against 'sometimes,' you are free to cmoe up with whatever alternate burden you want, if you accept neither mine nor my opponents. Keep in mind that my opponent has not shown any positive effect that is always there. === Alt Assuming that we accept the burden I provided, I see no reason to vote PRO. 1. Cross apply what I said regarding peace. 2. Cross apply what I said regarding efficiency [and the argument against the 'less time' argument] 3. My opponent states that we can liken SWTE to being in a fight with Popeye, and each getting a can of spinach. Ouch. 4. My opponent didn't really cover infighting at all. Anyway, infighting is the fact that enemies don't work well together, and this reduces efficiency [covered in my efficiency argument, along with diminishing returns and some examples. ] I believe I have shown that sleeping with the enemy is overall a bad thing, among other things.