RESOLVED: It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.

Of course, our tendency to gravitate toward love would present an inevitable bias in favor of Pro. However, our bias does not automatically make the resolution true. I trust that the audience will keep an open mind, and allow me the opportunity to defend the futility of something the vast majority of us (including myself) find important. Indeed, my burden in this debate will be a significant challenge. We've agreed to limit this discussion to notions of romantic love. I acknowledge that most of us would still like to experience love even if we knew it would be a transient affair. In this debate, I will do my best to undermine Pro's arguments, and suggest that such a position may not be rational much like craving Ben & Jerry's every day doesn't make satiating that desire necessarily the right thing to do. Pro assumes that there is no need to offer definitions of love and I agree. While we can recite the dictionary's interpretation of this fundamental human experience, the fact is that no definition could realistically suffice as a true indicator of what the term actually means. And so we begin. .. [ Rebuttal ] First, failing as an entrepreneur, scientist, musician, or writer as my opponent's example proves (J. K. Rowling) indicates that love is not a prerequisite to the maturity that failure can bring. Being fueled by the desire to succeed does not require romantic love, which undermines the relevance or at least the weight of this contention. Second, while some thrive from rejection, many people respond negatively to it. Studies show "that fear of rejection runs extremely deep in low self-esteem people. .. people with low self-esteem do not fare well in close relationships, as they are hypersensitive and hyper-reactive to dismissal and disapproval cues. Being in constant threat mode can also take a toll on one"s mental health" [1]. Just as we consider the potential benefits of rejection, we must also consider the harms. L-M writes, "In experiencing loss, one becomes more aware of the world and how life cannot be taken for granted. " Indeed. But when some experience loss, they become aware of how cruel the world and/or life can be, and find it cold, meaningless, desolate, desperate, dark, dismal, bleak, depressing and invaluable. Moreover, this sometimes closes people off and causes them to become recluse and bitter. Their attitude burdens all of their interpersonal relationships. For some that attitude is a phase, but some never recover. What doesn't kill you doesn't always make you stronger. Example - cancer. Pro's next argument is that love is awesome. He points out that there are both health and psychological benefits to being in love, and implies that love is overall considered "good" by just about everyone. However this ignores my previous point that love is subjective. One can only identify "love" with their own experience. For example, my best friend is in a horribly abusive relationship. She equates her negative situation with "love," whereas to me it represents the complete opposite of love. Love can be negative, painful, or even dangerous. Examples include killing in the name of love or because of emotional reactions based on love. The term 'love' can equivocate to not only positive correlations, but also negative repercussions such as death, destruction, and the breeding ground for hate (when love goes sour). Also, consider that something can have both positive and negative effects. You might feel great when you're in love, but this debate is about love lost. Are the psychological benefits of love in place then? No-- on the contrary, stressful and negative emotions (doubt, fear, regret, nostalgia, sadness, etc. ) are now the emotions being felt. The past is irrelevant; there is only "the now" as many philosophers have noted. Pro also provides two flawed pieces of reasoning in attempting to establish his second point. "However, in never loving at all, one doesn't gain these benefits [of love] in the first place. " --> None of the benefits Pro mentioned thus far (like positive health effects or maturing from rejection) are specific to romantic love. Further, scientists have concluded that when humans experience love, what is actually happening is a surge of serotonin and dopamine in the brain during those moments where they "feel" love [2]. This same feeling can be replicated by taking Ecstasy [3]. "Moreover. .. the party that chooses to never love at all doesn't have the option of simply experiencing love (and thus these benefits) again in the future. " --> This debate isn't about whether or not love can be chosen but love lost in general. This contention ignores the reality that love can be experienced and NOT lost. As such, a party who experiences love can and does gain all of the benefits. However, is one who experiences love and then loses love necessarily in a better position than before they experienced love? Pro hasn't proven that they are. Pro hasn't highlighted any specific factors that are inherent to romantic love, and therefore make love lost a requirement of growth or even happiness. [ Contentions ] Love is a distraction. It takes time and concentration away from school, work, family, friends, goals and hobbies. Because we're talking about love LOST, we have to consider the negative repercussions of a relationship that ultimately failed, since that is the perspective this debate is being argued from. Lost love is generally not worth the initial sacrifices. Lost love means you've wasted your time, resources and other emotional investments on a relationship that only deterred you from finding or being with the right person. It may have felt good in the moment, but doesn't make it a "better" alternative. According to Wikipedia, romantic love has the property that "it cannot be easily controlled. " You often hear the phrase, "Love is blind. " When people's emotions are clouded by passion and hormones, rationality and judgment decrease. This can be dangerous. Plus, love is expensive. Was she really worth all of those expensive dates and jewelry? They usually aren't. .. Humans have the capacity for romantic or erotic love (eros) and compassionate or friendship love (philia). This passionate affect tends to be of a highly limited duration, typically lasting not more than 5 or 7 years. The "7-year itch" isn't just anecdotal [4]. This is one reason why so many marriages end in divorce. Those that last usually become entrenched in habit and ritual, and/or evolve into a very close and intimate friendship. In other words, we should consider separating notions of romantic love and sex. You can have passionate, sexual encounters without romantic love, and engage in serious, loving, non-romantic relationships with people and still be potentially happy and fulfilled. The lines between love and romantic love can be blurry, especially when you consider that sex =/= love. People are anxious over the pressure of finding the "right person," the fear of dying alone, the dramatic highs and lows of turbulent relationships, the disappointment of "settling" for someone, etc. Meanwhile, they can seek growth, happiness, passion, fulfillment and security outside of romantic love, forgoing all of the heartache, loss and detrimental sacrifices. [1] . http://www.psychologicalscience.org... [2] . http://books.google.com... [3] . http://www.maps.org... [4] . http://www2.hawaii.edu...