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

Here's the deal - LM claims that a mysterious "glitch" in the system (which he cannot prove) has prevented him from posting his argument in the allotted amount of time. Then he tries to justify exceeding the round's character limit by over 2500 characters in noting that I have used up more charaters than him in this debate thus far as a whole. This, fellow debaters, is completely ridiculous. ... We all have lives. We have families, jobs, friends (most of us anyway) and we go to school or have a lot of non-online hobbies, etc. Because life sometimes gets in the way of less important things (such as a debate on debate.org, for example), we cannot always post our arguments within the 3 day time span in which we are given. Sh1t happens, ya know? Many times my web browser has randomly shut down in the middle of me typing a rebuttal with 5 minutes on the clock, or I'll have to accept the fact that my work schedule and family obligations get in the way of typing a less than stellar response in a debate, etc. This is just too damn bad for me. Debate.org is a website where people can swap ideas competitively and thus there are rules, including limits on the amount of time you have to post something, and the amount of characters in which you can make your case. I don't care if there WAS a glitch in the system; the fact remains that LM did not post within the time frame given. Had the situation been a little different (i.e. he noted this supposed glitch days before his response was due instead of minutes/seconds prior), then maybe his misfortune could be taken into consideration in terms of this debate. However for the rest of us - many of whom have been screwed over in the past - it would simply be unfair to me and a great injustice to the integrity of this site in general to allow someone to post unfairly in the comment section. Since when are people allowed to do that on this site? And if that's allowed, then why doesn't everyone do it? Further, I am greatly disappointed in my opponent's attempt to justify exceeding the character limit! Instead of apologizing for the mistake (the honorable thing to do) and agreeing to just scrap the round all-together, PRO tries to argue that his round should be taken into account despite the unfair advantage, simply because I have used more characters in this debate than him all-together. That's BULL. I have stayed within the parameters of the 8,000 character limit per round whereas PRO has not. If this site implemented a 24,000 characters per debate rule instead of 8,000 characters per round, we would all just save up our charcters until the end where we can argue our opponent's claims all in one shot. Anyway, I was never "ABUSIVE" by claiming you should ignore all of what PRO has said throughout this entire debate. I simply stated that you should NOT take his earlier round into consideration, because it was posted in the comment section and exceeded the character limit by far... which is completely against the rules, and entirely abusive to me. If that were acceptable, I might as well just post the rest of my debate into the comment section -- why bother doing it here, right? I also think it's funny that he claims to have given me an "advantage" in R1 supposedly on purpose...? What is he talking about? So I'm done arguing/debating about this topic for now, and probably for the remainder of the debate. There is nothing to argue here - I'm right. The round was posted outside of the time frame parameters, and outside of the character limit parameters... I mean if these things don't matter, why have them in the first place? Think about that. Now we have spent far too much time discussing my opponent's entirely abusive round, which is why it should be discounted in the first place. The purpose of this debate is to argue the resolution, which clearly (common sensically) favors PRO; however, I figured I'd try to challenge myself and debate it anyway. I wish it could have been done in a more fair way though without giving me even LESS of a disadvantage. Jeez. PRO couldn't just accept the forfeited round and take it like a man? Damn. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alright with 3,700 characters left... It's pretty clear what this debate comes down to. My opponent and I are simply taking a look at the wording of the resolution, and using it to our respective advantage (gramatically I think we both are correct depending on how you look at it). PRO is using the resolution to discuss someone who is a corrupt bf/gf in the sense that they are, essentially, a bad bf/gf. He's saying that having a bad bf/gf (as in someone who is bad or corrupt to YOU) is worse than having no bf/gf at all. On the other hand, I am using the resolution to state that someone's bf/gf CAN be a corrupt PERSON; however, that does not make them a corrupt (or bad) bf/gf in terms of that particular relationship. So based on my arguments, PRO cannot dispute this fact and in doing so is only cheapening this debate with his attempts at manipulating the facts that I have provided. For instance, PRO tries to argue that a "sugar daddy" isn't real, because by the "definition I have provided" (though I provided no such specific definition, but rather a loose interpretation based on what is socially accepted regarding that term) because the described relationship = the same relationship as a hooker/pimp dynamic. What kind of semantics argument is that? I find it ironic and a bit hypocritical that PRO went into a little rant about the purpose of debate.org (to debate!!! exchange ideas!!!) yet is attempting to change my wording around instead of attacking my point for what it's worth or better yet making one of his own (he is PRO, after all). I guess what it comes down to then is whether or not you, the readers, accept that a "sugar daddy" role exists in a bf/gf relationship dynamic. PRO says it cannot but clearly he is wrong, and I hope the readers will agere. We have all been in relationships or witnessed relationships in which either the bf/gf has taken on the additional role of provider (or paid for the majority of material goods). That doesn't mean that these people fulfil the roles of hookers and pimps but rather an interchangable - or rather DUAL (that's a better word to describe what I'm looking for) relationship exists. Anyway, back to my point. A person can be corrupt in one role and not so bad in another. For instance Joe Smith could be a great accountant but a horrible father. Does that mean Joe is neither an accountant nor a father? No. He is both an accountant AND a father. Now assuming he were even a CORRUPT father (say he forced his kids to do inappropriate things), he may very well be a great accountant. However he is still a corrupt individual in the sense that he is a corrupt father (in other words, in noting his parenting skills, one could refer to him as being corrupt). But to say "Having a corrupt accountant is better than no accountant" would be FALSE. Your accountant could be corrupt (in one role - say as a father) yet he might NOT be corrupt in the sense that he is actually a GOOD accountant. Therefore regardless of the type of father that Joe Smith is - corrupt or not - having him as your account is more beneficial than not having him, because he is good at his job, and there is no evidence stating that Joe Smith is a corrupt accountant. So as far as that particular point goes (dual roles), I was not saying that having someone who was a corrupt in the bf/gf department was better than having no bf/gf at all, but rather in some cases it is more beneficial (in the bf/gf sense) to be with someone corrupt so long as they weren't corrupt in that one area (as a bf/gf). That's just a clarification of one of my many points. Hopefully in my final round I can re-cap my progress in this debate and finally conclude on a positive and less redundant note.