Resolved: Opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part.

Response: >>Once again, the meaning behind those last four words concerns a successful romantic relationship. A successful romantic relationship is generally defined as marriage, although it can be in the form of a long-committed non-marriage relationship.<< Compatibility and commitment are more what's needed to drive a successful marriage, not attraction. The extent to which 'opposites attract' affects marriage is solely in each member supporting the other's weaknesses. >>He accuses my BBC news report citation as being ill-thought-out. His reasoning behind this notion is that any other outcome would not have taken place due to the categories listed.<< ... >>It certainly isn't as simple as "both Bob and Sue being pro-family", thus being that they are well attracted to each other.<< My point was that in any of those fields, people would likely want the same things from their partner as they have. >>My opponent then dismisses my second link by claiming that he is sure that it has the same ill-thought-out criteria, but the problem with this, ladies and gentleman, is that he is essentially claiming that he is going to dismiss my second citation simply because he has a HUNCH that it's fallacious. As one may or may not realize, a hunch (or in better terms, an opinion) does not make a refutation.<< My apologies, I forgot to change that after I viewed it. It's the same link as the one you posted further down, so I already responded to it. Not only that, it supported my side - that opposites DO attract, they just don't necessarily tend to have the most successful marriages. Also, the point of marriage is meaningless. We're not discussing if opposites are compatible. We're discussing if they attract. Anything you post with marriage statistics is irrelevant. As I've said, attraction isn't enough to support a marriage, you need compatibility and commitment. This is why opposites tend not to do so well here - they tend to not be so compatible. >>My opponent then attacks my logic concerning the AFF of the resolution by claiming that people need others to fortify their own weaknesses (and vice versa) and that people are attracted to people who can guarantee them new activities. I believe the writer (who my opponent claims to agree with) covers this (more on that in a moment), but a question I would like to ask to my opponent is whether or not he is advocating that a relationship can be successful between two individuals WITHOUT any common interests whatsoever. If that is the case, then i would like to ask him how an "odd couple" (no pun intended) could get along. If their basic values and criterions for life conflict, wouldn't there always be heated arguments and other such negative activities between the two? Surely, such a relationship would end in failure.<< Once again, you're speaking of the success rate of relationships. This is not attraction, this is compatibility, something we're not discussing. Without any common interests, a couple would be incompatible. They might be attracted to each other, but they would grow weary of a relationship once they realized how hard it would be. >>Next, my opponent elucidates that the author from my citation agrees with his side of the debate, but with statements such as "Many relationships are built on the foundation of sexual attraction or simply lust. Those are fleeting feelings and certainly not enough to make a relationship work. If people don't want the same things, or have different values and beliefs, the relationship is bound for failure", this is simply not the case. Keep in mind of what the resolution is: "Opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part." In my quote from the author, the author states that many relationships are built on attraction to sex and that this type of attraction is bound for failure.<< Yes, but the author also says: "The research suggested that, "there is no evidence that opposites attract." The study was fascinating and comprehensive, but their conclusion wasn't. The word "attraction" usually refers to the initial feelings a person has that spark an interest in the other. So in the realms of courting dating and sexuality, being opposite and different, is fulfilling in many ways. Mystery, anticipation and excitement, curiosity and adventure all come from experiencing something different. Sure opposites clash, but that is often where the sparks and the passion is created." Your article agrees with me. Opposites DO attract, they just don't have successful marriages. Opposites don't discourage romantic relationships either, they just don't often have very successful relationships. >>My opponent also suggest that marriage concerns compatibility whereas dating concerns attraction, but as I've mentioned above , an individual is attracted to the thrills that can be divined from dating rather than his/her potential lover (according to the author who my opponent states he agrees with).<< So when differences cause feelings about someone, they're not real feelings, but when similarities do, they are? Also, whether it can be considered romance is debatable. Consider, however, the topic of the debate: Opposites rarely attract AND discourage romantic relationships for the most part. As pro, you must show that BOTH of these statements hold up. however, I don't think there's much disagreement that opposites often attract. I'll address your last paragraph now, and add a point of my own. >>Basically, my opponent attempts to prove that opposite attraction is common by appealing to the differences there are in genders. First, this is a fallacious argument for this debate as there are successful romantic relationships that occur between individuals of the same gender.<< See below. >>Second, craving for domination from the other partner is most easily explained through an individuals upbringing. If an individual is raised with the notion that the "man" is supposed to be the one who protects the family and whatnot whereas the "woman" is to one who is to cook and clean, the individual will likely seek that kind of relationship. Thrills of being around a different social setting have nothing to do with it.<< I think you missed my point. I explained that the very REASON for these differences in gender personalities and roles is that opposites attract. As Trait A became more common in one gender, its opposite became more common in the other gender, which is why the genders are so complimentary in both personality and roles. Now your point about gay couples... Ever noticed how almost all homosexual men are... effeminate? Perhaps this explains why they aren't attracted to females, no? It works the other way too. Not many lesbians are all that womanly (except the ones you see in porn, who probably aren't lesbians). I propose that the reason there is such a strong connection between acting like the opposite gender and being attracted to the same gender is due to the fact that opposites attract. As an effeminate man, one might have too much in common with a girl. Enter homosexuality. And so I rest, for now. Remember, you must show that opposites rarely attract. Attract, not develop a successful marriage. I believe it has been shown thus far that opposites often do attract.