'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all

ok to save CR's i am just going to jump the gun on this one. MY OPPONENT:My opponent says that this is irrelevant because it's only one opinion, relationships aren't perfect, and so this doesn't matter.First of all, if my evidence can so easily be countered with other evidence, why has my opponent not presented a single piece of evidence other than a link to that ridiculous "the secret" site? Certainly because of this, I've earned your vote on "who has presented the best evidence," and the Bella DePaulo card remains unanswered. Let me once again bring this up. Me: I appolagize but i believe you have misread me. I actually believe i said the opposite. ME: "love is not a science. therefore impossible to prove with science. this is a philosphical debate, meaning opinions over opinions." that means you cant use a site and say its 'fact' like you did previously. your site was a perfectly good example of your view on opinion as was mine. I never said my source was based on fact either, but its there to support my opinion and i am not going to say it 'fact' oriented. and about my website- i am using it as the bases of support for my case. if you read anything on it, (which i doubt you did) then maybe there would be a little more understanding as to the purpose of me posting that site. and you say because you have posted more links than i have, that you have more levy over this debate? since when did having more "sources" mean that you should win a debate. I have analyzed your links, and i do not believe they uphold your case. the picture of the book (whether you own it or not) does not show me one thing about why i should not love at all. now a link to a page from the boko giving proper opinions about the issue, would have been alot more efficient. again, a picture of a book doesn't do much for me. your second link i read from top to bottom. all i got from that is that you can accomplish things while in the sigle status. it in no way proves to me why that is BETTER though. therefor, there really is nothing for me to debate on that, seeing as the topic uses the word "better" in the complaritive form. My cite was to go along with the point i was making about positive thinking. i gave a brief outline about the law of attraction and positive thinking and posted the cite to further inform the reader of the point i was making on the issue. moving on. MY OPPONENT: "That's a clear reason I'm winning: no matter how logical his arguments may be, the pure science proves my point." ME: again assuming you win before the end of the debate? (sigh) well any ways that quote you posted is not 'science' seeing as again this debate is a philosophical debate not a proven fact. this means opinions outwiegh opinions. My OPPONENT: "The only reasons he gives as to why it is not acceptable to live a life of privacy is that you will become a psycho maniac or that you will have constant feelings of depression." ME: did you really read anything i have said? i used that as an option of what could happen from being lonely. but lonliness is the big issue, one which you have refused altogether to combat against. MY OPPONENT:"Clearly these people are in the minority, if your going to say that it is guaranteed that you will lose your mind living alone, that's a little abusive." ME: i have not once mentioned that is is guaranteed. please dont put words in my mouth. I simply mentioned that people who are like this, are generally people who are lonely and depressed. MY OPPONENT:" You WILL lose this person and you WILL feel terrible. He also admits that the con side is avoiding any possible grief. So the choice is yours: vote pro, get a temporary period of happiness followed by a deep depression that will lead to you being worse off than you were in the first place (see the depaulo card), or vote con and avoid this, perhaps choosing other people to love." ME: yes i did say that you will. have you completly ignored the fact that i have said many times now, that you have gained experience fom the lost relationship, and you have felt the glory of feeling love, and can continue to have that feeling with some one again even after death. of course this is completely ignored throughout the debate. MY OPPONENT:"the detriments of the aftermath of a relationship consistently outweigh the supposed harms my opponent has claimed are present despite not citing a single study." ME: you dont need a 'study' outline on a debate based on opinions. MY OPPONENT: Gee thanks. He insults my conduct and proceeds to say this. ME: did i not say it was a "friendly" tip? one which he still ignored... MY OPPONENT: ""death should not stand in the way of having love" I fail to see what relevance this has, so that's another reason to vote con: ALL POSSIBLE SUFFERING IS AVOIDED BY VOTING CON" ME:you STILL dont understand. Because you have lost some one DOES NOT mean you cannot continue to love. which is what i have been saying this whole time. MY OPPONENT: "But I've already shown why the resulting harms are far worse than the "grief of seldomness"" ME: hmm really?? (re-reads opponents arguments) nope still cant find it. MY OPPONENT:"I think it certainly helps to cite a scientific study; considering that one of the voting fields is who presented the best evidence, and to prove any practical application of this debate" ME: yes but that doesn't apply to philosphical debates, in which no evidence is needed, just thoughtful opinions. MY OPPONENT: "If life was "full unnecessary suffering" then it wouldn't it be necessary? He's failed to see my point" ME: that makes absolutely no sense so i wont bother with it. i was reffering to life being full of unneccasery suffering in general. not just when losing love. bigger field than that. MY OPPONENT: "I have presented my position backed up by scientific fact, that the resulting pain is much worse than any thing other harms that the pro presents (unwarranted) See the depaulo card earlier in this rebuttal" ME:ugh again, you have not showed any 'scientific fact. you just posted a quote and two irrelevant sites. MY OPPONENT: "He hasn't presented a single piece of offense. He's rebutted my case, but never makes the points of his own he promised earlier. So maybe he has proven that to never loved is not better than to have loved and lost, but he hasn't provided a reason why the supposed harms are outweighed by all the benefits he claims come from a relationship." ME: yes i indeed have. its posted all throughout my rebuttal (assuming you read it thouroughly, again wich i doubt, just a thoughtless skimming) MY OPPONENT:"My opponent has essentially admitted that voting pro means you will purposefully and knowingly cause yourself eventual grief. That's a reason to vote con right there: avoid any sort of grief" ME: again putting words in to my mouth. i said yes there will be grief and it will hurt, but it is possible to pick up again with the experience you have learned and teh happy memories. MY OPPONENT: "So I know he'll write out this long rebuttal in a mocking tone, he'll probably mock this part too, just try to forget about your thoughts on the topic coming in, and give some thought on who really put the most into this round. Thank you." ME: forget about your thoughts on the tpoic coming in? i do believe this is a debate, meaning to people give their thoughts and analysis on a situation, and the voters decide who is more correct. ok i will quickly go over the points i have made that my opponent said i did not make. 1.although losing love, you can still love again, and with more experience. 2.Being single is lonly and depressing without love. 3.Yes it will hurt to lose some on you love, but its possible to love again. 4.You can find whatever you want in life by simply thinking positively, in which case a relationship. thankyou. peace! -philosphical.