Sleeping with the enemy has a positive effect.

Me R2 Created Thursday 10 July 2008 Defs I concede my opponent's definition of SWTE. It's been shown superior. I will stand by my analysis regarding the article 'a'. I believe the intent of the resolution was that we debate whether sleeping with the enemy is good or bad overall, not whether or not there is at least one positive effect. Forks However, I will do something that is rather, err, precedented. My opponent has no monopoly on hats or rabbits, nor on the ability to pull one out of the other. Therefore, I will be doing just what my opponent asks of me - to show him that all the effects he's listed are invalid in proving the resolution. In addition to this, I will present some more CON's to working with the enemy to support my original case. My opponent may object to me switching it up like this. He should not. In his R1, he claimed that I "literally cannot win as the resolution contains a single flaw." He scared me into running away from the direct conflict that was open to me, by intentionally lying - claiming that it was impossible. Now that he has cleared that up, and admitted to being contradictory in his original claims. Because of this blatant lie, my opponent should not see it abusive of me to go now, in round 2, to go the route he's asking me to go even now. Invalidating the 'positive effects' My opponent claims many positive effects for sleeping with the enemy. He has told me twice so far that all I have to do to win is show that none of his 'positive effects' are valid. "[...] promotes peace" Peace is not necessarily positive as my opponent claims. I made this point last round. There are usually reasons people are enemies. The way people should go about making peace is through actually settling their differences, not just by burying their feelings. If peace is acheived solely by working together in this way, no dispute is actually settled. Whatever "beef" there was is still there. Conflict in these cases is good, since conflict is what settles "beef". Note that my opponent did not respond to this argument last round, he simply stated that one of his points outweighed it. However, this is only if peace is more important than settling the actual root problems, which is not necessarily true. Solving the root problems is much more important, since they can cause much more problems in the long run. Therefore, peace in this case is not neccessarily, and not usually, a positive effect. Conflict is the best way for enemies to settle their differences. "enemies who are now working together can get far more accomplished than they could alone" This is usually true, though there are likely diminishing returns. Here's an example. Two treasure hunters, Bob and Joe, are roughly as good as each other at finding treasure. Bitter rivals they may be, but they decide to work together. Bob and Joe can each get 2000 dollars of treasure in a week. Working together, due to diminishing returns, they would get something between 2000 and 4000 in that same timeframe. We'll say it's 3600. Now, in the time either one of them could have gotten 2000, they've each only gotten 1800. Also, note that enemies work together much worse than friends do. Bickering, discontent, etc, could lower their productivity even more. Working individually in parallel works much better than working together, at least for enemies. At least in many cases, working together does NOT let enemies get more accomplished overall. Therefore, it is not a positive effect., since it doesn't even satisfy being a general rule. Not only that, but the effect can sometimes be negative. Consider two anti-semetic leaders joining forces to commit mass Jewicide. The possibility of them accomplishing more genocide than they would have alone is certainly not positive. For these reasons "working together with enemies can help you accomplish more!" is not positive as a general rule. Very rarely is it. "Sex => physical euphoria" This is one very minor instance of sleeping with the enemy having a positive effect. Most instnaces of sleeping with the enemy, by the definition we both agree on, do not contain this benefit. This too cannot be stated even as a general rule. "Access to helpful information" This applies very rarely. When enemies work together, they're likely to hide as much from each other as possible. They are enemies, after all. Just because they're working together doesn't mean they're buddies, otherwise it wouldn't be sleeping with the _enemy_. So this does not apply as a general rule. "Sex => peace" First, sex rarely applies in instances of sleeping with the enemy. Second, as I already pointed out, peace should only be obtained through actually settling differences. For enemies, conflict and negotiation are what's best for settling beef, not some blanket of peace that just covers up all the problems rather than fixing them. "Sex with enemies = thrill, change in pace" Once again, sex with enemies rarely applies. So this positive effect does not satisfy being a general rule. "Sex with enemy => awesome for sadomasochists" First, most people aren't sadomasochists, so this doesn't apply as a general rule. Second, once again, sex rarely applies when we're talking about sleeping with the enemy. Therefore, it's even less likely that this positive effect will show itself. I've shown that each of my opponent's supposed positive effects either rarely is present or rarely is positive. Therefore, my opponent has only shown that there is 'sometimes' a positive effect. However, that is a positition that contradicts the resolution, and it is indeed my stance. My opponent claims that there IS a positive effect, I claim that there is only sometimes a positive effect. === Alt On to the alternate burden. For this burden, I only must show that sleeping with the enemy is overall not positive. Many of my previous arguments make my case here. First, the fact that conflict is better for actually resolving the actual problems between enemies than peace is. Since SWTE brings about peace, which stops conflict, it keeps around these problems. Problems will not be dealt with unless there is conflict. Second, the point about diminishing returns. It's often better to not work with your enemy, since you'll have more return on investment that way. 100,000 men might be better than 50,000 men for a given task, but not twice as good. Next, SWTE serves your enemy's interests just as much as it serves your own. It's like giving an Popeye a can of spinach while you're in a fight with him. Oh, and infighting makes people less productive. SWTE is not good overall, nor can it be said solidly that SWTE has a positive effect. It could have positive effects, it could have none. However, it almost certainly has some negative effects. Infighting. Feeding the mouth that bites you. Diminishing returns. Problems are not solved, they're just swept under the rug. And with that, I've fulfilled the burdens either way.