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

(inhales with all might) *initiates pointing stance* OBJECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is rather apparent that PRO has taken advantage of my misfortune in the previous round and is attempting to utilize it through claiming that I've been abusive. I assure you, the only one who is being abusive here is NONE OTHER THAN PRO (and I'll get to that in a moment)! Regarding the character limit, look at it this way: We're given 24,000 characters per debate. I've merely used 12,717+ characters in comparison to PRO's 14,342. Thus, even if both of us utilize the maximum amount of characters in this debate, PRO will always be around 1500 characters ahead. Unfair advantage? Ha! Given the advantage I DELIBARETELY gave PRO in round 1, at the VERY LEAST, it balances out. As for these claims of cheating, none of them impact this debate and PRO has already made the mistake of acknowledging nearly everything I said. So what do I do with points that don't impact the debate? I discuss them elsewhere. PRO is free attempt to rebut my refutation of these absurd claims on my blog here: http://logical-master.blogspot.com... At best, PRO could potentially argue that you simply discount the extra 2500 characters, but no, she argues that you discount EVERYTHING I say in this debate. This, my fellow users, is A HIGHLY ABUSIVE REQUEST. She is telling you NOT TO HEAR ME OUT; she is TELLING YOU TO VOTE WITH BIAS AND TO DISREGARD ACTUAL DEBATING ON DEBATE.ORG. THAT COMPROMISES THE VERY PURPOSE OF THIS SITE. If you're going to discount what anyone says, you should discount the words of PRO for attempting to ABUSE this website in this manner. I'm just going to respond to each of PROs paragraphs numerically (from top to bottom) 1) Big words? Nonsense. A big word would be is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. If anything, the words I use illustrate the seemingly BIG problems with PROs case. Take this paragraph for instance. She is suggesting that the roles are interchangable, but according to the very definition which she provides, there is nothing to suggest such. In turn, she is simply compromising her own definition. 2) PRO resorts to some trickery here; her defense here is entirely strawman. She is saying that I said that the corrupt BF/GF was corrupt merely because of their usage of drugs, but I ask you, where did I say that? Nowhere. Allow me to quote what I stated in the previous round: "In unjustly disregarding the law and pressuring their BFS/GFS to do the same. the BF/GF is corrupt and is hence spreading his/her corruption to his/her BF/GF." Notice the conjunction "AND." The BF/GF is corrupt because he/she is corrupting his/her BF/GF. I also cannot help but point out how PRO conveniently ignores the matter of peer pressure (which was the heart of the argument). Given that this is the case, you can see that the corruption is via the romantic/sexual relationship. And unfortunately for PRO, the following statement "it would just make them a bad PROVIDER. I agree. Meaning this corrupt person (corrupt in his/her money making) can STILL be a good bf/gf." If this corrupt provider is not a corrupt bf/gf, then this simply restates what I've been saying, and negates any argument PRO has made on the matter, thus it is foolish to agree. 3) Next, PRO claims that the concept of sugar daddies/mamas proves her argument, but in saying so, this would also mean that she is suggesting that all prostitution is a means of an individual gaining a BF/GF. That's right, so if a guy decides to have a hooker from craigslist come up to his hotel room and have her "let his snake out of the cage and give it a massage that is a little rough at the end" in exchange for 100 big ones, this is considered a BF/GF relationship according to PRO. At any rate, if the relationship is based on provision, you cannot really consider a sugar daddy/mama or a prostitute as being an individuals BF/GF. The only way PRO can possibly avoid this is by compromising her very own definition which she established. 4) A good example of a so-called bad boy is Fonzey from Happy days, but throughout the series, we learn that he is a non-corrupt guy. The bad boy stuff is simply the image, hence how he got the title without anyone really knowing him. Thus, my reasoning as to how one can't really say that all "bad boys" are corrupt. Furthermore, I contested this point with the "role" argument, and as I've shown in this round, it hasn't even come close to being refuted. 5) My previous answer to this was sufficient. My reasoning for PRO being better off single was reasoning that considered the well being of society. Since PRO suggested that it would simply be detrimental to be in a relationship with a non-corrupt individual, there is really no reason to simply enter a relationship with a corrupt individual when upholding morals (which PRO had suggested that it ought to be considered in the previous round) as corruption would further consume the world. Hence, where being single as being the better approach comes in. While being single, you aren't running the risk of ensuing the negative consequences which PRO brought up and you aren't merely sustaining corruption through dating a fellow corrupt BF/GF. Also, one is more capable of getting help (or perhaps therapy at this point) than one is in attempting to drag someone else into it. This contention alone actually helps my case significantly. Weigh it into your vote. 6) It is rather apparent that I'm not saying such. Rather, what I'm saying is that even if a GF is a mother, her role as a mother is not to be taken into consideration for the context of this debate unless it fits into perspective as I've shown with my overpopulation argument. 7) Either PRO has simply made a mistake or she is simply trying to pull a fast one. Whatever the case, let me quote what I said in addition to what she quoted "The only way it would make him/her a corrupt bf/gf would be if the bf's/gf's activities revolved around the relationship." Now if you read my R1 and R2, it is rather apparent that I'm suggesting that the BFs/GFs activities revolve around the relationship. That about KILLS the notion that I'm contradicting myself. As for being drug baddies, I see many problems with this assertion, but wish to give PRO to benefit of the doubt before I capitalize on them. Please define drug buddies. 8) Alas, neglecting that I implied there could be exceptions, PRO misses the point. I would like to ask PRO how she really KNOWs that she is willing to cheat. Should she really trust her own speculations regarding the matter? Ask yourself: How often do we go around claiming we're capable of doing something only to find out that we aren't at the last minute? It's like the guy who raves about how he is gonna ride the biggest roller coaster in the theme park with all of his friends, only to turn around at the last minute. To truly KNOW that you are capable of doing something, it is necessary that you have done it before. As for more evidence though, I'd love to get into this matter more seriously than I already have. In fact, I'm dying for the opportunity. Unfortunately, I cannot help but notice that my esteemed was the one to initiate this claim. Thus, the burden of proof belongs to her. Provided she gives evidence, I'll go into detail concerning this discussion. If not, then you can pretty much discount this point on the grounds that it has not been supported. As for the response to the health point, it not only disregards the reasoning I use to justify it, but in short, it basically comes off as PRO saying "I disagree." Finally, she drops my response to her previous rebuttal concerning the "corruption argument", and she drops my overpopulation argument. Mostly taking it and this round's #5 into account, it is apparent that my case benefits society astronomically. Thus, it is rather clear which side is better.