On Balance, having a "Love Meter" for couples would be Beneficial
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Love Meter: A science fiction concept that can measure how much you love your partner and vice versa, and the intensity of these feelings. Assume that in this alternate universe the "love meter" is the standard/norm and I will try to argue that the Love Meter is beneficial to society with good and bad considered together.
Couples: People who are planning to date, dating together (in a relationship), or even married.
Arguments:
Pro starts with a constructive establishment of his argument detailing how it would be useful in detecting "stale" marriages, and manipulative "lovers". Con forfeits the next round and we get no new arguments on Pro's part.
In the second round Con establishes his own argument and puts severe doubt on Pro's argument. Con establishes two points, Honesty and other values, on why the love meter would not be beneficial. Con then presents several questions that puts said doubt on Pro's arguments.
In the next round, Pro essentially drops, or swerves around all of Con's arguments, Pro notices this and address it, even compounding on the argument more by providing more arguments.
Sources:
Only Con provides sources
Conduct:
Con forfeits, therefore Pro get's the conduct.
Pro argues that love meters would enable people to get out of unloving relationships and avoid gold diggers. Con argues that honesty or knowing someone is cheating isn't always beneficial, which Pro drops. Con argues that a love meter could be a privacy violation, which Pro agrees to, saying that a person could choose not to let the other person see their love meter. Con also argues that love isn't the only thing that matters in marriage, and Pro agrees and says that it doesn't matter if the couple is fine with low love numbers. Con also argues that open relationships can be healthy, which Pro drops.
Pro restates his argument about how a love meter could get people out of loving relationship. He also shoots himself in the foot by saying, "If you were so toxic you HAD to have a number validate the love, then perhaps you do not deserve this relation."
I could go on to Con's closing arguments, but it wouldn't make a difference. Pro drops, agrees to, or sidesteps all of Con's objections. His argument about how a love meter could be useful in some circumstances still stands, but he let Con poke a bunch of holes in it. Arguments to Con.
Con used some sources to bolster his claims, and Pro dropped them. Pro didn't use any sources, although I'm not sure he needed to. Even so, Con's unaddressed sources win him the points.
There were no issues with S&G that I saw.
Con forfeited one of the three rounds, so conduct to Pro.
are you pro with this? I feel like the difficulty to truly measure "love" puts a severe dent in my side