'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all
ConI've always been interested by this Lord Tennyson Alfred quote. I find it to be untrue. Heres why:
1. The Story behind It: These lines are a part of In Memoriam, which Tennyson wrote after the death of his beloved friend Arthur Hallam. Tennyson had met Hallam in 1829, when they were both students at Trinity College, Cambridge. Hallam's sudden death in 1833 threw Tennyson into a tormented and near-suicidal state. Clearly it is not true, merely by its context. His grief was almost too much to endure, and this grief could clearly be avoided if this friend had not been in his life in the first place. Clearly this argument shows how i outweigh in terms of magnitude: voting pro can result in death, the ultimate result that we want to avoid.
2. It is physically untrue. According to Bella DePaulo, Professor of psychology at the University of Caifornia, Santa Barbara: "Tennyson has been felled by science - the data show that the phrase is just not true. In happiness, health, longevity, and just about everything else that has been studied, people who have always been single do better than people who were previously married (divorced or widowed). The results are are quite consistently in the opposite direction than Tennyson would have led us to believe." Thus we can see why in no physical sense is the phrase true, and that is enough to vote con, no matter what my opponent says.
3. The phrase leads to more stress in the future. DePaulo continues: "Scholars have a ready response to the phrase. It even has its own name, with three variations: the "stress" or "crisis" or "loss" hypothesis. People who have always been single have not experienced the same depth of stress (or crisis or loss) as people who have divorced or become widowed." This is important: inherently, therefore, the con is creating less depth of stress in the future than the pro.
4. People who work alone have a greater mastery of the activities of life. Think of all the tasks that married people divide between them. The splits are a little less likely to be traditional than they once were (she takes care of the kids and the cooking, he pays the bills and mows the lawn), but they are often apportioned in some way. While the marriage lasts, this can be useful and efficient. When it is over, though, the newly uncoupled individuals are left with mastery of only those tasks that were once in their domain. So once your loved one leaves, you are left without the skill set necessary to survive in years, while single people always have these abilities.
I am look forward to my opponents rebuttal.Report this ArgumentProtraditionally, i will start this rebuttal by thanking my opponent for such an amazing topic, and i am surprised i did not think of starting a debate like this one earlier.
ok to begin, i will refute the opponents case, then make some points of my own.
MY OPPONENT: "Hallam's sudden death in 1833 threw Tennyson into a tormented and near-suicidal state. Clearly it is not true, merely by its context. His grief was almost too much to endure, and this grief could clearly be avoided if this friend had not been in his life in the first place."
ME: It is true that death does occur in life, and that when it does, it is a very tragic thing, but i would have to oppose that it is still better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. because living a life in loniless, is possibly one of the worst things ever to befall an individual. one may say they are content living in lonliness, but in reality, they would be lying to themselves and to the rest of the world. Because every one wants to be loved, understood, and heard. Everyone needs to have some one there to share their thoughts and feelings with, to care about and, to be there for. because being single means to have lost every oppurtunity at opening up. proven fact: being...