Being single is closer to being lonely and needing sympathy rather than independent and appreciative

We have often been the single one. Indeed, looking at our happy friends obtain partners have been experience that we have been dealt with before. As a blog post notes, though we are happy for our friends, we are also jealous. This is a perfectly normal reaction. But we are also, in a way, less appreciative of our own lives. Rather than focus on what we can do alone, we then think, ah, if only we had someone else to help us. As the author notes that the way their friends act can seem sickening and troublesome, the intimacy contrasts our loneliness, rather than stress our independence. Indeed, an article notes that there are three reasons that the single person may be jealous, all of which point towards the idea that you need sympathy, as others will more likely spend time with their partner than with you.

It's not just blog posts, a serious study on this confirmed my suspicions: "single relationship status was related to greater romantic and family loneliness, and to less perceived social support from significant others and family. " Another strong research backs up the idea that mere separation and lack of intimacy can result in grave results. " Alongside myriad connections to poor physical health, including obesity and cardiovascular problems, a range of possible effects on the human brain have now been documented: Social isolation is associated with increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia, as well as mental health consequences such as depression and anxiety." the article states. Indeed, if you are single, then you have no excuse to live with a partner. As such, especially during the pandemic, people who are single are especially separated, and increases the loneliness due to lack of physical interaction.

As we rack up the loneliness side let me mention sympathy a bit. The need for support has grown so strong that even experts have intervened to support the idea that you shouldn't actively try to help single and let them live their life. But you can stop action, while it is far harder to stop their beliefs. Due to inherent stereotypes and cultural norms, it is inevitable that those who are single will receive sympathy, regardless of whether it is acted upon or not. One man from Rothenberg International notes that a single person's stress stacks and stacks, with many worries in the way. From our survival and evolutionary instincts, it is self-evident that we are hard-wired to look for some kind of partner, both for emotional and physical connection. Unless con can demonstrate most people are capable of overcoming the inherent need for partnership, he loses the debate.

I move the floor to con.

Pro makes the claim "Being single is closer to being lonely and needing sympathy rather than independent and appreciative"

He then provides arguments that being single causes loneliness and a need for sympathy, not that being single is "closer" to them (as in more similar).

When you think about it, the idea that the state of "singleness" can be more similar to any emotional state (as in loneliness or any other emotional state which may cause someone to "need sympathy") is nonsensical. Singleness is a relationship status, not an emotion. On top of that, even if being single typically causes the emotional states Pro describes, that result is not universal which proves that they are not inherently "closer" even if we pretend the two being "closer" makes any sense whatsoever.

Being lonely and needing sympathy don't even necessarily prevent you from being independent and appreciative. You can be appreciative of receiving sympathy, or you can be independent despite being depressed etc.

If anything, being single is closer to being independent. After all, if you are single you are surviving without a partner right? Nothing else you mentioned even remotely fits because you are saying emotions are more or less similar to whether you have a girl/boyfriend or not. Sounds kind of silly when I put it like that, no?

Con says that single makes you feel independent and can be appreciating of needing sympathy. But this has the same flaw that he pointed out in my argument. If being single causes both sides, it is up to him to fulfill the idea that the independence power and appreciating the world overcomes the sadness caused by being alone. With my studies, it is apparent, and unrefuted, that people are more sad than not (especially compared to those with partners). As such, it seems that they are lonelier than they are appreciative. Case closed.

Incorrect, Con said "If anything, being single is closer to being independent. After all, if you are single you are surviving without a partner right?". This does not imply that independence is a feeling, it implies that you are surviving without the help of a partner (and are thus not dependent on one for survival) and that surviving without a partner is similar to not having a partner. I did not include "appreciating of needing sympathy" in that equation and I never made the claim that an emotion such as appreciation can be more similar to a relationship status. It is you claiming that being single is similar to the feelings that can potentially stem from being single. Also let it be noted that the grammar of the first sentence (and of his arguments in general) is extremely poor and that he is misrepresenting and miscontextualizing my statement that it is possible to appreciate receiving sympathy.

The debate proposition demands that you provide proof for a fixed and universal level of loneliness and need for sympathy that comes with singleness. Proof of correlation and even causation is not sufficient, and unless the results are universal down to the very amount of loneliness or sympathy-need all you are proving is that being single tends to cause certain feelings. If singleness caused these feelings because it was the same as those feelings, then the more single someone is the more they would universally experience the same feelings and to the same degree. The fact that people can be single without experiencing the same emotions or to the same degree (even if most people feel lonely and need sympathy, because the mere fact that there are exceptions proves you wrong) proves that the feelings aren't the same thing as or inherently attached to singleness, but rather something that can be triggered in the human brain as a result of it.

ah... however, independence can be a state of emotion in addition to being. When America first rebelled against Europe masters to become independent, they were not truly independent in trade and status. However, the declaration of independence clearly contradicts this notion and has Independent feeling despite not being independent. Therefore, even if you were independent in status, you could still feel dependent on others for emotional support, especially family to help you. As such it is not necessarily closer to being "independent" in the state of mind. Remember that being alone and being lonely is different, and so the differentiation should also tell the difference between being independent and actually feeling independent. Even if single doesn't cause loneliness, the fact that the two are correlated goes to show that it's closer to my side than con's side. 

Vote for pro.

That's true, but I didn't use it in that way and thus your claim that I contradicted myself is false. Also, this truth does nothing to help you fulfill your BoP.

The rest of Pro's argument is honestly just pointless rambling given that he never debunked a single thing I said in round one and is only attempting to dance around my arguments and force me into a debate that assumes his proposition is perfectly logical when it is not. I view this debate as him claiming "Being single is closer to being lonely and needing sympathy rather than independent and appreciative" and me disagreeing with his claim on the basis of the entire idea of it being illogical. He wants the debate to be about him defending  the " lonely and needing sympathy" side and me defending the "independent and appreciative" side but nothing in how this debate is structured is forcing me to do that. In reality, he has simply made the claim in the debate title and Con is allowed to disagree in more or less any way he wants.