Spring: the time when a young man’s fancy turns to love. And the time when the rest of us begin to entertain thoughts of picking off all the happy couples cuddling on the Arts Quad, one by one, with a long-range precision sniper rifle.

I hadn’t realized the aphorism was true until I got to college. Fall and winter surrounded me with the usual college relationships, students forming and breaking alliances like Styrofoam peanuts. But as soon as the sun returned from its six-month rendezvous with the southern hemisphere, the campus became filthy with couples: feeding each other in the Ivy Room; walking across Ho Plaza with their hands in each other’s rear pockets; parting to go to class, their arms slowly disengaging. This year, the cycle repeated.

Maybe it’s hormones. Maybe it’s that people look far more appealing when they aren’t buried under several layers of fleece. Whatever the reason, spring is guaranteed to be a depressing time for the single — I mean, “significant-other-impaired” among us.

Normally, an article about being single does one of two things: it condemns society for treating singledom as a curse and ends with the pronouncement that being single is a wonderful — even preferable — thing (a pronouncement that no one believes, including the author), or it whines and complains about stupid people and their stupid happy relationships and their stupid public displays of affection. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

But, my patient readers, I would not do such a thing. I have no desire to repeat what’s been said a hundred times over in a failed attempt at self-aggrandizement, and I have only marginal desire to whine. So I thought I’d do something a little different. I’d like to present, for the first time ever, a brief academic debate on the merits of being single. We have two panelists with us today: Cynical Elise, who will be arguing against singledom, and Skeptical Elise, who will be arguing for singledom. I’m your moderator, Disinterested Elise. Let’s begin. Skeptical Elise, you have the floor.

SE: Thanks, Disinterested Elise. You know, I’m glad we’re all here today, because this is a very important topic. For too long, single people have been marginalized by society, pushed aside simply because they don’t feel the need to settle down with one person. The idea that one cannot be fully content without a romantic partner is archaic and foolish, not to mention rooted in sexism. The idea that single people are inherently miserable is a self-fulfilling prophecy; it leads singles to think there’s something wrong with them and they then become dissatisfied, which propagates the idea of single people as being unhappy. Why, just the other day I –

DE: I’m sorry, Skeptical Elise, your 100 words are up. Cynical Elise?

CE: Thank you. Skeptical Elise, you haven’t got a leg to stand on and you know it. A romantic partner is the most important person in anyone’s life — humans have evolved that way. It’s only natural to feel empty without a significant other, and anyone who says otherwise is simply fooling him or herself. You took Human Bonding with Prof. Cindy Hazan, Human Development, so you know the facts: Single people die earlier. Ninety percent of married people are still alive at the age of 65, compared to only 60 percent of single or divorced people. In the words of the inimitable Beatles, “All you need is love.”

SE: Cynical Elise, you ignorant slut. First of all, I have to point out that your quotation states that all you need is love — not romantic love specifically. Having friends and family who love you can ameliorate many of the supposed effects of being single, as you might have learned in your precious class if you hadn’t been too busy staring at a cute boy. Additionally, I wasn’t aware that The Beatles were considered an authority on relationship science, but if you’re going to start quoting music, I might as well provide a counterexample. In the classic standard “Que Sera Sera,” Doris Day recalls asking her mother about her future: “Will I be pretty? Will I be rich?” She does not ask if she will be in a happy relationship. Ergo, being in a relationship is unimportant to her.

CE: Ah, but if you recall, at the end of the song she mentions that she now has a daughter of her own, which obviously –

SE: But she doesn’t mention a husband!

DE: Skeptical Elise, I’m going to have to ask you not to interrupt while your opponent is writing.

SE: Sorry.

CE: As I was saying, though she doesn’t mention being in a relationship in the first stanza, the only qualities she mentions as being more important are “pretty” and “rich.” And, with all due respect…

SE: Ouch. That stings.

CE: Tough love, Skeptical Elise. And speaking of love, while it is true that having friends and family is better than having nobody at all, neither lengthens the life span as much as having a long-term partner. Being single shortens your life more than smoking does!

SE: So what? Who wants to live to be 100? Don’t you remember what Strom Thurmond looked like?

DE: Time for closing statements. You each have three words.

CE: Being single kills.

SE: Might as well.

And that’s all we have space for today. I’d like to thank our panelists for being here, and I’d especially like to thank you, the audience, for showing up today. There are refreshments at the back of the room — now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go pry that sniper rifle out of Skeptical Elise’s hands.