Damals würde es mehr bekväquem sein. (??????)

Diesen Satz verstehe ich nicht.

Studentleben ohne Möbeler

"Möbel" doesn't change in the plural. In fact, it behaves very similarly to English "furniture," in the sense that it is mostly understood to be the plural, to the point where you usually say "Möbelstück" (piece of furniture) when you mean only one object.

Es gibt keinen Grund zu kaufen, einen Tisch oder Stühle und sie sindzu kaufen, die schwer zu tragen sind.

Damals würde es mehr bekväm seinAndererseits wäre es bequemer.

"Damals" means "back in the day." That doesn't really make sense in this context.

Jedesmal, dasswenn ich essen will, muss ich nach draußen gehen.

The conjunction "dass" initiates relative clauses. However, in this case you are making a conditional statement, that acts as a qualifier to a part of the main clause (in this case "jedesmal"). Therefore you need to initiate the subordinate clause with "wenn."

I'll admit I haven't actually encountered this construction yet in my textbook. Can you explain which forces "zu kaufen" to move to the end of the second clause? Ordinarily I think of this being triggered by words like "wenn" or "dass"

Ah, that is a very useful point. Can you explain the need for "nach" before "draußen"? Do I need always need to include a proposition with draußen/drinnen?

The difference between "draußen" und "nach draußen" is that the former is static, while the latter indicates movement from the inside to the outside. So you can say "Draußen wächst ein Baum" (A tree is growing outside), because the tree doesn't leave the zone designated "outside." On the other hand "Ich gehe nach draußen" (I'm going outside) indicates that you're starting inside, but are moving outside. It works the same way with "drinnen" and "nach drinnen." The latter indicates movement from the outside to the inside. So it's "Ich bleibe heute drinnen" (I'm staying inside today) but "Ich gehe nach drinnen, es fängt gleich an zu regnen" (I'm going inside, it's about to start raining).

"Es gibt keinen Grund" is the main clause. It's a complete sentence that can stand on its own. The rest of the sentence is basically elaboration on this main clause, which means it takes the form of subordinate clauses. We have "einen Tisch oder Stühle zu kaufen," which is a relative clause that defines the object. That's why the verb "kaufen" has to come at the end, it follows the standard word order for relative clauses. The thing that might be throwing you off here is that it doesn't start with the usual words introducing a subordinate clause. It's an unintroduced clause, which is a bit of a complicated subject. Please note that unintroduced clauses can always be reformatted into introduced clauses: "Es gibt keinen Grund, dass ich einen Tisch oder Stühle kaufen sollte." However, native speakers will usually prefer unintroduced clauses where possible. The last part of the sentence, "die schwer zu tragen sind," is another relative clause. An introduced one this time. It's a qualifier for "einen Tisch oder Stühle." Because while relative clauses usually follow right behind the word they relate to, in some cases they can be pushed to the end of the sentence. This is possible as long as they don't qualify the subject, and the meaning is unambiguous from context. It's usually done to untangle the sentence structure. You could say "Es gibt keinen Grund, einen Tisch oder Stühle, die schwer zu tragen sind, zu kaufen." But in that case the "zu kaufen" dangles a bit awkwardly at the end. I hope this clears things up a bit.

Ok, I understand the outline of the pattern there. You are correct that I was not aware of unintroduced clauses. I much prefer it when the clauses introduce themselves! For the time being I'll try to stick to sentences with at most one subordinate clause until I get the hang of it. Thank you!