The Instigator
bsergent
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
killa_connor
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

All love is conditional, all relationships are exchanges.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,403 times Debate No: 651
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (14)

 

bsergent

Pro

No one actually likes anyone else. They only like what the person provides. All love is conditional, all relationships are exchanges.

The lines between partner, victim, family, friend, lover, customer, are only drawn by the nature of those provisions, and the effort required to provide them, and how badly each service is needed.

The social contract can be seen as a series of individual contracts with each and every person you will ever encounter.
killa_connor

Con

For clarification, would you consider yourself a utilitarian? Where the moral worth of an individual is a measure of their utility relative to you. Utility being generally defined as good or happiness.

Ok, lets begin with "All love is conditional". My refutation of this point depends on my ability to generate examples of individuals or relationships where love is given without the recipient having to "earn" or without conditions that need to be fulfilled. One such relationship is the bond between a mother and her new born child. That child doesn't need to earn his mother's love, nor does he need to work in any way, conscious or subconscious, in order to receive it. This link is quite powerful, even to the point where the mothers of serial killers will often go to great lengths to protect and defend their child. This, im sure, serves an important evolutionary purpose for man because this "maternal selflessness" is really more than a social construct, instead it is behavior that stems from humanity's primary priority, survival.

"All relationships are exchanges". The ambiguity of this phrasing has me a little confused, define and describe these exchanges. I can only assume you mean that relationships, in the simplest sense, depend on the presence of some "give and take" system that is mutually beneficial. I suppose I could agree with this but I disagree with your subsequent conclusions:

"No one actually likes anyone else. They only like what the person provides."

Of course your forgetting that what someone else has to provide or offer is fundamental to their identity. So by saying that you don't like the person you only like what they do for you is inherently contradicting. It's because you have created a false dichotomy between utility and identity. You assume they are separate but they are integral to each other.

thanks sergent, very interesting topic
Debate Round No. 1
bsergent

Pro

I suppose I could consider myself one except for that fact that no time frame is specified. Granted my ethics do indeed extend from the idea that the point of life is happiness, but to define it this way leaves a dangerous hole. I deeply respect individual freedoms, but killing a billion people would make those left pretty happy due to increased resources, this does not mean I justify the execution of a billion people.

So as defined by wiki and the like, no I am not a utilitarian.

"That child doesn't need to earn his mother's love(.)"

Right but some mothers do not love their children, which means there is some condition that is being met to induce love be it genetic or behavioral. You bring up a need for clarification. For the record: I mean any and all conditions. Besides there are millions of cases where by all accounts true love was present and then actions were taken that changed the situation resulting in the annihilation of love.

This is a fact related to all emotion, they are conditional, that is how we know to feel them. Under these conditions I will feel love under these I will feel hate. Genetic relationship or the illusion of it is just as much a condition as anything else. The idea of unconditional love is just a tool to extract servitude despite counter desire from a target. "If you really loved me you'd do this." I think the first use of this was religion. But I could be wrong about that.

The idea of unconditional love is a fundamental contradiction because love (and all other emotion) is by nature selective. Love has value because it is not given to everyone by everyone, if it were you would not recognize it as a discrete entity it would be seen as merely a species bond. For example we don't think of ants being capable of love, but what if they are, to a degree greater than any human?

"you have created a false dichotomy between utility and identity"
Hmmm. I don't think I have, am I really merely what I can give? That reasoning seems circular. I am what I give because what I am is what I give. (Replace ‘give' with ‘want' or ‘utility' or whatever.)

Let's say Bob by nature spits out donuts, and loves watching people eat them and he meets Homer. Naturally they would enjoy each other's company. But Homer only likes the donuts and Bob only likes the eating. They mutually benefit, and were that condition to dissolve so would the association unless a new medium of exchange was found, this is not some mystical bond called ‘love' or ‘friendship'.

The fluffy, valentines, hallmark, Kay diamonds, American nuclear family dream idea of one true love forever and ever no matter what, lets pay our 10 percent, is just totally bogus. It is an unreasonable demand and causes hoards of undue stress. We should not feel guilty for something we cannot change. And accepting this absurdity from the beginning opens the door psychologically to all other sorts of non-sense that makes you easier to control, like the idea that God unconditionally loves you but he'll send you to hell if X.
If we would just own up to the facts of our nature we would be a lot better off.

If we are ashamed of our nature, fine then let's change it as per Transhumanism. Saying there is unconditional love, when logically there cannot me and the glossing it over with platitudes like "the heart knows no logic" is both insulting and dangerously close to burying our heads in the sand. (not that this is what you've claimed) If people were more honest about what they want and more tolerant of others being honest, there would be a lot more happy people.

My ethical world is based on one idea. "Honesty is the best policy." Because over time it is. Delusion is maladaptive. Lies = Pain.

And thank you Connor for providing rational counterpoint. I'm glad you enjoy the topic. :)
killa_connor

Con

Nice response! Now I'm starting to understand how this debate topic can work in your favor. Conditional in a literal sense can be applied to any uncontrollable condition being met in order to achieve love. The way you're debating against the notion of unconditional love is by pointing out conditions that must be met even though those conditions are outside of the recipients ability to change or alter.

What is working in my favor for this argument is that it doesn't matter if there are mothers who do not love their children. By claiming that ALL love (past, present, and future) is/was/will be conditional you have put the burden upon yourself to prove that there are no examples of a mother loving her child regardless of what the child did or didn't do. This is what I mean by a controllable condition because you can generate any sort of arbitrary conditions that were met for love to be present. For example, the condition that the child be physically born and indeed have existed in order for love to be present. Well duh, this debate would be meaningless if that were the case there are always going to be physical conditional requirements for love to exist in the first place. The real point of this debate and the task incumbent upon you is to prove that there are no relationships in the world between two people where their love and adoration for a child (parent, brother, sister, loved one) was unconditional in the sense that it was uninterrupted and existed regardless of any action that the recipient did or could have done. Certainly emotions are inherently conditional but what we're really arguing here is whether or not love and the ability to care is conditional and while love has an emotional expression its important to remember that love is not defined by its emotions and the biological chemical processes that produces them. Love is more of a state of mind then just the emotions that result its presence. What I mean by this is that you can care for a person indefinitely but you can't stay permanently happy (or any other emotion) these emotions will naturally be interrupted.

"Besides there are millions of cases where by all accounts true love was present and then actions were taken that changed the situation resulting in the annihilation of love. "

Indeed there are. But this isn't really the point of the debate, is it? I came here to argue that there are cases that have existed and indeed do exist today where true love / care has been unconditional and present regardless of any actions that were taken. I think this is the problem with your logic. You're too quick to equate love as a basic human emotion but really it's more complex then that. You can be incredibly mad or sad with someone but still have love present which is why it is such an enduring force. I clumsily described it as a state of mind, but I think we can both agree (assuming you have been in love) that it's far more guided and persistent then being merely happy or sad. These emotions are certainly bi-products but not a defining element of love.

I do agree with your points on religion. You do hear the term "unconditional love" thrown around by the clergy, it's certainly present within Catholic tradition and specifically used to describe God's love for us. Which is ironic because that's assuming you fulfill the condition of believing and indeed following him in the first place or else it's off to hell for you.

The example you gave with Bob and Homer is funny but it misinterprets and oversimplifies my point about utility and identity being related. You cleverly exaggerate my point to claim that they are somehow the same thing, but in reality I'm merely pointing our that by liking what that person provides or what their presence does for you is appreciating part of their identity. This isn't to somehow suggest that their identity is somehow limited to their utility relative to you. This would be to suggest that all we are is the our ability to be used and what we "provide".

I agree with your points about religion and I think that unconditional love operates on a human level. Perhaps a Christian would like to argue and describe the existence of some divine unconditional love, but thats not why I'm here. I've seen that humans are capable of selflessness, compassion, and indeed love without conditions. I concede that unconditional love is not present in most relationships because it doesn't define and is incompatible with friendships and most relationships we are presented with. That's why I began with a mother and her child. Our human nature to love and care stems from a evolutionary priority which began with the selflessness that was required for early man to survive. That's not to say that love doesn't serve any contemporary purpose in our society but thats another debate all together :).

I'm very appreciative and tolerant of your honesty. And please expect the same honesty from my arguments. Because I'm predominantly drawing from personal observation of human nature and am in no way trying to ignore or gloss over the upsetting reality of our nature. Nor am I trying to imply that unconditional love is somehow a controlling force over behavior, in reality I expect that it would have the opposite effect.

Another great round. Seems like you've had this argument before :)

-connor
Debate Round No. 2
bsergent

Pro

"…you have put the burden upon yourself to prove that there are no examples of a mother loving her child regardless of what the child did or didn't do."

Not true. My statement of a negative is a response to an implied positive on your part. By your logic atheists would be obliged to prove god does not exist, which they are not, as has been exhaustively covered elsewhere. It is not possible to prove a negative without complete knowledge, and the inability to prove a negative is not a proof of a positive. …But nice try though. :P :)

"Well duh, this debate would be meaningless if that were the case there are always going to be physical conditional requirements for love to exist in the first place."

So we agree. Heh, thank you for playing. Should I continue? I assume you want me to. :P

"The real point of this debate and the task incumbent upon you is to prove that there are no relationships in the world between two people where their love and adoration for a child (parent, brother, sister, loved one) was unconditional in the sense that it was uninterrupted and existed regardless of any action that the recipient did or could have done."

If I were to assume your burden which I am not, you had me until "…could have done".

If nothing else it is possible to inflict brain damage on a person in such a way that they hate you. Many examples exist of brain trauma resulting in severe emotional disturbance. It's an unbreakable chain of reasoning. And well within "could have".

"Love is more of a state of mind then just the emotions that result its presence."

Now it's my turn to announce burden of proof issues. If you can prove that love is not an emotional state of mind, you will have secured for yourself a place in human history, as you will have shown the soul to exist, or at least room for it. I.E. Emotional sourcing outside the meat of the mind.

"Indeed there are. But this isn't really the point of the debate, is it? I came here to argue that there are cases that have existed and indeed do exist today where true love / care has been unconditional and present regardless of any actions that were taken."

Actions that were taken, not actions that could have been taken. My response is that anyone can be made to hate anyone else under the proper conditions. Just because those conditions are not met for a set of people, does not mean that those conditions and their results cannot exist.

"You're too quick to equate love as a basic human emotion but really it's more complex then that."

This is known as the Appeal to Ignorance (I think). Sure love is complex but just because we don't know about some of it doesn't mean its super natural.

"I clumsily described it as a state of mind, but I think we can both agree (assuming you have been in love) that it's far more guided and persistent then being merely happy or sad."

I've experienced love, but it was conditional. You're being underhanded. You're saying that if I don't believe that love is unconditional I've never ‘really' experienced love. I hope you do not presume to demean the validity of my emotions just because we disagree on their nature.

Love is a state of mind. As above, if not, and you can prove it, you have fame waiting for you.

"…specifically used to describe God's love for us. Which is ironic because that's assuming you fulfill the condition of believing and indeed following him in the first place or else it's off to hell for you."

That irks me to no end.

"This isn't to somehow suggest that their identity is somehow limited to their utility relative to you."

Ahhh, I totally misunderstood. So I straw manned you via ignorance, my bad hehe.

"I've seen that humans are capable of selflessness, compassion, and indeed love without conditions."

Oh boy! Altruism FTW.

Please provide me a single example of a selfless human act. :) I'll save you time, you cannot. All human action is either willful, and therefore in service of will and therefore desire, or is involuntary and outside the realm of judgment.

This may be a whole other debate lol.

"Another great round. Seems like you've had this argument before :)"

Oh my, have I. I've got a whole book of this madness. Go put Sergent in lulu.com. :P

I fancy myself a Sophist in the Greek sense, and I'm sure many feel I am in the modern sense. :)

You're a treat to debate with. This site rocks.
killa_connor

Con

Whoa! You started this third round swinging. Many claims to address, lets start with your digression into a discussion on semantics which is drawing away from the real question here, Is love a basic human emotion and therefore inherently conditional? Or is it a state that has emotional biproducts but is not limited by the same conditions of emotions?

Unfortunately, before I can return to the real contention of this debate, let me take a little time to dismiss this bizarre notion that I've somehow forfeited my point or that I have inadvertently introduced a new burden of proof:

"... the inability to prove a negative is not a proof of a positive. …But nice try though. :P :)"

Nicely put, therefore my ability to produce a negative (lets not forget I am the Con here!) would be proof of my implied positive. The negation being in this case, that there are instances of unconditional love. This has gotten wordy and convoluted but my original point was that you have taken the challenge of explaining why no mother can have unconditional love for her child. It was merely a reiteration of your opening remarks.

Next we have these gems,
"So we agree. Heh, thank you for playing. Should I continue? I assume you want me to. :P" -Round 3

We agree on what exactly? That there are physical conditions to every action in the universe? Um, yes... I guess so.

"If nothing else it is possible to inflict brain damage on a person in such a way that they hate you. Many examples exist of brain trauma resulting in severe emotional disturbance. It's an unbreakable chain of reasoning. And well within "could have"." -Round 3

Why just brain damage? In order to have unconditional love they need to fulfill the condition that aliens don't abduct them and turn them into crazy zombie mutants that murder and pillage. Or even they must meet the condition that she doesn't turn into a dragon and eat her once unconditionally loved and adored child. This is my point and this was my whole point during round 2 about controllable conditions and how your literal conditional approach isn't applicable to this debate because its far too abstract and arbitrary. We're speaking in hypothetical terms and using characteristics of human nature and the nature of human emotions to decide whether or not love can be unconditional.

And just as all is seemingly lost, you return to our original points of contention with the same articulate and well supported points that have defined your first two rounds of arguments!:
"This is known as the Appeal to Ignorance (I think). Sure love is complex but just because we don't know about some of it doesn't mean its super natural." -Round 3

Agreed, and I'm not trying to suggest that it is somehow "super-natural" in the sense that it can't be explain by natural processes (mainly the evolutionary processes that explain the notion of human altruism) but, rather, that it is a state of mind that has come to be defined by its emotional tangibility.

"I've experienced love, but it was conditional. You're being underhanded. You're saying that if I don't believe that love is unconditional I've never ‘really' experienced love. I hope you do not presume to demean the validity of my emotions just because we disagree on their nature." -Round 3

It wasn't my intention to be underhanded nor was it my intention to demean the validity of your emotions. I wasn't even asking if your experiences with love have been conditional (Obviously, they have been or I wouldn't expect you to subscribe to the general philosophy that love can't be unconditional), all I was pointing out is that love is far more persistent then other human emotions that you are attempting to equate it with. I remember the first time I fell in love, I was in the fifth grade and I literally had a crush on this girl on through high-school. It was only until we left for college that I was able to move on but even that was tough. Certainly, that example of love was conditional but my point in saying all of this is that Love can be an enduring force, and when this endurance is introduced to the context of a strong maternal link it has the potential to be unconditional. Let's not forget that Adolf Hitler's mother still loved her son even after his suicide and the extent of his evil was revealed. Its a powerful psychological process that compels us to care regardless of whether or not the recipient is deserving or even fulfills the criteria required to deserve such compassion.

"Now it's my turn to announce burden of proof issues. If you can prove that love is not an emotional state of mind, you will have secured for yourself a place in human history, as you will have shown the soul to exist, or at least room for it. I.E. Emotional sourcing outside the meat of the mind." -Round 3

Hahaha it looks like I have quite the burden to tote. And it is partially true because what I'm describing isn't entirely tangible but I would predict that there are biological processes that can indicate or signal the onset of love or adoration (Interesting side note: In 2005, Italian scientists at Pavia University found that a protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these levels return to as they were after one year. Specifically, four neurotrophin levels, i.e. NGF, BDNF, NT-3, and NT-4, of 58 subjects who had recently fallen in love were compared with levels in a control group who were either single or already engaged in a long-term relationship. The results showed that NGF levels were significantly higher in the subjects in love. Perhaps the notion of love isn't as abstract as you originally assumed). I also never meant to claim that it is not an emotional state of mind but rather a state of mind that has been equated to an emotion but in reality is far more persistent and incorporates a multitude of emotions. This could backfire on me but I would even compare it to the sensation of jealousy in regard to is ability to persevere and often times incorporate more then one emotion (in the case of jealousy: anger, sadness, shame).

"Oh boy! Altruism FTW."
"Please provide me a single example of a selfless human act. :) I'll save you time, you cannot. All human action is either willful, and therefore in service of will and therefore desire, or is involuntary and outside the realm of judgment." -Round 3

Interesting, you recognize altruism as part of the human condition but yet you argue that regardless of the appearance of selflessness the acts are inherently selfish because they are in service of will. This is an interesting point and taps into a discussion on how we would define altruism. I would argue that it is expressing less concern for yourself than for the success of the joint activity / welfare of others. I know we don't have the time to debate this but this is something that deserves some follow up.

I hope to be receiving another challenge soon =). Except maybe this time take me on in my arena. Political processes either domestic or international, but judging by your profile and libertarian tendencies I think a debate about the role of the rich in an affluent society would be an interesting debate topic for us to duke it out over. It's been a pleasure.

-connor
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
"So here is my idea, yeah it is conditional at times but at others it will be unconditional."

Doesn't work, if it's unconditional at any point it must remain so, else time becomes a condition. Which also kills the whole examples thing.

I'll do the altruism debate, NP.

"I'm asking for you to surrender?"

Define respect for me in objective behavioral terms. I treat everyone with honesty and hold them to the same standards I hold myself. If this is disrespectful, so be it.
Posted by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
"Respect goes both ways, don't expect me to surrender just because you won't. Fundamentally, or totally. only one of us is more right. To 'agree to disagree' or 'respect each other differences' on matters of objective reality is irresponsible. This was what was meant by sloth if you ask me. "

I'm asking for you to surrender? That's news to me. I think it should go both ways but right now it is truly one sided. I'm asking for your respect because I came into this debate arguing against an objective reality. I did so by adjusting the debate in a way that made into a debatable subject! Which I'm glad to see Yrael recognized:

"The pro is arguing for the equivalent of an emotional determinism. Well actually you say conditional in all aspects as the debate progresses, but I feel the Neg gives me enough on this for me to be able to decide. Therefor I am going to go with the idea that this debate would be utterly useless if that was the case, so I am only judging on the emotional conditional level."

Thanks Yrael! Thats exactly what I was trying to do and it's unfortunate that I've been called underhanded, condescending, and really my integrity has come under attack by bsergent. I respected him a great deal and I was hoping that after such a lively exchange we would have developed a respect for each other as debaters but apparently not. This is my last post. Thanks for the comments and thanks for this debate.

-connor
Posted by Yrael 9 years ago
Yrael
I'm bringing my own theory into this round in order to judge it, sorry. That theory being, "no comments below effect my decision in any way."

This is a really cool debate. The pro is arguing for the equivalent of an emotional determinism. Well actually you say conditional in all aspects as the debate progresses, but I feel the Neg gives me enough on this for me to be able to decide. Therefor I am going to go with the idea that this debate would be utterly useless if that was the case, so I am only judging on the emotional conditional level.

So once again, as with the determinism argument the ability to disprove or prove this point hinges around the idea of examples, and unfortunately because of limited human awareness of the subjects of examples we can't actually prove any of them. Therefor this debate for me, a judge, hinges on the idea of whether I agree with the examples or not.

The example brought forward in this case is that of a mother's relationship for her child.

So here is my idea, yeah it is conditional at times but at others it will be unconditional. This is equivalent to Conner's idea that it is more enduring perhaps. And while I totally think these are conditions in themselves and a mildly circular logic I have to examine the resolution saying "all love". Thus I vote Con on the premise that there will be points in love that are unconditional even if they are so by condition.

Do the altruism debate!
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
Acknowledged. I was going to leave it alone but you specifically told me from a second source to come see, so I'm going to respond.

You like the exchange more than the result. I'm the same way.

I don't trash talk. If I say negative things, I mean them and I think they are true. I don't see any point in trying to insult people.

If you are insulted, then what I have said is either true or it isn't. If its true then why blame me for pointing out reality, and if its not then I'm either mistaken or lying, which means what I said doesn't matter.

Cryptarianism is probably today unworkable, I write for tomorrow, so it's not a huge deal to me. We're far too low on Maslow's hierarchy to to provide discipline for either religion and science.

"I am actually a political science major. It doesn't mean I'm not a genuine person."

I never once meant to attack you as a person. Only your expressed ideas. If you feel you are those ideas, then its unavoidable and you shouldn't blame me, because you do the same.

Respect goes both ways, don't expect me to surrender just because you won't. Fundamentally, or totally. only one of us is more right. To 'agree to disagree' or 'respect each other differences' on matters of objective reality is irresponsible. This was what was meant by sloth if you ask me.

P.S. you now have a last word rain check. Just let me know and I'll not respond. (not redeemable in an actual debate heh)
Posted by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
F*** the last word. I respected you and now you've ended this exchange by trash talking me and making assumptions about my character.

I downloaded your book and read through some of it. Cryptarianism is interesting (arguably unachievable) and I thoroughly enjoyed what I read about it. I wish you could have had the same sort of respect for me.

I am actually a political science major. It doesn't mean I'm not a genuine person.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
"So you started a debate over a fact? What's the point in that?"

To gauge and bring recognition to that fact. Why else?

"And then you criticize me..."

I criticize you for using emotional tactics because you recognize the logic is weak, when you are obviously smart enough to realize that how you feel about a fact has no bearing on it.

"I chose that model because..."

This has no impact on the nature of love, you simply meant to convey an emotional impression.

"Part of debating is convincing people."

Yes, with fact. If you're content to do it with emotion only, it becomes a rally.

It's cool, we'll just have this debate again when people can separate how they feel with who they think carried their point better.

Merry Christmas, my gift to you is the last word, I will not reply and I have turned off email notification. It was a pleasure debating with you. Regardless of the discovery that my view is the less popular one. :)

Brandon dot sergent at gmail dot com if you wish to challenge me to future debates specifically.
Posted by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
"Yes. Fact is not a popularity contest."

So you started a debate over a fact? What's the point in that? And then you criticize me for not approaching the debate and arguing it in a way that lends itself to your interpretations of conditions and your definition of unconditional love. I understood coming into this debate that conditions can be defined as anything, so instead I focused on making Love as real and observable as possible while simultaneously using a definition of 'unconditional love' that lent itself to being physically achievable (round 1).

I also never wanted to be sexist with my mother and child model. Change it to a father and his daughter or son. I chose that model because in the animal kingdom, generally females are a greater part of the nurturing and child raising aspect of life. This fit in with my evolutionary account for Love which is why it was used.

Part of debating is convincing people. You had an impregnable position with this debate and I did what I could to use your arrogance and hypothetical assumptions about love and pitted my personal observation and explanation against it. Is this bad debating?
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
"What about kids who have been abused in every way by their father/mother and have given up all hope of them serving any sort of father/mother role in their lives yet they still proclaim they have love for their father/mother."

For one a proclamation is not proof, but assuming they aren't deluded or malingering, all your situation proves is that abuse is not part of their conditions for love. In fact there is a wealth of data to suggest that abuse can actually create bonds, a well known example being Stockholm syndrome.

Even the possibility of love as a mythic unconditional, is merely wishful thinking and organized greed playing off our lust for power, and our fear of rejection which begins the instant we recognize mortality.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
So, if you feel strongly that you can fly, could you? PCP jump fatalities would disagree. Strong feeling is not evidence.

All brain states, no matter how you label them are conditional. Again, this is simply irrefutable without scrapping all logic. The only reason there is debate on the matter is a trillion dollar advertising campaign designed to convince people that love is a magical spiritual force that requires you to buy x products to prove it.

The endurance of the brain state does not remove its conditionality. Who the bond is between, mothers or lovers, or for what reasons, genetic or social, are irrelevant. Brain states are conditional, period. This is neurologically provable. There are volumes of material backing this basic position up. My fave is neurophilosphy published by MIT press. It's on amazon.

You play the kid card to cloud the issue, it proves nothing. It's sexist for one, like father's can't feel genetic love, and it plays into the myth that women are fragile and natural mothers. Humans are natural parents, it's not a "chick thing". Plus correlation does not denote causation, if I can find one counter example, then it refutes your position as a law, you cannot prove the existence of a single case of unconditional love, at best you can show a low conditional threshold.

"Haha so if I'm winning you assume it's because people just agree with me."

Yes. Fact is not a popularity contest. Your argument is rife with logical fallacies, which I pointed out, and you then failed to address. You merely restated your previous position, and indeed tried to change the topic of the debate as per the straw man fallacy. You are uninterested in the facts, you merely wanted votes, so you played the kid card to cloud the issue, as I said before. And you covered this underhanded behavior with rhetorical politeness and condescension and equivocation. You should look into politics.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
You can esily prove that there is unconditional love.

What aout kids who have been abused in every way by their father/mother and have given up all hope of them serving any sort of father/mother role in their lives yet they still proclaim they have love for their father/mother.

This is an example of love for ones parents being ingrained in us. Of course there are people who woud disagree with this statement, but there are always exceptions.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mrmazoo 9 years ago
mrmazoo
bsergentkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
bsergentkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by artC 9 years ago
artC
bsergentkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by BrianFranklin 9 years ago
BrianFranklin
bsergentkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dorobo 9 years ago
dorobo
bsergentkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by aaeap2 9 years ago
aaeap2
bsergentkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ishamael_89 9 years ago
ishamael_89
bsergentkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by caitjoind2vote4connor 9 years ago
caitjoind2vote4connor
bsergentkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
bsergentkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by joehoevah 9 years ago
joehoevah
bsergentkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30