The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Define Love Objectively

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
imsmarterthanyou98 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 492 times Debate No: 97879
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




The purpose of this argument is to define "love" objectively. I have created the theorem below that as not been proven wrong which objectifies morality. The link below it clarifies how the theorem was created. I will make a statement of love in regards to the theorem. You may counter that statement or you may counter my objective definition of "love". The con/against has the burden of proving me wrong in any aspect. The pro/for has the burden of not being wrong. My argument will include to you the reason of which is why you are wrong. I do not consider this as misconduct. I am unapologetic, however, I will always speak in truth. I will be logical even if you can't find the logic. I will also sometimes speak in pseudo, in which you must interpret and counter of your own volition. If there is anything that I have exaggerated deceived, or lie about, then point out my discretion. This is an argument and I am saying you are wrong. I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new information or evidence based on reason and logic. May the truth be revealed.

The Objectivity of Morality:
What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do.
"The sole meaning of life is serving Humanity." -Leo Tolstoy
It is right to follow the sole meaning of life.
The only way to serve Humanity is maintaining its existence.
Therefore, it is right for Humanity to survive.
Thus it is wrong for Humanity to become extinct.
You should not maliciously or apathetically end humanity.

It is right to love Humanity.
I define "love" as taking the time to give what others need and is not selfish.


Hi....This seemed full of potential for an interesting debate, and also an excuse for much philosophical rambling abstractions lol. So thus here I am.

Love...that which is directly responsible for the very existence of humanity, and civilization. That ever so lovely potion of oxytocin encompassing our post synaptic cleft...holding our relationships to one another together, this magical glue is what makes society possible.

After all, how could a father or mother raise a kid, or even withstand each other for that matter, without this magical crazy glue of mystery....

Well, they can't, and wouldn't. So........what is this stuff " love"

Yeah, it's just Oxytocin....that's about it...This transcendental ineffable sensation, is as is everything else we can possibly caused by our brain.

In this particular case, " love" is not whatever Pro claimed it to be...It is instead rather the explanation aforementioned that I gave ^, the actual true definition of love, " objectively".

In any case............This is both a valid negation of Pro's Case, and a logical construction of my case.

Pro of course would have to negate my case on the basis of logic and evidence as I proved mine...and then reconstruct his... Which if he values logic and evidence will parallel mine exactly.

-------------------------------------Evidence, if not understood and comprehended sufficiently...............

“The increase in oxytocin during the period of falling in love was the highest that we ever found,” says Psychology professor Ruth Feldman at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, author of a study she and her colleagues published in Psychoneuroendocrinology.

New lovers had double of what is usually seen in pregnant women.
Evidence for claimed role in paternal relationships, and upbringing of follows.....

"Biol Psychiatry. 2010 Aug 15;68(4):377-82. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.02.005. Epub 2010 Mar 31.
Oxytocin and the development of parenting in humans."


The nonapeptide oxytocin (OT) has been repeatedly implicated in processes of parent-infant bonding in animal models; "

"Oxytocin showed high intraindividual stability across the first 6 months of parenting and the OT levels of husband and wife were interrelated at both assessments.

Maternal OT was related to the amount of affectionate parenting behaviors, including "motherese" vocalizations, the expression of positive affect, and affectionate touch, whereas paternal OT correlated with the degree of stimulatory parenting behaviors, including proprioceptive contact, tactile stimulation, and object presentation.

Ergo.....Vote CON, if you value logic and evidence.

Thanks, ;) I await your response.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate. It's refreshing to see someone who doesn't debate with arrogance. You were very concise with no embellishment/exaggeration. I would like to start off by saying I completely agree with that Oxytocin is the feeling of love. My argument now is that you did not, in fact, disagree with me, but instead solidified my argument. I will create a path to why you create Oxytocin in your brain and then lump up inevitable outcomes of the reasons into a variable to more abstractly call what love is without losing objectivity.

So you feel this when your subconscious mind interprets certain actions? To use my own bias as an example, I feel good when a woman gives me a compliment. Would you suggest that feeling is Oxytocin in the brain? So because I have that feeling now, my thoughts are changed from that new chemical reaction. I now want to do actions that encourage more of that behavior to attempt to replicate it. This is the part where you can debate more semantics over the implied logic. This act of selfishness produces acts of selflessness. I now want to give her things or tell her something to elicit the same feeling that she gave me or do something for her. In my rational mind, all of the things I do or say are to improve her quality of life. I would even say that a person making fun or laughing at someone CAN be an action from love in a subconscious attempt to diminish the ego so that that said someone could be more open to what the person really wants to say. I did put "CAN" in all caps to iterate that action might not be the result of Oxytocin. The semantical argument is whether or not true selflessness exists. I do label all the actions that are brought from said chemical reaction is what causes true selflessness which would imply that selflessness is a series of selfish desires. This is how I will define not being selfish. I have made a mistake in my argument because of that. I should have said selfless instead of not selfish. If wish to win on that technicality I do not disagree. For my fans out there, like I said, I can mislabel how things are, but my logic still remains true. I will endeavor in the future to not make that mistake again. My only argument to save my reputation is that a series of selfishly motivated actions can lead to not being selfish to oneself. To give one's life to save someone is known as one the greatest acts of love. You literally end your ability to feel that Oxytocin so that another will continue to feel it. The only time that can happen is if one truly believes in something that is greater than ownself. Perhaps you need that belief in order to feel that Oxytocin in the first place. You are in fact being selfless with that belief. I would postulate that you can not feel love if you only believe in yourself. I believe in that woman who compliments me. I believe her opinion is justified. In my opinion, that is not being selfish. So in order to experience that Oxytocin, one must believe things beyond oneself.

Thank you for identifying the roots in my tree. My statement is the fruit of such roots, so you are right in saying," ......Which if he values logic and evidence will parallel mine exactly." But as I said in my earlier preamble, you have not argued against mine but instead solidified it. Because I used "love" in the form of a verb, that would imply the actions of love. In addition, I would postulate that actions require time to be taken. Love always causes such actions, even as small as just thinking about the other person. Thus I say my statement remains true. I define "love" as taking the time to give what others need and is not selfish. The reason I didn't say "want" is because the word "need" does include emotional, mental, and physical needs. My theorem implies that it's wrong to just love your personal group over Humanity, but doesn't degrade the word itself or even say that can't feel love. Also, this doesn't have to be specifically with people. You can love how the sun rises in the east sensualizing the horizon in a very elegant metaphor to represents the starting of your day. You can believe that action was formed for you to see thus causing that Oxytocin reaction in the brain.

I have decided to not edit this argument in an efficient manner because I want everyone who reads this to know who I am. I do not claim to know everything nor will I ever. I do arguments likes this because even though my theorem is the ultimate correct answer, we still have to build the line of statements or questions(i'm using the word "statements" to represent both) to said answer. I do not know pure objective science as your argument was from, but I do know there are a series of unknown statements that will lead to the statements cultivated from this theorem such as "I define "love" is taking the time to gives others what they need and is not selfish." I don't think most people can truly accept what's best for Humanity until these unknown statements are revealed. Anyone who follows this theorem is following it on faith. Such faith is based on reason and logic. Humanity is trying to grow the tree itself from reason and logic, but I have shared the fruit of the tree so that you may just grow it in reverse. I tell you the truth, you can make any statements that conform to this theorem and prove it to be true. You have to know how to ask the right questions, though. If anyone is brave enough to do what I am doing, make friends with me and I will help you find those correct answers. Understand this, even though I have demonstrated what people call "misconduct", I have never bruised an ego without reason beyond myself. I am implying that I will not help those who are simply seeking power to use. Thus I have to get to know you before I am willing to back you.

I give thanks to my opponent who has given me knowledge of my roots. I do not know what you will argue, but I hope that it will always bring truth.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 1 year ago
Apologies for the FF, I lost track of time a bit....that stuff that never stops.... Anyways, I'm back now.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
How would you argue? im asking because its difficult finding an argument from my perspective.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
Nevermind. But he should come back soon hopefully.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
Con hasn't even been online after the first 24 hours of him being on
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
Basically, Con is saying love is some chemical reactions and material things. A bit hard to fully grasp, but I buy his argument. I wonder how this debate will unfold.
Posted by fred70 1 year ago
Yeehaw! Sidex is back :)
And SHAZAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.