Does love exist?
I accapt this debate that Pro has started.
The resolution is put in form of a question leaving the Pro to be for answering the question 'Yes' and I the Con to make the case for arguing it 'No'. because Pro is the one answering it 'Yes' in a question to its existance burden of proof is on Pro.
Pro has not given any concreate definition of what 'Love' is that she is arguing exist, but it seems apparent she roughly means 'Eros' kind of love and not 'Philos' or 'Agape'. What she has provided however is extreamly vaugle flimsy discriptions of what it could be. 'It could last a short time' 'It could last forever'. These are not just abrasive to each other for terms of definition they are borderline contradictory.
this goes to show it does not exist all the more, not a case that supports that it does. for what people have when 'it does not last' cannot be the same as what they have 'when it last forever' or it would have the same cause and effect relationship of causing it to 'last forever'. So pro's given definiton of Love being both 'lasting a short time' and 'lasting forever' does not and cannot exist because there is nothing that is both of those things.
the only part of Pro's case made that would continue and argument against my 'cause and effect' case with the effects of how long it last being different so the causes are different is the comment about people changing. as if that is the true source of why the effect would sometimes not last a lifetime. but Pro already admitted that that factor is just as present for both the love that last a short time and the love that last a lifetime, thus making that argument incapable of proving love exist.
I await my opponents response and hope she takes advantage of the full use of 8,000 availble charcter limit each round so that the whole debate does not funnle in on just these few descriptions of love and the case I just made. I have more potential arguments to make against many other personal descriptions often given to love in there different forms. A debate over a word so commenly just thrown around (even just counting the Eros sense) promises to be a fun one and I look foward to it.
First off there is not just one type of love, there are different kinds like how a mother loves her child. She would do anything to protect her child to keep them safe and healthy. However, there are people who abuse their child and do not take very good care of them. Look past the cruelness of the world and to the nurturing mother who proud and happy with their children. You have people out in the world who have donated organs to save their children lives for example; Claudia Rendon's son only chance for survival was a kidney. "Claudia Rendon did not hesitate when doctors delivered the news that her son Alex was in desperate need of a life-saving kidney transplant and offered him her kidney" (http://www.foxnews.com...). She jumped at the opportunity to save her sons life. No other word could describe the compassion and feeling of this mothers action than the simple word of love. This proves that a mother would do anything for her child, even putting herself harms way.
Secondly, there is the type of love that you share for someone, a spouse. Of course there have been cases where people have cheated, murdered, divorced, and abused their spouse, but what about the people who would sacrifice themselves for their lover. "Bethany Lansaw, 25, revealed today that as the devastating tornado tore their home apart, her husband, 31, threw his body over her in the bath tub to cover her" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...). No one would just sacrifice themselves for just anyone, you have to have a strong connection to them. That connect is love. One of the very many definition of love is; an intense feeling of deep affection. What her husband did for her is the exact definition of love. Therefore this feeling that is often thrown around without meaning does exist in the people who truly appreciate this strong word and feel it.
Third, and lastly, there is the type of love that we have for our friends. Imagine the people you grew up with, they are basically family. They sleep over all the time and you practically live at their house. You see them more than you see your blood family. You choose to be their friend because you connect with them so well. You share memories with this person that could link you two together forever. Many people would do anything for their friends. Stick up for them in a fight, take a bullet, help them in school, prep them for a major interview, or being there for their child's birth. They care about each other and that is what makes friends friends. You love them and could never picture your lives without them. What would happen if by chance your friend fell ill or got into a brutal accident. The humans natural reaction is to feel a deep grave of emotion. Just by chance they didn't make it and passed away most people would be a mess. However, I cannot ignore the people who may not be affect as much as the person sitting next to you. What does that actually matter though. What matters is how you feel, you may feel that you could never picture your life without them. In the Bible it states that you should love your neighbor as you love yourself. Lev. 19:17 "`Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. 18"`Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. 19"`Keep my decrees. "`Do not mate different kinds of animals. "`Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "`Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." This word is a feeling just as any other you may not be able to see it, but it doesn't mean its there.
I must admit the concept of love is a rather difficult topic to defend, but look at stories of people doing things for each other. They have passion and affection and these are all words to describe love. I'm not saying that if your friends you much love one another, but that there are people who care about each other so much love is the only word to describe their fondness.
I look forward to the response I shall receive and hope that He can see this concept through my eyes
My opponent has broken down the term ‘love’ to mean 3 different things. This cannot be allowed for the purposes of a coherent debate. Am I to be given the responsibility to disprove all of these things existing to argue Con to the resolution and Pro only have to convince you on one of them to get readers to vote Pro on arguments? This for obvious reasons would be unfair.
It is also an improper way to use a throw around a term sure to cause it to be an inaccurate one. For the very fact that my opponent had to break down ‘love’ into three separate definitions proves they are not truly the same thing even by Pro’s admittance. What causes a mother to protect her child is not the same phenomena as what makes a man merry a woman for his wife, and these even by my opponents standards were admitted to not be the same phenomena as what makes you go hang out with your friends more than your blood family. If it was pro would not have to break this down into 3 separate categories.
So because they are different phenomena proving one would by definition not prove the existence of the others. So it would make no sense to go ‘look love exist within a woman protecting her child so it must exist as a person hanging out with there friends.’ And proving both separately would be like proving two separate resolutions. At best on of the three definitions could be considered to represent the ‘love’ spoken of in the resolution and the others do not so the debate should proceed around that said concept of love and not the others.
But I think that not necessary sense there is a consistent theme in the way Pro has tried to define love in all three instances. While she gave three applications of ‘love’ there were all roughly along the same lines of saying ‘love is a feeling’. So I will proceed with my response from that understanding of ‘love’ and even refute it in my opponents 3 applications of this feeling existence.
When a mother protects her child this is not necessary by result of a feeling and as evidence that even Pro admitted to existing, the parents who abuse and neglect there children. Such people are a testament that the ‘feeling’ of love does not just inherently exist within a person because they are a parent. So that begs the question “what is variable is different in the ones who ‘have’ it and those that do not?”
‘feelings’ are the kind of things we all have built in us, right in our hormones. So ‘love’ as a hormone does not exist since everyone does not seem to have it naturally like they should like pro might have you think. What made that mom or the husband for that matter throw themselves to protect there ‘loved one’ could not be ascribed to a feeling. These actions of self sacrifice could be ascribed though to 2 things.
The first one is of course self-discipline. Whenever speaking of an action that is not natural to mankind to just do, when they do it it’s a result of self discipline. That is not a ‘feeling’ it’s a ‘practice’. No ‘feelings' of love involved here just dutifully responsibilities carried out by people with parents who trained them to take it as there duty to protect there spouse or there child.
The second reason is (believe it or not I’m going to actually argue this) selfishness. though this is a feeling its not truly for another in the sense of ‘love’ my opponent argues for. Mankind commonly has an addiction to trying to ‘make gods’ out of other people or things. It is the basis of how idol worship starts, when you create something and give to it purely with the hope that it gives back the same thing to you. If ‘love’ exist it would be given without need of it being given in return but for many out there, parents included this is not the case. There children are taken care of for the pure reason that they wish turn into images of them and that they learn to take care of them with affection in return. So truly ‘love does not exist’ sense the only thing that exist is the selfish need to expunge an emotion out another for yourself.
To top my case off I would like to point to the commandment my opponent brought up. “love thy neighbor as thy love thyself”. The very fact that this is a command proves that it is not a feeling this ‘love’ refers but a discipline for God is intelligent and would never command you to ‘feel’ a certain way. You cannot be commanded to ‘feel’ a certain way any more than you can be commanded to grow an extra foot.
So I conclude that there is no ‘love’ that exists. There is no special powerful feeling out there labeled ‘love’ that makes people do things associated with love. There are only disciplines, duty bond people, and regular emotions the word love is so casually tossed about to ascribe. And there are even a few idol worshipers mixed in there with those people.
Truthfully we all know deep down that our ‘feelings’ are not capable of making us do anything, they might accompany the actions we ultimately decide on but it is our minds and our wills that make us jump through fire for another, pump there chest until there heart starts again, dive into the ocean to save another. There are no feelings strong enough to make me just go off and do that, just the trained sense of ‘that’s just what you do when that sort of thing happens’
rulia_jussell forfeited this round.
Surely love does not exist or Pro would have cared enough about her opponent to at least give the curtisy of posting the final round.
Vot Con,....... even if you think its an absurd stance to take with this resolution. I finished the debate and I argued better.