The Instigator
Con (against)
2 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Eternal, romantic love exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 614 times Debate No: 66981
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




40%-50% of married couples in the United States divorce. The other 50%-60% who do not divorce are likely to lose their feelings for their partner over the years, either completely or partially. Many people often grow tired of being around their partner, calling them "annoying", "bossy", etc.

Romantic love is considered an emotional and sexual attraction to someone else. Sex- we all know what sex is. One may argue the male is "meant" for the female; that they were meant to be mates. That is, after all, what most married couples do: mate. Then why is it that homosexual couples also experience romantic love? Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, experience both emotional and sexual attraction to their partners, yet are biologically unable to reproduce with them. Are they, then, "meant" for each other? Are they meant to be mates? Because they can't mate. This feeling that both homosexuals and heterosexuals are feeling for their partners are induced by hormones and only hormones.

While there is scientific proof for sexual attraction, this only supports the existence of infatuation "an intense but short-lived passion or admiration for someone or something." Sexual attraction is induced by testosterone, but the levels of testosterone vary daily, even around one's long-term partner. There is no scientific evidence for eternal, romantic love and people very often lose their romantic feelings towards their spouse/partner.


The way you worded your resolution really hands this debate to the government/affirmative side. "Eternal, romantic love exists", meaning that if I can prove that only one case of this exists, than government/affirmative have fulfilled their burden of proof. That can be done easily. For one, you stated that 50%-60% of relationships end in divorce, leaving the 50% or 40% of relationships that are eternal and romantic. This debate obviously falls with side government/affirmative.
Debate Round No. 1


"if I can prove that only one case of this exists, than government/affirmative have fulfilled their burden of proof."

It's "then", not "than". :)

While you can "prove" a case of eternal love just because a couple *claims* they still and always will have the strong feelings they have for each other, this does not mean eternal, romantic love exists because there is no scientific evidence for it. The only organism proven to mate for life are swans.

"you stated that 50%-60% of relationships end in divorce, leaving the 50% or 40% of relationships that are eternal and romantic."

No I didn't. You switched around my statistics and I never said their relationships were "eternal and romantic" as many of these people have partially or completely lost their feelings for their partner. Thus their feelings are not eternal (or infinite). Roughly 30% to 60% of married individuals will engage in adultery.

For the very, very few elderly who do claim they still have romantic love for their partner, I would argue that their feelings are not so much romantic as they are fraternal. How so? They engage less in sex due to several reasons. Menopause, erectile dysfunction, disability, but most importantly, a change in the levels of hormones that induce the feeling of romantic love. Fraternal love is brotherly or friendly love. An elderly couple can still love each other, but it is not romantic because they at one time had a romantic relationship. They have now accepted each other as equals and as very close friends rather than sexual partners.

Low testosterone correlates with marital satisfaction. Low testosterone also is correlated with less of a need to have sex. Fathers have lower testosterone levels than husbands without children; husbands have lower testosterone levels than bachelors. This suggests that the more a man has sex with one female, the less he wants it with her. Thus the element of romance in a relationship declines over the years.


Apologies for my extremely minor grammatical error.

Love isn't all about sex my friend. Just because a couple does not engage in sex often does not mean their love isn't "eternal". If you really want to get technical, you could say that no love is eternal because when both spouses die, they obviously lose the power to think and feel. I suppose, however, there is no way to prove love eternal or not eternal.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm not saying love is all about sex. There are different kinds of love: fraternal love, maternal/paternal love and romantic love. Romantic love is characterized by emotional attachment and sexual attraction, making it different from fraternal and maternal/paternal love. I did not say lack of sex renders love as not eternal, but I did say that the more two partners have sex, the more they grow tired or bored of each other as a sexual partner, or romantic partner. However, that does not mean any friendship (fraternal love) that has been established between the two will decay as well.


You claim that love is not all about sex, but all you talk about in your Round 2 argument is sex. I think that deep down, you know that there are couples that have everlasting love between one another. They may have arguments, but that doesn't mean they don't still love each other.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by gwinfrost 1 year ago
It is an inevitable truth that with age, humans become exponentially less sexual. While they may still hold a strong emotional bond with each other, their need for romance declines rapidly, and the marriage can become more of a friendship than a sexual partnership. Every time they have sex with their partner the less of a sexual attraction they hold for that partner. There are many kinds of love, though there is no reason to believe sexual love, Eros, romance, whatever you wish to call it, lasts forever between two humans. Marriage can also become a "sexual prison", forcing you to have sexual feelings towards only one person. Every man and woman has sexual temptations, as shown by the adultery statistics I gave. While it is possible, being with one partner your entire life is against human nature. Of the thousands of species we have on earth today, only a dozen (11-12) are proven to "mate for life"... this short list does not include human beings or any species thought to be closely related to human beings.

Anyways, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to judge our debate.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
you can't simply say that just because they are still together, doesn't mean they aren't in love. You must actually prove that they aren't in love. Until than, we can only assume they might still be in love.
Posted by gwinfrost 1 year ago
I argued that the longer someone is in a relationship with his partner, his romantic feelings for him/her decrease and can be replaced by fraternal love. I never argued that fighting meant less love. But statistics show that 30%-60% of individuals engage in adultery, which means 60%-100% of couples have experienced adultery occur. As romantic love is characterized by sex, I supported my argument that sexual connection does not last forever due to inevitable happenings such as menopause and other disabling factors, but fraternal love can still last forever. However, I was arguing that eternal, romantic love did not exist.
Posted by gwinfrost 1 year ago
Just because a couple remains married does not mean their feelings remain, as I stated several times.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
Conduct: I was going to hand conduct to Pro for Con correcting his grammar, but it's not important.

Spelling: Not important.

Arguments: Con had full BOP... The problem was that Con had an incredible amount to prove. How does one prove an emotional concept doesn't exist? It's like proving if someone hates another person... in the end, only they know the truth... Or in this case, you have to prove what exists in someone's heart, and that's not something you can just prove.

Con hurt his own case in R2 when he corrected Pro's statistical error... By correcting it ("Pro thought it was 50%-60% got divorce, when Con stated it was 40%-50%) Con went from "half to most" marriages to "half or less," which made his case weaker. Ultimately, Con's statistics didn't really mean though... If 99% of marriages ended in divorce, that still means 1% worked out, and Con loses. At a 50%-60% success rate, Con was facing an uphill battle. He must prove eternal love doesn't exist at all.

Pro did good to find a conflicting point in Con's rounds (sex) and to point out that fighting and arguing doesn't mean they don't love each other. In the end, Pro had a near to impossible stance to take.

Sources: Con had some. Pro didn't.

Con should avoid absolutes. If just one argument of Pro's stands, you lose. Also, ask yourself, "can I prove this, or is it an assumption?" Argue with yourself first. Both sides can benefit from using a format to organize their points and refutations.

Pro could benefit from using more substance in his rounds. Short, 2-3 paragraph posts will also reflect badly on your argument.

Both sides did good, still, and should keep at it. Both sides will do well here with a little more practice.
Posted by gwinfrost 1 year ago
@vi_spex: "eternal love" is a common term used by society.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
eternal=no beginning and no end
infinite=beginning and no end
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.