The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

If there is no, hate, there'll be no love. If there is no love, there'll be no hate.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,237 times Debate No: 35283
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




I believe that if there is no hate, there'll be no love, and if there is no love, there'll be no hate.

If you go against that, I'll be happy to challenge you, if you're the first to accept my challenge.


I accept the challenge that my opponent has presented to me!

- First of all, it is important to clarify a few things,

- First, Pro maintains the burden of proof in this debate.

- Second, Pro holds the burden to prove that hate and love are cannot exist without one another.

- Third, if Con is able to provide a compelling argument to either love or hate can exist without the other, then he has maintained his burden of clash.

With these bits of framework in mind I will give a brief preview of the argument I intend to make in the coming rounds. However since Pro maintains the BOP I will not provide a full argument until after my opponent has done so.

The argument is as follows-
Love and hate are not opposites of one another. This being the case they exist independent of one another.
Debate Round No. 1


I believe that love and hate are opposites of one another and they cannot exist without one another. Con has said that love and hate are not opposites, but I believe they are.

The world is full of opposites, and so are you. You must bring it all into balance in this world.

Earth, sky. Day, night. Sound and silent. Dark and light. One alone is not enough. You need both together.


Let me start out by thanking my opponent for her swift reply, and welcome her to DDO! It is a pleasure to be able to share her first debate, and I hope that she will stay for many more.

That said there are a couple of warrant issues that need to be tackled headfirst. No matter how you look at a debate, it cannot move beyond a quarrel unless compelling warrants are provided to show the legitimacy of claims made in the round. If there are no warrants to arguments being made in a debate, then there is no way for the voters to make a fair judgement as to who is winning the debate.

Simply giving an opinion is not enough. One must provide backing to show that their opinion is worthwhile and valid. Unless they do so then again, there's no way for voters to decide who's winning.

Could they just vote for the debater they personally agree with? Maybe, but not just because they agree with them on a personal level. Voters need to remain unbiased and vote based on a strict analysis of the arguments made in the round. This is called being tabula rasa, or blank slate. Voters do this to maximize fairness in the round and keep their personal bias from influencing their decisions. So then making a strong claim, or presenting an opinion isn't enough in a debate because it doesn't give voters anything to work with. All claims are equally valid unto themselves and don't really mean much without a warrant.

So what do you do if neither debater gives warrants? You default to the person accepting the challenge every single time. And here's why; when one takes the initiative to start a debate, he or she also accepts the responsibility of proving the claim that they wish to debate in the first place. The instigator welcomes challengers to test the mettle of his or her beliefs or even just a position he or she is maintaining for said debate. The one who accepts that challenge only needs to refute their opponent's arguments to meet their burden of clash -- they don't need to provide an alternative of their own. They can do this if they would like, and they can even refute an opponent's arguments by showing that their alternative is a more believable, or desirable one. So long as he or she can refute the instigator's challenge, he or she has met his or her burden. Now the reason you default to the contender in the event that neither debater makes a compelling argument, is that the instigator hold the primary burden of proof in any given debate. If they don't meet burden, then no debate happens.

Now why did I type all of this? Because Pro does not provide any warrant, analytical or otherwise, to show that her claim is compelling. She simply says that she believes hate and love are opposites. So even if I didn't make any arguments of my own here, I win because you're going to vote for me by default. I do however have an argument to make.

Hate and love are not the opposites of one another, because the absence of one does not indicate the presence of the other. If I stop loving something, I don't start hating it. In the same way, if I stop hating something, I don't start loving it.

I used to love Albert's salsa[1]. I would eat it whenever I could because it just tasted so good to me. However, when I discovered Julio's salsa[2], I didn't even care about albert's anymore because julio's was so much better. I discovered a new level of salsa and Albert's no longer lived up to my expectations.

I didn't start hating Albert's salsa though. And if it was there to eat, I would eat because it still tasted pretty good. But I no longer loved it. Instead, I was apathetic to it. I didn't really care either way.

So what about hate? It's basically the principle. Just because you stop hating something, doesn't mean you start loving it. I used to hate lettuce when I was really little. I couldn't tell you why I hated it so much, but I did. Every time my uncle would take me to go eat burgers I would always tell the store that I didn't want any lettuce on my burger because I hated it so much. However as I got older I decided that lettuce didn't really bother me that much. I didn't want to just eat all the time, but I didn't mind it. I was just apathetic about it.

Hate can exist without love, because both exist on a sliding scale of preference. Love indicates the highest level of preference on this scale and hate indicates the lowest level of preference. In the middle exists apathy, indifference, liking, disliking and even indecision. If we all lived in a world where no body loved anything, that wouldn't mean they didn't hate anything. In the same way, if we lived in a world where no one hated anything, that wouldn't mean they didn't love anything.

For all of these reasons, I urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 2


I am not saying that love and hate cannot exist without each other for something, but what I'm saying is that love and hate are opposites and they cannot exist without each other, for anything. I mean, in your life, you must have loved and hated something/someone. I'm not saying that if you stop hating something/someone, you'll start loving them, or if you stop loving something/someone, you start hating them. I'm saying that people can't just hate something/someone and not love other things/people in their lives. Everyone has loved and hated something/someone in their lives. Just like they've agreed or disagreed with something/someone. Or they've been bad and good. Just like, if there's no heaven, there'll be no hell, if there's no hell, there'll be no heaven.


Thanks to my opponent for such a swift reply!

While my opponent continues to argue a theme of dualism, she has yet to warrant it. The only reason she's offered to believe that Love and Hate cannot exist without each other is that they're opposite so one can't exist without the other. Not only is this argument of dualism wrong, but even if it wasn't there's no reason to believe that it warrants Pro's central argument.

I've already shown how love and hate are not opposites through my argument of fondness existing on a sliding scale. If anything indifference is the opposite of love... or hate... or, really any emotion.

Next my opponent throws in an irrelevant argument about heaven and hell being opposites. This argument has nothing to do with the debate proper, but even if it did who says that heaven is the opposite of hell? In Christian doctrine for example, hell is the default. If you don't do anything in your life, but don't accept Jesus as your savior, you go to hell. If you murder millions of people, but do accept Jesus you go to heaven.

Anyway, irrelevant argument is irrelevant. The point is one of dualism and opposites; even if you buy Pro's dualism argument it doesn't warrant love and hate being opposites. If we know that the two can exist independent of one another in isolation, then we must assume the same is true in totality.
Debate Round No. 3


Since my opponent has deactivated his acount, I hereby declare that this debate is no longer in use. Not that you can't vote or post comments, but no-one is debating anymore.


DoctorDeku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by sgtduckyboy 2 years ago
Not that hate and love are opposite of one another, they are opposite emotions, so to speak. what the pro is trying to state, if you dont have hate, how can you feel and understand love? if we removed hate from the possible feelings a person can have, how does one know what love is? they stem from the same source, a strong emotional feeling towards something. and add into it the Con argument of 'apathy'. if hate is removed and you either had apathy or love for things, you'd be a rarity. can anyone say they do not 'hate' something or a list of things they hate or dislike? isn't dislike, even a 'hateful' term? to say i dislike 'mexican's. wouldnt most people say i am prejudice, and full of hate? So i bear to believe they can not exist without one another simply because if you have the ability to have strong emotions, you must have both love and hate. the rare people we know who do not seem to hate anything, are probably hiding the hate inside , internalizing it, numbing theirself to any external response for it. and those mother theresa types are probably just the rare people who can 'like' everything, but if they truly do not hate, they are numb to true love, in my book. Let us also keep in mind, they are emotions, emotions are not the same for everyone, they are relative to one another and never the exact same. For example, i say 'i am going through hell in my life right now'. well, 'my hell' and your version of 'hell' are not the same. i might have been fired from my job, lost my house, etc.. andyou could have been raped(heaven forbid), are they comparable? not really, but to each of us, that is 'hell'. Same goes for love and hate. I love my gf,, is your love for your significant other the same as mine for mine? I would believe not. comparable, yes, but same, no.
Posted by savvga13 5 years ago
The opposite of universe-nothing (asin, no universe)
The opposite of a snowflake is arguably, hail or a raindrop.
The opposite of character (depends on meaning here)-horrible character
The opposite of zero-Something.
Of course, these are all very arguable, but it's kind of fun searching for opposites for nouns. :)
Posted by sweetbreeze 5 years ago

You should have said, "First of all, not everything has an opposite." instead of, "First of all everything does not have a opposite."

Furthermore, it's mostly feelings, emotions and verbs that have opposites. By saying everything has an opposite, I mean that all feelings, emotions and verbs have opposites.
Posted by watevas808 5 years ago
First of all everything does not have a opposite. Try telling me the opposite for snowflake, universe, character, or zero. If you appose this then prove it. I believe one can exist without the other, but if it was so then it would have a different name and we would never have questioned it having a opposite existence at all for our whole lives. You can love something from the start and love it for the rest of your life and vice versa, so you personally can love without hate or hate without love.
Posted by Mascista 5 years ago
Everything has an opposite. Good cannot exist without bad, cold cannot exist without hot, love cannot exist without hate.
Posted by TheYummyCod 5 years ago
Con wins. xD
Posted by sweetbreeze 5 years ago
I would like to thank my opponent, where he may be, for participating in this debate. Have a good deactivation!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GOP 5 years 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. :P I think... XD