The Instigator
judeifeanyi
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Benshapiro
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Love does not exist

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 2 votes the winner is...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,194 times Debate No: 48590
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

judeifeanyi

Pro

I would want a very solid argument...please, don't use biblical injunction in this debate
Benshapiro

Con

I accept. I'm assuming you want me to present my argument next round?
Debate Round No. 1
judeifeanyi

Pro

DEFINITIONS:
LOVE: 1.a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, ...
dictionary.reference.com/browse/love.
Urban Dictionary:love
love. nature's way of tricking people into reproducing. by anonymous April 07, 2003. 71825 17906. Mugs& shirts Buy ...
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%...
love -definition of love by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and...
A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/love.
EXIST:to have actual being : to be real. : to continue to be or to live. Full Definition ofEXIST. 1. a : to have real being whether ...
www.merriam-webster.com/../exist
Based on this definition, my stand is this: 'IF LOVE DOES EXIST, THE DRASTIC INCREASE IN ABORTION WOULDN'T BE AND THE UNWANTED PREGNANCY WOULD HAVE BEEN A TALE'
NOTE:There is quite a great difference between love and emotion. And my argument is that love does not exist. So my opponent should not use them interchangeably. EMOTION:1. a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.....
Sometimes, people feel emotional about something and yet they call it love. Take for instance, if am going to school, I might see a girl that looks sexy in the eye and I might feel sexually attracted to the person. May or maybe not, I will meet the person and start telling the person 'I love you' seriously, that is no love. It is emotional feelings and emotional feelings are not love. I will continue my argument in my next round.
Benshapiro

Con

Love is an emotion. It's an emotion because it's "a natural instinctive state of mind" that is universally recognized by human experience regardless of culture or religion.

Love is more easily explained by experience than defininition, but there different kinds of love. A love for doing my favorite hobbies will be a different kind of love than the love I might have for my wife or girlfriend. Lust might be contrued as a kind of love (referencing your previous example of an attractive girl) but ultimately love is subjective to the person experiencing it so nobody can definitively say that someone else isn't experiencing love.


I am having trouble understanding your argument: "'IF LOVE DOES EXIST, THE DRASTIC INCREASE IN ABORTION WOULDN'T BE AND THE UNWANTED PREGNANCY WOULD HAVE BEEN A TALE'"


Debate Round No. 2
judeifeanyi

Pro

CLEARIFICATIONS
: 'IF LOVE DOES EXIST, THE DRASTIC INCREASE IN ABORTION WOULDN'T BE AND THE UNWANTED PREGNANCY WOULD HAVE BEEN A TALE' when I stated this premise, I was wise. Now to explain this, what I mean is this:if we follow the definitions of love by different authors and writers, as some will call it a natural phenomenal then the unwanted pregnancy and abortions will not even be existing. Because one who you claim you love naturally, you won't even like to have sex or do anything that will affect the person physically and psychologically either by pregnanting the person.
REBUTTALLS
In my first argument, I defined emotions and love stating that they are different but my opponent continently choose to ignore that fact. NO WOUNDER!!! He said: Loveisan emotion. It's an emotion because it's "a natural instinctive state of mind" that is universally recognized by human experience regardless of culture or religion.
Love is more easily explained by experience than defininition, but there different kinds of love. A love for doing my favorite hobbies will be a different kind of love than the love I might have for my wife or girlfriend. Lust might be contrued as a kind of love (referencing your previous example of an attractive girl) but ultimately love is subjective to the person experiencing it so nobody can definitively say that someone else isn't experiencing love. Now based on this argument, I will define emotions again and equally define love then compare both and state its difference to clearify my opponent.
EMOTIONS: an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from ...
dictionary.reference.com/../emotion
LOVE:a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, ...dictionary.reference.com/browse/love IN COMPARISON
Emotions, normally go with hunger for something that is why I term it emotional hunger is different from love and love does not exist. One can see why somebody is been maltreated, and the person will feel emotionall distress because the person don't like how the other person is been treated and that is emotional feeling. But based on the definition of love, they said that love is a natural phenomenal' which then shows that the two are not thesame. Emotional feeling and love are not and cannever be the same.

Now when I gave example of attractive girl, I mean't what I said because they will end up telling each other I love you but that is Lust. Thank you very much for using the term. This even shows that love does not exist rather what we practice is lust.
Benshapiro

Con

My simple rebuttal to your argument of unwanted pregnancy and abortion is this: how do you prove that the mothers who aborted their baby or gave them away had love for their baby? You can't. If these mothers didn't have love for their babies then this argument is null and void and that's something you would need to prove.


"I defined emotions and love stating that they are different but my opponent continently choose to ignore that fact. NO WOUNDER!!!..."

Unfortunately, you don't decide what definitions meet a specific concept. Love is an emotion because it fits the description of an emotion. I could call a car a boat, but either I would be changing the definition of what a car is, or I would not be accurately describing what a car actually is.

In this case, love is an emotion. Don't rely on just what I say, look at what the definition of an emotion is and see if love fits the description.

I will reiterate what I've said in my previous post "...ultimately love is subjective to the person experiencing it so nobody can definitively say that someone else isn't experiencing love."

Maybe somebody loves a sexy girl, but you might consider it lust. You have no say in what the other person feels to be true because you don't feel the same feelings that they do.

It's obvious that my opponent is trying to change a standard definition to meet his own criteria for what love is or isn't. Unfortunately, it's already been defined by him, and under his own definitions, "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection.." just by using the word "feeling" in the definiton, you prove that love is an emotion. Love is therefore an emotion. Attempting to change this well-known fact is just an exercise in semantics.



Debate Round No. 3
judeifeanyi

Pro

REBUTTALS
MY opponent said:: how do you prove that the mothers who aborted their baby or gave them away had love for their baby? now,

A mother who aborts his baby, have no single love for either the baby or the person who impregnated her. Based on the definition of love, which my opponent stated, if that mother love the child, she won't do anything harmful to the child because my opponent said: 'love does exist'. My opponent equally made this statement '. Love is an emotion because it fits the description of an emotion. I could call a car a boat, but either I would be changing the definition of what a car is, or I would not be accurately describing what a car actually is.
In this case, love is an emotion. Don't rely on just what I say, look at what the definition of an emotion is and see if love fits the description.. POINT OF CORRECTION, I beg to disagree with what my opponent said. I Gave definition of love and emotion then I compared the two and gave reasons why emotions and love are not the same. I don't know why my opponent is still repeating his argument which I have earlier rebutted. MORE ARGUMENTS I have come to the conclusion that love does not exist. I say this because if you look at the fail rate of marriage and every other relationship it is huge. >50% of all marriages fail.
What people term Love actually is only old-fashioned lust, desire, extreme frendliness. Eventually all people who claim to 'love' will end up just being great friends, no more 'loving' to each other than two best mates.
Studies have shown that couples who marry on the basis of "Love" do NOT last as those whom marry on the basis of mutual compatibility. The same studies went on to conclude, albeit controversially, that couples who use "Love" as a reason to be together would rather be better of apart, because such relationships never last. An ideal relationship is when both partners consider themselves to be best of friends firstly, and good bed mates secondly.
It will interest you to know that the western world who gave us the concept of love have the highest divorce rates today, yet love is practised there. So it therefore means that there is no correlation whatsoever between love and a sustained relationship. In India, arranged marriages is the norm, yet India has the lowest divorce rates worldwide.. Let me ask, ! How can something that exists be interpreted differently by different people? Surely, if it does exist, it should have one objective definition. Love is just a western word for lust, friendship, e.t.c. but rather than calling it lust or friendship, we glorify it by saying it is love. It is a vain delusion. NOTE: This is not a generalization, but a product of widely available scientific papers. >50% of marriages in the western world end up in divorce, this data was compared to India where 90% of marriages do NOT end up in divorce, and the conclusion seems to reveal that the "Love delusion" remains the sole culprit. I am not trying to preach a gospel of "repentance" to those who would rather continue in their delusion, I am only showcasing a scientific perspective. www.nairaland.com/710247/love-does-... answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3F...
Benshapiro

Con

I've already explained my arguments and my opponent doesn't accept them despite the evidence.

settled argument #1

Pro says: "I Gave definition of love and emotion then I compared the two and gave reasons why emotions and love are not the same. I don't know why my opponent is still repeating his argument which I have earlier rebutted"

in the previous round I've already stated: Unfortunately, you don't decide what definitions meet a specific concept. Love is an emotion because it fits the description of an emotion. I could go back and give more evidence based on my previous argument but my opponent chose to ignore them, such as using the term "...feeling" used to describe love.

settled argument #2

Pro: " ...I gave reasons why emotions and love are not the same."

I've already contented this. Re-read the debate.


Pro: "have come to the conclusion that love does not exist. I say this because if you look at the fail rate of marriage and every other relationship it is huge. >50% of all marriages fail."

If these marriages have failed, how do you know they were in love in the first place? You're assuming that everyone who gets married is in love. I've already rebutted this argument also.

Pro: How can something that exists be interpreted differently by different people? Surely, if it does exist, it should have one objective definition.

Just because something can be interpreted in more than one way doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I could watch a movie and have one interpretation of what it meant and my friend could have a totally different interpretation. That doesn't mean the movie itself doesn't exist. Also I don't know what you mean by "...'should' have one objective definition".

Debate Round No. 4
judeifeanyi

Pro

my opponent is right about one thing, 'diverse definition or explanation of a single term' but to many, a bit self righteous..
REBUTTALS MY opponent said: . Love is an emotion because it fits the description of an emotion.I could go back and give more evidence based on my previous argument but my opponent chose to ignore them, such as using the term "...feeling" used to describe love. But then, if my opponent claim all this, what is his evidence? Now if we are to go by what you said, it then means that love is feeling plus emotion. That is practically absurd. Love is never emotion. Emotion can come out from pity. Let me ask my opponent this question again since I have asked in my preceding argument but he failed to answer it. ' if you see where negroes are been lynched. And you feel pity or your subconcious feels emotion about the maltreating, will you call it love? Certainly no because you only felt emotional but not love.
My opponent also asked: If these marriages have failed, how do you know they were in love in the first place? You're assuming that everyone who gets married is in love. I will be logical here. I Will answer this question by asking my opponent his own question. Why did your mum marry your dad? Is it not because they claim they love each other? I even thank my opponent for supporting me when he said that most of the marriages that broke up are not in love. FULL EXPLANATION. One of the reasons why people marry is because of what they 'love'. And based on the definition of love, I don't think we should have broken homes since my opponent said, that love is feelings and emotions. What am saying is this, there is nothing like love. A situation where one will like to marry a beautiful person or handsome and yet my opponent is saying that it does exist. If love does exist, then my opponent should rebutt all my arguments. 'IN CONCLUSION' I gave reasons why love does not exist, I addressed issues, I rebutted all my opponents weak arguments without facts, and I bore the burden of proof and properly addressed the motion well. MY OPPONENTS WEAKNESS: MY Opponent have failed to prove that love exists, my opponent have not rebutted all my argument, my opponent did not challenge my definition and my stand, my opponent depends on one argument which is his first presentation, my opponent even agreed with some of my arguments which shows am ahead of this debate.... LOVE DOES NOT EXIST!!!
Benshapiro

Con

Unfortunately this debate has been fruitless. We've both been arguing the same points back and forth since this debate began.

Simply, love is an emotion because it fits the definition of an emotion. My opponent disagrees. I'll leave it up to the voters to decide.

Love is "an" emotion meaning " a type of" of or "a subset of" emotion. I'm not saying the terms love and emotion are interchangeable. So by giving the lynching example and having someone feel an emotion of pity I'm not sure why you say that any kind of emotion = love.

It seems as though you are still arguing that all people who get married are in love. What about gold diggers? ( women who marry men because they are rich, not because they are in love) which destroys your whole argument about all people who get married are in love.

Love exists and love is an emotion.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
@Krazzy_Player - How is the debate mainly a tie if you could not understand one sides arguments?
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
Sorry but what do you mean by ghetto?
Posted by judeifeanyi 2 years ago
judeifeanyi
My instinct tends to suspect ghetto
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
I love my family, life and this world. It is genuine in that it meets all of the definitions of love.
Love is a real emotion and much more when it comes to bonding with your children, spouse, etc.
Posted by Lil16hasanopinion 2 years ago
Lil16hasanopinion
Is love really real um I believe it's not love some people can be in love but some people are under the impression that were in do called "love " it's really just lust but we want to feel love so bad that we would do anything to believe that were in love
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
judeifeanyiBenshapiroTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: S & G to Con for Pro's jumbling of words and I was unable to understand any of his arguments.
Vote Placed by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
judeifeanyiBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro contends that there is a big difference between love & emotions. Love however, is excepted as an emotion. Pro never the less tries to disprove this with examples of events that provoke other emotions. They are not really relevant and certainly no proof of the non exsistence of love or it not being an emotion.. Generally I found Pro's arguments to be rather unrelated and the debate therefore never really got anywhere because of this. Conduct -Con - addressed Pros arguments whilst Pro simply replied with unrelated statements. S&G - Con - Pro did not even run a spellcheck & grammar was poor. MCA - Con - Made sense and where relevant to the debate. Sources - Pro - Con did not use any.