The Instigator
Dr.Nasafiy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TUF
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

"Love exists in the life" - does not prove its value!

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 4 votes the winner is...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,081 times Debate No: 24516
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (4)

 

Dr.Nasafiy

Con

Almost all the people say and believe that love exists in the life. But I undoubtedly say and prove that the theory of "Love exists in the life" is much more weak than the theory of "Life exists in the love". So, have you ever thought about it?
TUF

Pro


I thank my opponent for the debate proposition! I gladly look forward to debating this newcomer, and formally welcome him to the site!

From the OP [Opening Post], I am assuming my friend Mr.Nasafiy, will be arguing for the position "Life exists in the love"; Where as I will be arguing for the position of "Love exists in the life".

This is a very interesting debate topic, and I very much look forward to 5 awesome rounds of philosophical discussion, on quite an un-ordinary and exciting topic.

****FRAMEWORK/RULES****


1. A forfeit in this debate should be deemed by the viewers as the loss of all seven points towards the contender.

2. Dropped arguments should count towards the loss of a conduct point as decided by the viewers.

3. Both debaters will remain kind, courteous, and respectful throughout the debate.

4. Spelling and Grammar should be awarded as usual.

5. As this is a debate centered around philosophy, statistical evidence shouldn't be required, however, source points should be awarded to the debater who best gives a strong sense of support and analysis for their case.


Without further ado, let us begin.

****MY CASE****

DEFINITIONS

Let me start by defining a few key terms.

Let's start out with the most controversial one; Love.

Love has several definitions, none of which are clarified by the instigator of this debate, so I assume it's a broad definition. My opponent never stated that this "love" was the love in which the first dictionary references, as a noun;"a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person."

This definition implies that love is specifically for another human being.

However, for matters of interest, I think the verb definition of this word would be more properly suited for the debate at hand, as it applies to all things, and is simply an emotion the impacts a strong feeling towards anything.

Love: to have a strong liking for; take great pleasure in: to love music.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Exists: to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Life: the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Value: relative worth, merit, or importance: the value of a collegeeducation; the value of a queen in chess.

http://dictionary.reference.com...


****MY CASE****

Okay so there are several ways I can attack this case, between Meta-physical aspects, and theory aspects. So my contentions are going to be a little different in contextualization. This will also open more room for discussion with my opponent on various angles throughout the debate.


Contention 1: In order for love to exist, life must first exist.

First, the theory argument.

Here I will be presenting the classic arguments of "Did the chicken come before the egg?".

Again this point is to take the resolution into it's abstract and implied meaning. If life didn't exist, then the being in question could not ever love. Love then exists within life. In order to conceptualize a though process, that can sustain the mental capacity required in which to experience the emotion of "love", as defined above, this being must be adapted from something, somewhere.

Right in the definition of life, we see the phrase that states "The universal human condition". The very definition of the word life, then proves in and of itself, that in order to feel such an emotion, we must first become.

Why is this argument important? Because this concept goes much deeper than this.

A human may have love for one of several different things. A human can love another human. A being, can love an activity, or item. Love can mean many different things in context to the title of this debate topic. However even if we were to use a different definition of the word life, "Fun and lively", this would still only be filling a requirement of Life and love, thus giving life the priority. What do I mean by this? Let's give an example shall we?

A human can find entertainment in a hobby, or activity, which creates a "Fun and lively" (IE life) environment for that individual. Thus the human can describe doing that activity, as something he "loves".

This creates Love within life.

http://authenticliving.com...

Contention 2: Love existing within life provides perfect value!

Second, the priority argument.

Contradicting what the title of the resolution says, Love existing within life actually seems to make perfect sense for creating value.

But what is value? The definition says relative worth, merit, and importance, but how do we deem something worthy of being all the great stuff?

The answer is love. Yes, when we love something to a degree, it provides a hierarchy of prioritization. We love the things we do, because they add prosperity to our lives. Love in and of itself, is an optional emotion. Their are plenty of other emotions abroad however. Anger, Fear, Confusion, Sadness, contention, Etc. These emotions are all apart of the life we already live. So how do we create value in life? We love! However, by recognizing this we must also recognize that the biggest contributing factor on improving the quality of our lives, is to in fact, love.

Love must exist within life, because love is always improving on life.

http://joannecipressi.com...


Contention 3: Love exists because of life allows it to exist.

Third, the scientific argument.

Love only exists, because of a being's thought process, and emotional knowledge and subjective know how of what love is.
This is empirical, because humans are born and raised, taught from their own youth to know and understand what "love" is. Thus love is created purely off of human attachment. But for purposes of staying away from semantics, let's apply this theory to other beings.

This is what I will call the "Love/Like" argument. What significant detail does the human brain require in order to make a specific distinguishment in the two different words Like and Love?

Like: to take pleasure in; find agreeable or congenial: We all liked the concert.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

This definition seems to apply to a similar way of loving something.

However this word "love" Uses the word "like" in it's own definition? Could it be the that notable difference in the word is the passionate and deeper meaning from the word love? This means to imply that to love something, must mean that we value it's existence over something we say we like. Thus love takes a priority on the word like.

Back to the examples again.

A human can say he loves the beach.

This beach, however, is the epitome of life! For without life, this beach does not exist. Life being the cool summer breeze that passes through the smooth and sandy terrain in which our individual has such a passion for.

This beach does not exist outside of life. Life creates the premise in which all of the things that beach gives to the human. The sand between his toes, the water as it rushes, races, and crashes beautifully before him.

The simple and known fact is that this is all possible within a concepted idea of what life is. Therefore, if life was not congenial, than the human never experiences love!
What experiences does this human feel when graced with the delights of the beach? Do they come from his subjective experience of what is pleasurable or enjoyable in life based on his learned behaviors?

The human must have learned somewhere that such things can be loved, thus are worthy of loving, creating love.

All possible because of life!

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

****CONCLUSION****

I have come at this resolution from a few different view points, and am excited to extract a healthy controversial debate between me and Dr.Nasifiy!

I feel I have provided a strong a firm basis to believe that love is purely existent and reliable to life, thus feel I affirm the resolution.

Thankyou, and I look forward to my response!

Debate Round No. 1
Dr.Nasafiy

Con

Well, TUF, first of all I thank you for your reply to my challenge or debate proposition. But It very surprised me when you wrote some framework rules. Except a couple of points as if the rest were directed to win the debate taking occasion to lack in my English grammar knowledge. I think we both should pay or give priority to the validity and logicality of statements, right?
--------------------------------------------------
First thing you should had taken account was logical understand my saying. I wrote: "theory of "Love exists in the life" is much more weak than the theory of "Life exists in the love". I does not mean that love does not exist in the life. I have never said it and will not.

You began your debate with giving definitions to words separately as if we were analyzing its words. And you chose the definition which would made you more comfortable to go on this philosophical discussion. I strongly say and give you a golden advice "Never do that". Because if you choose something yourself when that thing is belonged not only you it is counted a single-sided decision. Okay, let's skip it.

You paid you attention to dividing the One saying into the parts, in result you came to nothing more than its technical aspects. Philosophical sayings are never based on dictionaries' pages. They are full of logical and feeling aspects - the step which you face on next stations with. Therefore I prefer to skip all the definitions you gave.

---------------------------------------------------
About your contentions now.
You were absolutely true in "In order for love to exist, life must first exist". Even you stated the famous classic argument of "Did the chicken come before the egg?".
- But don't you know, The God created us with Love?
- But don't you know, before to begin life with a girl we base on: I love her/him or do not?

The rest of your contentions are continued on the base of your first contention. Therefore I am to skip them too.

Have you ever read or heard the story about "The Mom with one eye"?. If not, try to understand a reason of why your mom does not desert you if she loves you? She loves you that's why your family life is continuing.

Dear, TUF, I know that love exists in the life, but I said "Life exists in the love". When you love somebody or something then the mutual attitudes last long long time. This is LIFE!
------------
For anyway, my respect to YOU.
TUF

Pro

Wow... Erm... Interesting response there... Well I guess this will be simple, because my opponent has dropped and conceded basically Everything.

****REBUTTALS****

" But It very surprised me when you wrote some framework rules. Except a couple of points as if the rest were directed to win the debate taking occasion to lack in my English grammar knowledge. I think we both should pay or give priority to the validity and logicality of statements, right?"

Of course this debate is meant to weigh the validity and logic of statements. Framework is a common formality for debaters to set up. Me being the Pro for this debate, thus has the burden to present it. At least that is how is works here on Debate.org. I am sorry if you have problems with the rules that were set up, though it would help if you pointed them out specifically. The grammar? I said that would be judged normally. Meaning it's the debaters choice to grade that. In any case, Debate.org has a Spelling and grammar checker that will fix any and all errors you may encounter, so no worries their. Basically the purpose of framework is to keep the debate from becoming a sloppy mess, and helps the debaters and viewers read through each other arguments respectfully.

"First thing you should had taken account was logical understand my saying. I wrote: "theory of "Love exists in the life" is much more weak than the theory of "Life exists in the love". I does not mean that love does not exist in the life. I have never said it and will not."

I fail to understand what your point is here. My entire case is built on proving the value in weighing life over love, and creating examples philosophically about how this is true. By ignoring this you are playing a semantics game. What am I supposed to argue? It's almost as if you expect me to say something like:

"Well sometimes life can exist in love, but ultimately love exists in life." Can you see how weak of a statement that is? Good sir, you really have not specified 1 tiny thing about what your actually attempting to prove here. As the instigator of this debate, it is YOUR responsibility to add clarity to what you want the debate to actually be about. I accepted this debate, not really knowing what in the world you were talking about, thus is why I made arguments from several different view points to attack your case. Dear audience, surely this is deserving of a conduct point.


"You began your debate with giving definitions to words separately as if we were analyzing its words. And you chose the definition which would made you more comfortable to go on this philosophical discussion. I strongly say and give you a golden advice "Never do that". Because if you choose something yourself when that thing is belonged not only you it is counted a single-sided decision."

You are clearly new here to debate.org, so I will go easy on you on this one. Normally I would say something like "Are you freaking serious!?".
Definitions are standard here on DDO as well. They count as sources as they help add clarity to resolutions. Your very confusing resolution sir, was in desperate need of definitions with the extreme lack of clarification put into your opening argument. You could say I very well "saved" this debate.

Also what do you mean "Never do that"? You don't actually give any reason why that is socially un-acceptable? Definitional framework helps provide the readers with a better understanding of the debate. Again, you are new here, so I will overlook this. Opponents can agree with definitions without having a "single-sided" decision.

"- But don't you know, The God created us with Love?"

Maybe your faith tells you this, but this is purely belief. First of all you must prove that a god created life (not that I want to get into a debate on religion, as I am purely agnostic), but second of all, even if there is a god who created us, who are you to say it was out of love? For all you know this "god" put is here just because he could, and wanted to see what he could create.


- But don't you know, before to begin life with a girl we base on: I love her/him or do not?"

Actually this is completely 100% false. Plenty of guys go to clubs and pick up girls they don't love, just so they could have a "fun time". Loving someone to create life, doesn't even enter into the equation.

"In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI)."

http://www.abort73.com...

A lot of these come from one night stands, and people wanting to have fun. Romance barely enters into creating life these days, my naive friend.

"The rest of your contentions are continued on the base of your first contention. Therefore I am to skip them too."

Oh really now? This is what leads me to believe you didn't even try to read my case, If you had, then clearly you would find error in your statement.

My first contention clearly states the philosophical arguments of "what came first" in which you basically conceded and agreed with me on.

My second contention strictly argues the resolution prima facie at face value. I talk about the specific value that can come from prioritizing life over love as pertained by the resolution. This contention literally has nothing to do with my first contention.
Dear audience, contention 2 has been dropped and conceded. Thankyou.

My third contention specifically states how love can only exist because of life's existence. This is completely different as well from both contentions 1 and 2, as it states the scientifically reasons why the two are different, and why life takes priority to love.

Dear audience, contention 3 has been dropped and conceded. Thankyou.


"Have you ever read or heard the story about "The Mom with one eye"?. If not, try to understand a reason of why your mom does not desert you if she loves you? She loves you that's why your family life is continuing."

I completely agree that my mom loves me and that my mom will not desert me. I can say however that ultimately it is true for everyone else. Hundreds of mothers around the world love their babies, but are forced to leave them for some reason or another.

Either way, this point of your means nothing in context to your own resolution. A mother loving and not deserting her child, doesn't mean that love doesn't exist in life.

****CONCLUSION****

So yeah.... Looks like my opponent dropped literally my ENTIRE CASE.

Please push over arguments and conducts for this.

I have proven through several different theories, that life cannot exist through only love, philosophically, scientifically, and valuably.

My opponent has yet to actually attack my case. He still has 4 rounds to do so however, so I wish him the best of luck in the remainder of this debate!

Thankyou, audience, for reading.
Debate Round No. 2
Dr.Nasafiy

Con

A double wow!!! I did not drop everything as you deem. I decided to drop those contentions which I count useless. Why did I do that, I will explain you it later.
About the Debate.org rules, OKEY, maybe I could not find enough time to read all the rules. So all your rebuttals about the rules, I respect them, my brother. Thank you.

You wrote: I fail to understand what your point is here. My entire case is built on proving the value in weighing life over love, and creating examples philosophically about how this is true. By ignoring this you are playing a semantics game. What am I supposed to argue? It's almost as if you expect me to say something like:

"Well sometimes life can exist in love, but ultimately love exists in life." Can you see how weak of a statement that is? Good sir, you really have not specified 1 tiny thing about what your actually attempting to prove here. As the instigator of this debate, it is YOUR responsibility to add clarity to what you want the debate to actually be about. I accepted this debate, not really knowing what in the world you were talking about, thus is why I made arguments from several different view points to attack your case. Dear audience, surely this is deserving of a conduct point.

You are right, my comrade. You really did not understand the gist of the saying. Look, I have not said that there is no love in the life, I said “Life exists in the love”. Let me explain you what it means: “The theory of love relations in the life are usually being weaker than the theory of life in the love”. I KNOW, TUF, love exists in the life. I am with you not playing or not trying to prove what has formed by the modern people in the recent years, which has never been or will not to make up the essence of LIFE. I am just trying to say how it must be originally.
I did not expect you to say something feeble as you wrote. If somebody is not able to understand or if somebody is not in old to understand such philosophical sayings, this is another thing.

To: Also what do you mean "Never do that"? You don't actually give any reason why that is socially un-acceptable?
I wrote: Because if you choose something yourself when that thing is belonged not only you it is counted a single-sided decision.

When I remembered the God, I did not mean to offer you debate on religion. I, as you, do not want to get into a debate on religion. But having read your statements on belief I think it will be more difficult to explain you the gist in 5 rounds.

When I wrote “- But don't you know, before to begin life with a girl we base on: I love her/him or do not?”, I have never thought that you would reply me with “Plenty of guys go to clubs and pick up girls they don't love, just so they could have a "fun time". Oh my God, TUF, look, when I said something about pure life, about pure family deserving respect, you tried to win the debate through the tales in night clubs, through the statistical evidences which were made because of worried results? Yes, you are true – Plenty of guys go to clubs and pick up girls they don't love, just so they could have a "fun time" – but it does not mean to begin pure life, family with that girl. They only meet each other in clubs, then having a nice night and the next day they think to find an another girl. BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LOVE EACH OTHER, THAT IS WHY THEIR ATTITUDE (LIFE) WILL FINISH ON THE NEXT DAY OR WEEK. THERE IS NO LIFE IN THEIR LOVE.

From curiosity sir: Why are you iteratively turning to audience, to the site viewers and checkers? Let him do their own conclusion themselves, please.

In any case, you are my brother, TUF.
TUF

Pro

Round three of this... Er debate? Seems this isn't really a debate anymore though, as my opponent has kind of turned this into a mild form a odd and communicative banter, about who knows what!? Anyways, I will attempt to respond to anything that seems like an "argument", rather than an absurd statement.

****REBUTTALS****

"I decided to drop those contentions which I count useless. Why did I do that, I will explain you it later."

You never did explain that matey. Anyways, it doesn't matter much. You dropping and conceding these points, to me, just seems like to acknowledge and agree with me on their existence being a viable conclusion to the result of "Love existing in life" holding more value. Especially since one of those contentions specifically argued what was in the resolution! How can you possibly say that is not relevant to the debate!? You confuse me matey, but let us proceed with our "Debate" thing we have going on here.

"About the Debate.org rules, OKEY, maybe I could not find enough time to read all the rules. So all your rebuttals about the rules, I respect them, my brother. Thank you."

In that case, then, you agree with rule 2 and 5 which state the dropped arguments count as a loss of conduct, and spelling and grammar are awarded per usual? Well, voters, you heard him yourself! Vote away!


"Look, I have not said that there is no love in the life, I said “Life exists in the love”. Let me explain you what it means: “The theory of love relations in the life are usually being weaker than the theory of life in the love”. "

I understand that perfectly, however, do not see how that changes anything. In fact, under that same definition, ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY CONTENTIONS STILL APPLY! So what are you talking about mate? What's the point? Where exactly do you intend on going with this? You seem to have already dropped everything. Well we still have a couple rounds left, maybe this is your chance to try and redeem yourself by actually trying to argue something. Give it a try, friend, it might be fun seeing as this is a DEBATING website.


"I did not expect you to say something feeble as you wrote. If somebody is not able to understand or if somebody is not in old to understand such philosophical sayings, this is another thing."

What exactly did I write that is so "feeble"? Sometimes I feel, even you don't really know what you are talking about matey.

"To: Also what do you mean "Never do that"? You don't actually give any reason why that is socially un-acceptable?
I wrote: Because if you choose something yourself when that thing is belonged not only you it is counted a single-sided decision."

What's your point? This is a debate argument, I am accustomed to how the rules work here. There is no single sided decision, it is simply what the voters feel is right. I feel, for example, that I have provided a much stronger case for finding value in life as opposed to love, than even you have, my friend.


"Yes, you are true – Plenty of guys go to clubs and pick up girls they don't love, just so they could have a "fun time" – but it does not mean to begin pure life, family with that girl. They only meet each other in clubs, then having a nice night and the next day they think to find an another girl. BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LOVE EACH OTHER, THAT IS WHY THEIR ATTITUDE (LIFE) WILL FINISH ON THE NEXT DAY OR WEEK. THERE IS NO LIFE IN THEIR LOVE."

You completely missed the point on this one. You earlier were trying to make love create life something like giving birth. My point was to prove that a person doesn't have to be in love to do that, so what value is there in love over life in this case? That child can still have a good life without love.

"Why are you iteratively turning to audience, to the site viewers and checkers? Let him do their own conclusion themselves, please."

Oh they will, sir. I am simply pointing out to them flaws in your arguments, and oddities in your speeches, as it is them who will decide who wins this debate.

My question to you sir: Why do you seem to not care about making relevant arguments to half of everything I have said to you?

Just curious.

****END ARGUMENT SPEECH****

I am at a loss for words it seems, as what to make of the odd character of my opponent. He seems to be back and forth on what his own topic actually is.

He agrees with me on basically all my points to some degree.

Right now we are just talking in circles, and riddles, not really addressing the resolution, despite my effort and best attempts at trying to steer this debate back into the right direction.

We still have two rounds, so I am hoping my opponent kicks into gear sometime soon. This discussion is getting awfully repetitive, and continues to get us no where.

Back to ye, matey!
Debate Round No. 3
Dr.Nasafiy

Con

TUF, do you know it if somebody struggles only for his interests he turns the struggle into the fight or quarrel, if somebody struggles for the truth he goes on the struggle until to find it?

So, the purpose of the challenge was to show “the length or the lifetime of love in the life is shorter than the length or the lifetime of life in the love (that’s life based on the love). But you have started blaming me for turning this into a mild form a odd and communicative banter…

You call this “a debate” or not, of course it is your business. But I say it “a philosophical proposition”. Look, you are still asking me what I decided to prove with this saying. But I am not trying anything to prove, I wrote a saying which was proved by the all great messengers, by the all devoted mothers to their husbands, by the all real friends…in history. There is nothing to prove. But here you could not understand the gist of the word “Life”.

You confused that is why started blaming me in dropping, conceding… that is why you are turning to voters.

Why do you seem to not care about making relevant arguments to half of everything I have said to you?

Because I have not still received even a one argument from your side, which may count worthy to take account. Really, you did not understand the gist of the saying. Because it is beyond your belief, way of your life and your outlook.

Just I am go on this debate because the rounds have not finished.

You wrote: He agrees with me on basically all my points to some degree.
Lol, I have not agreed with your even one statement. Where did you take it? You are happy because I thanked you for explaining me the debate.org rules?!

I do not want to repeat and understand all that you are not able to understand. To me with you to nowhere.
TUF

Pro

****REBUTTALS****


"TUF, do you know it if somebody struggles only for his interests he turns the struggle into the fight or quarrel, if somebody struggles for the truth he goes on the struggle until to find it?

So, the purpose of the challenge was to show “the length or the lifetime of love in the life is shorter than the length or the lifetime of life in the love (that’s life based on the love). But you have started blaming me for turning this into a mild form a odd and communicative banter…"




"You call this “a debate” or not, of course it is your business. But I say it “a philosophical proposition”. Look, you are still asking me what I decided to prove with this saying. But I am not trying anything to prove, I wrote a saying which was proved by the all great messengers, by the all devoted mothers to their husbands, by the all real friends…in history. There is nothing to prove. But here you could not understand the gist of the word “Life”.

You confused that is why started blaming me in dropping, conceding… that is why you are turning to voters.

Why do you seem to not care about making relevant arguments to half of everything I have said to you? "


It's because you have literally dropped every argument I have made against you. I am starting to wonder if you are insane. You know this entire conflict would have been dis-missed, and maybe even we could have had a good debate challenge if you actually knew HOW TO READ.


So my question to you is....





"Because I have not still received even a one argument from your side, which may count worthy to take account. Really, you did not understand the gist of the saying. Because it is beyond your belief, way of your life and your outlook."

Are you freaking kidding me?! I made 3 different arguments that all apply to the resolution! PLEASE DEAR FREAKING GOD explain to me how they do not relate to your case? You won't explain this to me, you continue to ignore reason, and are speaking plainly out of your arse.

I want you to tell me how "C1: In order for love to exist, life must first exist" Does not apply to the freaking resolution.


Now tell me how does my "C2: Love Exisiting in life provides perfect value" Doesn't apply to the resolution. Especially this one mate. This is one HAS THE FREAKING RESOLUTION IN THE SUBTITLE!? Tell me.... How is it "not worthy to take into account?"

And last, explain to me in g reat detail how my "Contention 3: Love exists because life allows it to exist" does not apply to the resolution.

Dear audience, my opponent has not done any of this, and here we are at the END OF ROUND 4!!

He hass the BOP, which he has not upheld. He has the burden to argue my case, which he HAS NOT EVEN FREAKING ATTEMPTED, and he has displayed poor conduct all around.


I don't know if my opponent smokes a fat pound of weed before he tries to debate, or if he is just naturally insane.


Maybe both.


"Just I am go on this debate because the rounds have not finished.

You wrote: He agrees with me on basically all my points to some degree.
Lol, I have not agreed with your even one statement. Where did you take it? You are happy because I thanked you for explaining me the debate.org rules?!

I do not want to repeat and understand all that you are not able to understand. To me with you to nowhere."

Gramatically, logically, and sensibly, you make absolutely no freaking sense. I don't know how in the freaking world you expect to win debates the way you are going now.


****REITERATION OF MY CASE****

My opponent has dropped my entire case, and has made a fool out of himself. So I will re-cap over everything that went missed, so the audience will have a clear view of what I am attempting to prove in this debate, all of which was not touched on by my opponent.

My first contention was on theory.

C1: In order for love to exist, life must first exist.


This one was an imprtant one for my opponent not to drop because it is essentially the crux of this debate. No matter what kind of clarifications my opponent tries to impose as to what is the direct meaning of this debate, the fact remains, that he values love over life for this debate. I attempt to explain how life existing above love is more logically accurate, as love was created within life. This is a concept my opponent never even tried to touch on.

C2: Love existing within life provides perfect value!


This one lies directly in line with the resolution for several reasons. One the entire resolution of this debate is fixed on creating value! It says it right in the topic of the debate!

Anyways, I explain thoroughly how life is and always will be valued higher than love, because not every person in the world can feel love. Insertnamehere for example, is asexual, meaning she can't love anyone. Therefor, all she has to do is value life!


C3: Love exists because life allows it to exist.

Scientifically, love cannot exist with out life. It's all about the mental process, thought process, idea creation, etc.
Every thought stems and Idea, which then turns into an action.


This is the last thing my opponent fails to acknowlege.

It is for all these reasons, I urge the votes to vote pro!

Thankyou!

Debate Round No. 4
Dr.Nasafiy

Con

You do not know anything but laughing, abasing and blackmail. Because you are not able to make a thought beyond having a "fun time" and humburger. Having a "fun time" (you wrote it as a normal life living style) and humburger - it is your all you will have and reserve after you in this life.

dear debate.org viwers and checkers, voters! Please give him the priority. Because within the debate he repeatedly has been turning to you. He extermely wants to winn.

TUF, from this time I offer you to join the debate if you understand its gist, its philosophical meaning.

Thanks to audience.
TUF

Pro

Once more, my opponent has completely ignored all of my arguments.

It is to be assumed that he agrees with me, and thus forfeits this debate.

I strongly urge the voters, to vote Pro!

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Con tries to use witty wordplay, yet obviously doesn't know enough about the English language to make it work, and instead we're left with incoherent ramblings. That's why I gave S/G to the Pro. I kind of have to give the arguments to the Pro as well, seeing as con never refuted a single thing that came out of Pro's keyboard, and so every argument extends and Con's argument crumbles. This is the same reason that I gave conduct to the Pro, Con just didn't even try while Pro put effort into the debate.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
@Dr.Nasafiy
You should actually read the votes, no one voted as a favor to you.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Lol you crazy bro
Posted by Dr.Nasafiy 4 years ago
Dr.Nasafiy
Thank you debate.org voters, you did not ignore my requests on giving the priority to TUF, because he has been requesting you repeatedly to give him winner status. Of course the people understand the gist of such sayings, whose life is not based on having a fun time and eating hamburgers only.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Yes sir. Again, it is them who will be deciding the outcome of this debate, and I will show them you fallacies. Your great and vast many of them. Bow to me, sir. ;-)
Posted by Dr.Nasafiy 4 years ago
Dr.Nasafiy
Well, voters, you heard him yourself! Vote away!
__________________________________________

Voters, voters help him. No life and thought without voters! Voters, voters!
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
You are a silly chap, wot wot? I surely don't understand you my friend. What is it you want me to read? Are your "Compliments" Meant as sarcastic ridicule? You surely are a strange fellow, matey.
Posted by Dr.Nasafiy 4 years ago
Dr.Nasafiy
Not Lol my dear, but read read and read again.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Lol
Posted by Dr.Nasafiy 4 years ago
Dr.Nasafiy
TUF, you are very good person.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Dr.NasafiyTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Dr.NasafiyTUFTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I couldn't understand what Con was trying to say. con, as Instigator, has the obligation of writing a clear resolution. Pro made a fair interpretation and gave arguments that were not refuted. The contender cannot add rules to he debate after accepting the challenge, so those are ignored.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Dr.NasafiyTUFTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped all argunments presented by pro
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Dr.NasafiyTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not even respon to Pro's arguments.