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

Love is not natural

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 3/7/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 979 times Debate No: 48591
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Don't use bible as reference.

No love lost, no love found. Which shows that love is by choice not natural


Love is incredibly natural; and I intend to prove why.

BoP is shared.

In this debate I'll be using the following definitions:

: a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person
: attraction that includes sexual desire : the strong affection felt by people who have a romantic relationship
: a person you love in a romantic way

:existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial )
:based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature.
:of or pertaining to nature or the universe

You may make your opening case.

Debate Round No. 1


DEFINITIONS: a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person. : attraction that includes sexual desire : the strong affection felt by ...
Love definition, a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. See more. NATURAL:1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. Let me start by saying that emotion is not love. So one might feel emotional and sexually aroused but that is not love which shows that love is not natural.
Let me argue from this angle: Love is just an illusion fact. Don't be mislead'. When you see a girl, and your heart accept such a person even without talking to the person is that love? Seriously thats lust. Your mind has been predominated with sentiments and emotions and such things is not love. Based on the explanation of love by scholars, they said: love is a 'natural' phenomenal which needs to be grown, hatched and harvested. But then there are contradicting statements here, since love is natural, why should It be grown again, hatched and harvested? To the best of my knowledge, blinking of eyes is natural, and you cannot grow the blinking of eyes neither will you grow the rumbling of the thunder. Why then should love be grown since it is natural like water?.
Let me ask this, if a man who married a woman and they lived for 3years and later on, they divorced due to some problems will you call that love? Because they will keep telling each other 'I love you'. I read one of the popular articles of love written by the 'guardians' and they gave the characteristics of love which they even included 'forgiveness'. Lets be logical, if one of the attributes of love is forgiveness, why is it that some break their relationship without coming back to it? Why is it that when some break their relationship, they simply get another person? Seriously, that is never natural. When something is said to be natural, it means that it is said to be. NO WOUNDER!!!
People said: love is something that grows slowly over time, as you bit by bit disclose who you are, hear who they are. As you struggle to accept or compromise and slowly learn that the other can be trusted to work with you and to consider your needs on par with your own. But my arguments still lie on this, why is it that love is not that natural like the blinking of the eyes? I AWAITS MY OPPONENTS REPLY


Note: I will not be posting any rebuttals this round and only present my opening case.

What is love?( Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more!)

Love is a clearly defined emotion as we both agree on in the first round. It starts at birth and ends at death and has it's highs and it's lows as you pass trough your life. But as clearly defined as it is, no matter how wonderful it may seem and how much we long for it, it isn't really that defined, it isn't simple and direct. It has many different forms and figures. It exists in ways far too complex for man to handle and often turns to thorns in our minds. In order to cover as many common aspects of love we'll split them up and prove that each of them is natural, starting with the love that children bear to their mothers all the way up to the topic my opponent is likely focusing on: Sexual attraction.

The love of an infant

Love begins as soon as we are born. Upon the first moment we are placed into the hands of our mothers we start to bond with her, we start to release oxytocin into the bloodstream and that gives us a chance to bond with our mothers and our mothers to bond with us in a natural process. Nobody teaches an infant to love and yet they express love in a natural way. This implies that love is in fact natural, it's something we are born with the capacity to do despite if we actually have a mother to bond with or not. Children love unconditionally for the first few months and years of their lives; They love whomever loves them and does them no harm. Like I already stated you do not teach a child to love someone, they grow that feeling by themselves. In a natural perspective this is a rational and logical thing to do. If you love your parent and your parent loves you they are more likely to take care of each other, they are more likely to succeed in life and create children of their own to which they'll bond with even before the child has been born. [1]

Love of friendship.

I'm not going to go too deep into other loves than the one behind parents and children and lovers since it is outside the definition. But in our society the love of your friends is something that we best all have, and in fact it is often that starting foundation of friendship that later drives our love life on. We might one day wake up and realize that this one friend might mean much much more to us than we knew or even cared to admit. We chose our friends, but we don't choose how precisely we will feel about them. Some friends will be close to you than others no matter if you hang out with them more than some other friend. It's a mutual trust that undergoes a transformation and eventually you'll involuntary take on the natural process of falling in love.

And they lived happily ever after”

Love often stems from lust, a normal and natural emotion. But this does not mean that love in itself is just the desire to reproduce, reproduction is only a part of the grand picture. The first part of attraction is mainly connected to lust and how we are physically attracted to someone. Put in Laymans terms: We see a pretty girl, we want the pretty girl. This is a natural process to ensure that we desire a mate; and it is here were our subconscious brain searches for patterns and traits that a potential mate would have. If the criteria is matched and returned we have fallen in love and move on to the second stage: attraction. This is the stage where we drown our own brains with hormones, mainly dopamine, Norepinephrine and Serotonin see drastic changes. We feel happy all the times, we crave to be around that person, we desire to feel loved in return. We're basicly high from a natural high. Our pain threshold lowers, our “happy” threshold lowers, we feel happier over smaller things and we have a harder time getting irritated by something and someone. This is a natural process that ensures that we are mating, that we are bonding and sets a perfect foundation to the next step, bonding. When couples enter the bonding stage the lust and attractions stages start to die down and they aren't so easily happy any more. By this time they will start to re-evaluate the relationship and slow down. From this point onward we're looking at a similar situation as between a parent and a child. There is a sudden increase in Oxytocin levels and you'll feel a deeper, more emotional attachment to your partner. From a natural standpoint this makes sense. The woman needs someone to protect her and keep her safe and she needs someone to care for. These gender roles have become somewhat obsolete in our culture, but the idea of love however isn't. Humans have such an absurdly long growing stage that the idea of a loving couple to care for their offsprings is a natural and logical conclusion. Because we need so much love and care as we grow up the idea that love, something that is a chemical and therefore natural process, is a smart move evolutionary wise. It lightens the load for each parent; it provides the parent with someone to rely on when difficulty strikes and the natural need for security, acceptance and care is well satisfied with a natural feeling to bond us to a mate. A natural feeling of love.

To conclude:

What have we learned by this round other than the fact that I can watch a few Youtube videos? Well, we have seen that love is a natural process in the brain that is triggered and maintained in our brains my a series of natural chemicals and hormones. We have seen that all children have the capacity for love from the moment they are born in order to bond with their mothers. We can deduct from that fact that love is not taught to us, it is gifted to us by our need to be taken care of. If it isn't taught to us it isn't a man made response to social situations and must thus be natural. We know that we never fully control to whom we are attracted to and so we can assume that love is a natural subconscious response to visual and emotional stimuli and is natural. We see that the distinct stages set to ensure that we bond fully to our mate and reproduce and take care of the young together has a natural purpose and thus the method we use to fulfil that purpose is natural. Love can grow and maintain itself well beyond reproduction; feeding on our need to be taken care of, to take care of someone. Our need to have a stable life and be sure that someone is there to catch us. It takes use of our need to be the social mammals that humans are. It takes use of the fact that it, love, is a perfectly natural term, a perfectly normal and natural emotion.




Debate Round No. 2


The motion: 'LOVE IS NOT NATURAL' In this round, I will rebutt, then conclude. REBUTTALS my opponent said, 'It starts at birth and ends at death and has it's highs and it's lows as you pass trough your life'. But that is not what am arguing for. Am saying that love is not natural and my opponent is writing lyrics instead of giving reasons why love is natural. Beside, since am arguing that love is not natural, I will like my opponent in his next argument to give me statistical data of love that starts by birth and end at death. Do we know that we have number of broken homes? Tell me, how did this broken home end by death? My opponent don't actually have arguments to back up his claim. My opponent equally said, 'The love of an infant' where he clearly explained unconditional love for parents (especially mother). But then, haven't we heard of people who kill their mother? Does that show love? Example:Chicago Man Hires Friends To Kill His Mother For Her Life Insurance Policy.m /chicago-man-... Police: Son had mom killed to get at bank account, insurance >Home>News>Breaking news .
Tell me, when some one kills his parents, does that show love? Indeed 'love of infants' moreover, let me address this very well, for infants, you claimed the children love their mother. Now the children don't love their mother at infant. The only thing that happen is that they get use to her possibly because she is close to her. If they love her, it means that when they grow up they will still love her and that means they won't hurt her for any reason but the reverse is the case. The problem with my opponent is that he haven't given any concrete reason, claim with source to back up his claims that love is natural. I said, people choose to love it is not natural but my opponent didn't react to this. My opponent equally said, 'Love of friendship' where he said that it is through friendship that love develops. Now let me address this, to make some one your friend, you will have to choose the person, and if you fall in love, it means its by choice because you choose the person. If you claim you have affections, it is emotional feelings which is likely to be lust. The most annoying part of the statement which my opponent gave is this ' and they lived happily ever after'. Let me ask, who lived happily ever after? Is it the broken relationship? Seriously, if love is based on the definition which I earlier gave, it means that the broken relationships wouldn't have been existing. If love is natural, why is it that some one will leave the person he loves and go to another person? Indeed, love is not natural. Note, Love is not emotion, my opponent is misusing this concept. They are quite different things. One can have emotional feelings for somebody when he is been maltreated and that is not love. My opponent said, 'love is a natural process in the brain' readers, if love is a natural process in the brain, it then means it is not love. It is rather lust and that is not what we are arguing. Love is never a natural phenomenal.
IN CONCLUSION, My stand is this, if love is natural, why the problems in relationship and family? I still maintain that love is not natural. And I await my opponents reply


Readers of the debate, my opponent is no longer it seems fighting for the resolution “Love is natural” but is instead starting to address a topic completely unrelated to what we are discussing: “love is eternal.” He indirectly claims that natural processes cannot end and as such love cannot exist simply because it does not last forever. Let's run trough his arguments quickly, shall we?

Opening case rebuttals:

He starts by saying love is not an emotion, that the two are distinct from each other. This is complete nonsense, and we can quickly address that by looking at two things: What emotion means and what my opponent has accepted as the definition of love:


1. A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.

See that underlined word? Love? So we have a dictionary example of love being described as an emotion. We can also look at the definition my opponent used for love: he described love as an affection. If we take the less elegant route and ask Google for the definition of affection he spits out the synonyms Love and Feeling, the latter that has the synonym Emotion. We don't put effort into falling in love and thus the feeling is an emotion. Moving on:

Next up he says that love needs to be grown, hatched and harvested and refers to those things as unnatural. Let's look at the concept of growth which these three terms describe. Love has to be grown, it is growing. Growing is not an unnatural process. Small saplings grow over time into trees, strong and flowering. Are trees not natural just because they start small and need time to reach full strength? Is the uprising of a child not natural because we need to put effort into the safety of that child? Nothing can happen without growth, the universe grows, the land under you grows and the every single being around you grows stronger every day. Some grow fast, some slowly and some die before growing into that big tree. But that does note make growth an unnatural process.

Now, the blinking of your eyes is natural, it has a purpose to clean and cleanse your eyes. As does love, it has the purpose of providing us with feelings needed to attach to a mate for the duration of mating, for providing children. But just like you cannot choose to blink your eyes, you cannot choose who will trigger your love. I quote [3]:

We are inherently programmed to love, whether it’s biologically, psychologically, or by some other mechanism we have yet to understand. “Contrary to what philosophers, moralists, theoreticians, in-laws, and counselors have always argued, love is not a choice. It is a biological imperative. And just as evolution favored human beings who were able to stand upright, it favored human beings who felt love. It favored them because love has great survival value.”

Reading that paper showed us that love is an involuntary process from that first shot of adrenaline when you see something(one) you desire and start to evaluate him/her to the natural desire to be safe and have someone provide for you. It isn't an eternal process anymore than the growth of your hair, but it is still natural.

Comparing the two processes (eye to love; love to hair) is a weak comparison. It is as you had compared our inability to fly to those of a bird and said: “To my best knowledge, flying is natural. We cannot fly, hence we are not natural.” They have a different purpose and a different drive behind them. So let's refrain from using them

My opponent then asked me if a three year relationship that ends did not contain love. I answer: it did. Did they not fall for each other? Did they not fail to see the sun for the other person? Did they not get a primal desire for each other to the extent that they got married? We are to assume that they didn't get married for the gifts at the reception. It was not a love that lasted. Love is a feeling that is temporary as all other feelings, nobody feels happy every moment of his life, there will always be a time where they stop and will be sad instead for example. Then that feeling vanishes. Both feelings are natural, yet neither are eternal. Love isn't a greater feeling, love isn't excluded from this temporary nature. All three are natural, but all three can come and go as your surroundings demand.

Next he asks me if bouncing from love and falling for another person is natural. Why shouldn't it be? If I for some reason stop being happy I'm going to feel happy again eventually. Love is a natural process that can be repeated. Nowhere in your definition does it specify that love has to be eternal by default, so you can drop those arguments in the next round.

Counter rebuttals:
Firstly, Don't try and refute the introduction to a speech. It's pointless. That part served to be a better start than “Love is natural and here is why!” But since my opponent mentioned it, he might have wanted to read the first source I cited in my case where infants and mothers are shown to develop and express love from the moment of birth, and even well before birth:
The love you feel for your baby isn't just cultural -- it's a basic part of your makeup. In recent years, scientists have started to explore this mysterious but crucial part of human nature. They've discovered that parents are hard wired to love their babies.

Next up he somehow, again, treats love as an eternal entity and asks why we have heard of people killing their own mothers. I respond with a question: how often have you heard of infants killing their own mothers? In a large majority of cases the birth of your child will trigger a lot of hormones to keep you going and to strengthening that bond. In the rare cases that other hormones and situational reasons do not interfere with this “bonding time” a natural love will start to form. Once more he fights for the eternal value of love. With children it's simple; if you love them and do them good they will love you and maintain it. They may have ups and downs, but if you love them they will love you.

In the next part my opponent criticized me for not responding to the argument that love is a choice. I had already stated that I would not be doing rebuttals in my opening case, responding to that point included. I'll address it here: Love isn't a choice [4]. You cannot point a finger at someone and go: “ohh, I'm going to fall in love with that!” and you cannot point a finger at your partner and say: “I'm going to stop loving you for no particular reason.” Love is biochemistry, it starts within your body before you realize that it is happening. It is this natural love inside your body that you cannot control that keeps you stuck in unsatisfying relationships. It is this chemistry that makes you crave the person that rejected you.


My opponent needs to see that we are not arguing about whether love is eternal, we are arguing that it is natural. Love isn't a man made feeling, we can measure the reaction of a human in love and we even have animals that show apparent signs of displaying some form of love. My opponent needs to know that something that can end in disaster, something that eludes us and avoids, that needs time and effort can be natural all the same. That love isn't a given process, it is something that we cannot grow, only nurture. We can nurture our love to love.


Debate Round No. 3


The problem with my opponent is this, he will say something and when it is been rebutted, he tries to use it as his own advantage. My opponent once said, ....and they lived happily ever after' now I rebutted this and he claims am changing the motion. It is my opponent who don't even understand the motion. He didn't even prove that love is natural rather he concentrates on giving rymes and lyrics as if this is a poem. REBUTTALS my opponent don't even understand what he is saying. He claimed that: :the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, andlove.
See that underlined word? Love? So we have a dictionary example of love being described as an emotion. Now, the dictionary clearly said 'emotion of love' the dictionary did not say that emotion is love rather it said, we have emotion of love. So my opponent's claims holds no water. My opponent said, Now, the blinking of your eyes is natural, it has a purpose to clean and cleanse your eyes. As does love, it has the purpose of providing us with feelings needed to attach to a mate for the duration of mating, for providing children. But just like you cannot choose to blink your eyes, you cannot choose who will trigger your love. Now, if you don't choose who triggers your love, will you be at home and it will find you? My opponent contradicted himself because while trying to rebutt my argument said that 'if you are not happy again then you look for someone else' yet he still said that you don't look for someone to trigger it. What a nonsense. My opponent equally moved on by using inanimate object like tree to explain his argument where he asked 'are trees not natural just because they start small and need time to reach full strength? That trees grow doesn't mean that love is natural. Love involves two persons but a tree grow alone. So why use that as an example? My opponent also asked is uprising of the child not natural? Readers please look at my opponent's line and argument and choose. Uprising of child involves one person for goodness sake. Love they claim is between two or more persons so why that example? We are really talking about proximity and connotation which involves two persons. My opponen is already lying against me and is going out of the motion. Based on his argument, he is indirectly trying to say that I the pro. Has made resolution that love does not exist.
My opponent also said: ""We are inherently programmed to love, whether it""s biologically, psychologically, or by some other mechanism we have yet to understand. ""Contrary to what philosophers, moralists, theoreticians, in-laws, and counselors have always argued, love is not a choice. It is a biological imperative. And just as evolution favored human beings who were able to stand upright, it favored human beings who felt love. It favored them because love has great survival value."" now this quote was made by someone like you and I and that does not mean love is natural. That is even what am saying, that even though we have quotes of love, I still need conviction and that has not been done by my opponent who base on giving quote without proper explanation. And he equally said' . Did they not fall for each other? Did they not fail to see the sun for the other person? Did they not get a primal desire for each other to the extent that they got married? We are to assume that they didn't get married for the gifts at the reception. It was not a love that lasted. Love is a feeling that is temporary as all other feelings, nobody feels happy every moment of his life, there will always be a time where they stop and will be sad instead for example. Based on definition of love, it is not meant to stop so why saying they might stop? As my opponent asked if they did not fail for each other. Now that is a practical lust because they had sexual desire for each other and they had to do what they have to do in other to get what they want to get. If love is natural, that 3years relationship won't die off like that. Moreover, if you fail for someone, there must be reason either because the person is beautiful in ur face or something else and withing a space of time, if you let go, the feelings fade. Love is never a natural phenomenal In conclusion, it is high time we call a spade a space. My opponent's explanation of emotion and love is not clear. And based on this, I still maintain that love is not natural


Readers of the debate, my opponent is looking to debate style and semantics. He is completely avoiding the topic at hand and chooses to try and refute arguments I made that in most cases aren't even argument. He gives vague answers and in fact most of his assertions do not hold water, as he put himself.

He starts by saying that I say something and then reform the argument, providing an example by citing my “and they live happily ever after.” If he had taken a closer look then he would have noticed that this was a name I gave to that section of the speech. He may have noticed how I only stated that cliché once and then said nothing more about it. Attacking the way I chose to present my arguments is a bad habit and will not earn you any points. I'm not sure where he got the argument that I'm giving out rhymes and lyrics from, I haven't putten a single rhyme into my speeches and as far as I know there aren't any lyrics in my rounds. He next makes a rather strange sentence; He takes my sentence, word by word, where I clearly state: “
example of love being described as an emotion.” Reading that out of context and anyone could have seen that I am pointing out that love is an emotion, but he then starts attacking the case for not saying that emotion is love, something that makes no sense in or out of context. Love is an emotion, but that does not mean all emotions are love. The notion that emotion is love is as sensible as saying colour is blue. Emotion is a group term over all feelings and states of mind that we can feel, love included.

Next up my opponent makes the case: “If you do not choose who triggers your love will you be at home and it will find you?” This is incredibly strange. Sex is natural, yet you won't find it at home alone. Hunting for gain is natural, but no animal will hunt anything if it keeps at it's nest. Socialising is natural, but being all alone at your house isn't going to help you. This argument was not in context to what it was trying to refute, that you cannot control who you will fall for, and instead tried attacking that you don't fall in love with someone you've never met because your alone in your home. Is that sensible?

Next he claims I contradicted myself by saying that you can fall love multiple times, again taking the semantic pole of the debate. If you want to fall in love you might go down to the club. You want to fall in love, that's natural. But once you're there there isn't any guaranty that you will actually fall in love nor that you'll control who will spark your interest. This isn't a contradiction and is completely avoiding the topic once again. If we make that illogical, strange comparison to the eye again: you can choose when you blink your eyes, and the eyes can blink on their own. This is still a natural process.

He then seems to make the assumption that the upbringing of a child is a single person process. It isn't. If I place an infant in a house equipped with everything it needs to survive, it will still die. That's the case with most mammals, they don't do well on their own for the first periods of their lives. The rest of his argument on that topic just fades out into nothing. He claims that I am lying without really understanding what I'm saying and why I am making the comparisons that I am making. The tree analogy was meant to show that a natural process can involve growth. The child analogy served the same process. Love needs growth, it has to be cared for by both parties involved. I'm not saying that my opponent is denying the term “love.” I am saying that it is natural.

Next up he challenges my quote made by somone “like you and me”. All right, let's explain the quote and from what context it was taken. The quote was made from my third source of that round: “Love: A Biological, Psychological and Philosophical Study” by Heather M. Chapman as part of a senior honour project at the university of Rhode island. In the paper Chapman explains in great detail how love works within your body; How it matters to us physically, psychologically and in a historical context. Every single part of that paper was cited with a total of ten esteemed books serving as the reference point of the paper; written by specialists and following extensive researches. The quote I took was from the final section of the paper, the summary. I already went trough the biological process of falling in love: something my opponent hasn't addressed yet. I already pointed out that love has a purpose for evolution, but my opponent, as far as I can tell, has missed that. Instead he took his final arguments:

The first one was that according to definition love is not meant to stop. I'm going to cite my opponents own definition that he concedes to:

Love definition: a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

Nowhere does it say that love cannot stop. My opponent cannot change the definition of something to make it fit his case. None of my three definitions of love assume that love cannot stop either. So this is a baseless argument that has nothing going for it.

Next he says that it is practical lust because they have a sexual desire for each other and “they had to do whatthey have to do.” This is also false. Not all relationships are based off lust. I could go for my own personal relationships that didn't involve lust, but since I might be considered I biased source I'll instead go for this couple:

[1] Meet the Crockers. They've been married for two years, something that might not be such a remarkable feat, but do you want to know the catch? They are sustaining abstinence in their relationship. So they can show us that lust does not have to be a part of the love, the affection and bonding stage I described in my opening case are sufficient enough.

In the final argument made by my opponent he makes a note that three years in relationship won't die off like that. He for some reason is assuming that one day that couple woke up and went: “You know what, this isn't going to work.” In a hyper-majority of cases relationships end because something long term has been nagging at it for a while. Something traumatic might have happened. They might perhaps not have been paying enough attention to each other. He also stated: “if you fall for someone there must be a reason for it because the person is beautiful in your face or something else and if you let go the feeling fade”

That argument is baseless. If we replace “love” with “happiness” the sentence is perfectly correct: “When you become happy there must be a reason for it, but if you let that reason go the happiness fades”

Is the emotion of happiness not natural? I could make that sentence work for each and every single emotion that the human body is capable of producing, so in order to make this argument work either love is natural, no feeling is natural or this argument is completely faulty. You're free to choose.


Readers of the debate, ladies and gentlemen, we are starting to see the grand picture. We are starting to see that love has a biological base, we see that it has an evolutionary purpose, we see that it is something we like and love to do and yet don't really have a conscious control over it. We see that it is a natural process, that love is natural. My opponent has a single round to answer each and every argument that I've already made, some of which have remained unanswered as far as from my opening statement. He has a single round to explain precisely what makes love artificial. He has a single round to explain why love is not natural and I'm expecting better arguments than illogical comparisons with eyes. I like my opponent to avoid the topic of eternal love for love isn't eternal, nothing is. The sun will die, every natural life will end, your own body will soon be nothing but rotting remains that once was a natural life. Love is no exception. My opponent has one round to show that love is created, not felt.


Debate Round No. 4


In conclusion, since this is my last round, I see no reason to rebut the arguments of my opponent in the preceding round because most of the things he said there, has been rebutted in my previous argument. My opponent is only given reasons to love and is yet to prove that love does exist. Finally, I still maintain that love does not facts, definition, arguments and rebuttals lie in the preceding rounds. Readers, please read meaning into the argument before you vote


Esteemed readers of this debate, thank you for sticking with us this long on our quest to find out if love is indeed natural. However my opponent seems to have forgotten what we're debating, for if we read the last round he gave us he states the following:

My opponent is only given reasons to love and is yet to prove that love does exist. Finally, I still maintain that love does not exist

All right, maintain that love does not exist, that is fine by me. Except we're debating If love is natural. If you want to debate if it exists you're free to do so in another debate. For the existence of love I've already given you a plethora of reasons that love exists as well as how it exists within your brain. I could provide you with more research on the chemistry of the brain when you're exposed to someone you love but unfortunately I'm not allowed to place further evidence on the table. So let's start our concluding round, shall we?

In my last round I asked my opponent to properly define why love was artificial. I asked him to answer all of my arguments he hadn't already answered and give a solid case for the non-natural case. In his final round he failed to do so. To properly show what I mean I'll run over the debate step by step and show that I answered all of his arguments and what arguments he has NOT answered in my case., just to have a small reminder on how the debate has gone so far.

first round: definition

Second round:

  • My opponent defines love as a feeling of strong affection that includes sexual desire; not far from my definition. Natural is something that is existing or caused by nature and not made by humans

  • He then says that emotion is not love. [answered in 4]

  • he then says that lust from seeing someone attractive is lust, not love. [2; lust is the beginning stage of romantic love]

  • he says that my mind is predominated with sentiments and emotions. [2 and 4. self-induced feelings are natural and love is an emotion]

  • He states that love needs growth and needs to be harvested. [3, growth is natural]

  • Illogical comparison to the eye begins. 3. The processes are not similar, and growth is natural]

  • He starts the “love is eternal” stance, indirectly saying that because love can be terminated it isn't natural. [3 and 4. Nothing is eternal love is not a one time eternal process, it can fade and rise with time.]

  • he keeps hammering that love shouldn't be able to be terminated. [same]

  • He concludes with a quote and the eye comparison.

    Round 3:

  • if love between infant and mother is unconditional how I should explain broken homes and those that have murdered their mothers. [3. the two are irrelevant to each other. Infants cannot kill their mothers and the love fades like all other things.]

  • More notions that love is eternal, that infant and child love will last forever no matter the actual situations and communications between the two. [3+4: Love isn't eternal and just like being happy, hungry or sad can fade and vanish with new situations]

  • He claims I didn't place any sources on how love is natural. [dropped; I had already placed 3 sources that backed me]

  • He says that in order for love to form with friendship you must have chose that person and this love is a choice [partially answered in 3; you do not choose who you love. If you choose 5 friends you won't know if or who you'll fall in love with. You may chose the friends, but not the lover]

  • next he attack the name of the chapter I gave to one of the sections in my speech. [dropped. it isn't a rebuttal to an argument, it's a rebuttal to style.]

  • he maintains that love is eternal, a magical solution to all communication problems in homes and families. [answered several times: love isn't eternal and problems can come up despite it]

  • He then makes a bleak refutation that love isn't a natural process because it is in the brain, and says that it's rather lust.[4: Lust is only part of the equation, the first step. There are other love related processes that have nothing to do with lust,]

Round 4:

  • more attacking on my choice of style.

  • My opponent says emotion is not love. [4. it's a group including love]

  • He makes a strange argument indirectly stating that all things natural come to you at home [4]

  • He says we cannot look for love and still not be able to choose it [4]

  • He then reads my growth analogy literally and completely. [answered]

  • He then says my quote isn't worthwhile without reading the source it came from and asked for context[answered and context given in 4]

  • He then misunderstands the definition of love or tries to change it. [4 and dropped]

  • Love is eternal” [answered...often]

  • He says that my explanations of love and emotions are not clear. [answered here: I gave you a detailed explanation on the bio mechanics of love. I gave you the evolutionary purpose and the social need for love. I'd say that I'm clear enough]

Now, ladies and gentlemen, you can see that most, if not all, of the arguments that my opponent used to support his case were answered and refuted. However there are a large number of arguments that my opponent did not attempt to refute in my case that really should have been answered for his case to hold. Some of which include:

  • The chemistry of the brain when a person is in love: If love is unnatural it shouldn't be so hardwired to produce certain hormones and reactions in our brains as it does.

  • The evolutionary purpose of mating and caring for the young (lust doesn't provide the will to protect your child)

  • The social need of being protected, having someone to care for and our general desire to love

  • Why love(or any natural process) should be an eternal process, or shouldn't stop. Since such a large part of his case was built around this statement my opponent should have protected it much better. Having failed to protect that natural processes are eternal any arguments that involved that notion are null and void.

  • Why [infant] love is hardwired to appear between parent and child. An unnatural process shouldn't be able to appear in infants nor the parents.

  • Every single case I made in round 4; including “Natural things don't happen at home; the single person upbringing; The new context and reliability of my source; the Croockers and their lust free love.

  • And finally, my opponent did not respond to my request to fully define artificial and what makes love man-made. If love isn't natural it must be artificial, but nowhere in my opponents case did he fully prove that love is artificial and what made it man-made.

All you need is love!”

ok, those are song lyrics, but it still is only the name of the conclusion chapter, not an argument in case anyone was wondering.

Ladies, gentlemen and other readers of the debate. We can see that the case my opponent made isn't nearly as strong as he puts it out to be. Throughout the debate he has made rather illogical comparisons, twisted the definitions he himself put on the table to make it better fit and misunderstood the resolution not once, but twice. His cases are mostly uniform with the weight of his arguments often residing on one or two “facts” that I have shown you how simply do not work. My opponent however has not addressed my case to the same extent, and I've already shown you, dear readers, how love is natural as opposed to artificial. My opponent may have refuted some of my arguments as to be expected and did a fine job debating, but there were too many that went ignored or unsuccessfully refuted. Therefore we must conclude that the evidence of love being natural is overwhelming.

For love is a marvelous, a feeling that we want to have, a feeling we cannot control. It's a feeling we yearn and a feeling we idolize in arts, music and cinema. We see that it is natural, and comes to us not trough choice; not trough will nor desire and not trough practicality, but because it is in our nature, in our blood. To conclude the debate: we simply love to love, and that is completely natural.

I'd wish to thank pro for the challenging and entertaining debate.

Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bettabreeder 3 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Before I start I want to say that love is natural and humans are not the only organism that experiences that feels. I I think that Conduct was tied same with grammar but Con made a better argument, but they both used good sources
Vote Placed by Kreakin 3 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 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I found this debate painful to read at times. The irrelevant arguments often put forwards by Pro really made for a frustrating read. Cons consice, readble & relevant approach was a great releif to read after the insult of the intellect Pro orcastrats. Con easily raised a strong argument that love is natural. Pro was no where near proving his resolution.Conduct - Con - for addressing Pros arguments and staying on topic. S&G - Con - Pros was lazy. MCA - Con -Pro's were ery randon and at times just odd. Sources - Con - Pro didn't use any. Sorry Pro, this is not a vote bomb just justified from the way you debated this.