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

Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,333 times Debate No: 13849
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




People dream of "falling in love" their whole life, but in actuality love is just a chemical reaction that takes place when two people are attracted to each other. When you first start dating, you have sex every day, feel like nothing else matters, and feel happy all the time. As your relationship goes on, the love feelings start to fade and you start to feel bored. There is no longer a challenge. You feel like you know everything about your partner.


My opponent says that "people dream of 'falling in love', but in actuality love is just a chemical reaction." I agree with this. Love, however, is not just a chemical reaction. Love is something deeper, something truer, something more meaningful. St. Augustine said: "Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being 'in love' which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident." What he means is that what my opponent is talking about, a chemical reaction which only lasts for so long, is being "in love". However this is totally different from loving a person. Anyone can convince themselves that they are "in love". Loving, truly loving someone, is not butterflies and pure happiness: it's something deeper. That means that there may be negative or not-as-happy feeling involved as well, but that's what makes it all the more real and all the more true. Loving someone means that you have given them the tools to hurt you, you've let them see your heart, in essentials. And because of this, yes, they may, as my opponent says "know everything about you" but they love everything about you, and they don't want you to change. However, as human beings we are always changing, which is why my opponent's point about being bored is irrelevant. If you truly love your partner, then you can't get bored, because they are constantly changing, and you have to keep up with them just like they have to keep up with you.

For all these reasons, I urge you to vote Negative.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


chansam forfeited this round.


I don't have much more to add to this debate, other than to emphasize the point that St. Augustine makes: that being in love and loving someone is different. Loving someone means that you can't get bored with them, for the simple reason that they are who they are and you are who you are. I don't believe that love is just a chemical reaction in the brain: love is something deeper. Love is seeing an imperfect person perfectly. Love is complicated, yes, and is difficult to explain, and love certainly makes life complicated, but would you want to live without love? Every human being needs to feel loved by somebody. A feeling like that can't be just a chemical reaction in the brain: it needs to be something more. It IS something more.

For all these reasons, I would ask that you vote Negative.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by applesnack 5 years ago
Scientifically speaking, this is love (

Of course whether it's chemical reactions or the neural connections that were responsible for the reaction is up for debate.
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
All concepts are chemical reactions.
Posted by Emmamay 5 years ago
Ooh yeah that's a good point. I kinda defined it...more or less. The whole point of this debate is that we don't agree on the definition of love though, isn't it? That's pretty much what it comes down to.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 5 years ago
You may want to definitively define "love," contrast it with "attraction," etc.
Posted by Emmamay 5 years ago
Haha!! You guys made me blush so much when I saw the comments.

I thought this was an interesting topic, but I wasn't going to take it. Then I thought, you know what? I"m fifteen. People think I don't know what I'm talking about when I talk about love. But I love to prove people wrong. Sooo...XD There you go. =) Hope it didn't disappoint. >.<

I hope it wasn't too sappy either. I didn't really want it to be super sappy, but it's kinda hard to be Con on this and NOT be sappy.
Posted by chansam 5 years ago
bluesteel... I actually just got married a few months ago and I've told my wife this belief when we started dating a few years ago.
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
Love is also a word.
Posted by annhasle 5 years ago
I agree. It's a glorified chemical reaction. I look forward to Con's argument.
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
oh wow, someone took this...

I didn't think anyone would.

sorry you don't love your wife anymore, chansam. Does she know?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, and con used and explained a quote to great effect.