The Instigator
Prodigenius
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ovat
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Love is superior to hate

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,006 times Debate No: 33334
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Prodigenius

Con

3 rounds of debating (first for accepting).

No rules other than plagiarism isn't allowed for more than two consecutive sentences.

Have a nice debate please.

You will be supporting the resolution, it is up to you to prove it correct not up to me to prove it wrong. My task is to tear your proof apart.

Thank you.
Ovat

Pro

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
Prodigenius

Con

Ladies and gentleman (and people of other denominations of gender) I am Prodigenius, speaking for the side that will contradict the resolution to the best of its ability. I am therefore speaking against the idea that love is superior to hate.

There are three essential definitions to address here. The first is love, second is hate and third is superior.

I will be using Oxford dictionaries for all three of my definitions.

I shall first present you with the links to the three definitions.

Love: http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Hate: http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Superior: http://oxforddictionaries.com...

I will be selecting from those definitions the simplest, most vague, definitions to allow a huge space in the debating arena for conflict to occur.

The simplest definitions for the three that I found were as follows:

Love: A great interest and pleasure in something.
Hate: A severe form of intense dislike.
Superior: Higher in either rank, status, or quality (or all three at once).

My opponent is welcome to challenge any of my definitions and explain why they prefer the definition of their favour. Semantics, to me, are a very important aspect to debate and shouldn't be assumed to be purely in the power of the instigator.

So firstly I shall explain why I consider love equal to hate then I shall later give arguments as to why love could even be considered inferior to hate and then my third and final point shall be why any argument for love being superior to hate is in fact based on one's individual perception and not logical reasoning.

Now I ask you, esteemed judges of this debate, what is it that we can consider love and hate to be other than equally ranked emotions? Are heat and cold not equal in rank, status and quality? They are merely different forms of the same thing are they not? Whilst love is brilliant at making people co-operate directly, hate actually is equally qualified for this purpose. when the American army is fighting the Taliban, it is the hate of one another that is driving their co-operation as two separate bands of companions, love isn't involved in it and if it is it is only to a lesser or equal extent to hate at most. Love can make one feel elated when the loved entity is with them however the moment the loved entity parts with them in some way, the pain of this begins to set in. Equally hate begins as a pain but can achieve the same level of elation as love when the hated entity has either been destroyed or seemingly eternally parted with. In short, they are equal in rank, status and quality but merely different in the paths by which they help one achieve a goal. Love is direct at helping one achieve co-operation and elation whilst hate is indirect and achieves it via a backward route.

On a second, more pressing, note is the face that there are many situations where hate is essential and love just won't do but very few where the opposite is the case. If one needs to take down an intruder to their house, is it the love of their family and self or the hatred of the intruder that will better help them to fight them? It is the hatred of the invader for sure. Loving one's family doesn't qualm the fear of being hurt, the fear of being prosecuted nor the fear of what they can do when rage begins to form, hatred is a catalyst to rage and a conqueror of fear, it is clearly the superior emotion in any situation of conflict. Love may be seen as superior in companionship, friendship and in sexual relationships but these could equally be achieved by a hatred of being alone. In fact, if one hates being alone they are far more likely to be able to force themselves to work with anyone in a very co-operative manner than if merely blinded by love of that individual since love merely makes them like the individual but hatred of being alone truly makes them desperate to keep that individual close to them. In short, love is generally inferior to hate as the pathway to achieve a goal.

My final point is that any argument for love being superior to hate is most probably based on individual perception rather than objective argumentation. Love may feel superior to hate according to one individual but that is because that individual also is ranking happiness higher than sadness, calmness higher than depression and peace higher than conflict. One must then go on to objectively explain things that can only be assumed if subjective reasoning in in place and this is a logical fallacy or appeal to emotion and not sufficient to win a debate. If, however, my opponent is able to justify their reasoning on top of contradicting the points I have raised in this debate then a sufficient challenge has commenced for this debate. Otherwise, one must assume the Proposition's reasoning to be flawed in some manner.

In conclusion, love is either equal to or inferior to hate in almost all situations thinkable. They are equal because they are both emotional pathways to achieve the same goals, love directly and hate indirectly but they are unequal when one considers the relative usefulness of love as opposed to hate.
Ovat

Pro


I will firstly address my opponent's stances, then I will express my claim that love is superior to hate.

Not including definitions, my opponent has made three claims.

I acknowledge to opponent's first claim that love and hate are both equally ranked emotions. To the judges I also add that: the love for one's country or faction is equally attributed to war as the hate of the other; thus, as my opponent has stated, is equal to "driving their co-operation as two separate bands of companions".



I argue against my opponent in his stance that hate is a superior pathway to achieve a goal and is not capable, in any way, of elevating society as a whole. Hate lacks the ability to motivate an individual to perform (carry out, accomplish, or fulfil) solely on the act of performing, no writer wrote because they hated writing. Through hatred (e.g. of unfair laws) may propel a writer to portray his hatred through text the hatred is not the causation for the great work he may produce nor the reforms that it may bring; his love of writing allows his hatred to be fueled in a constructive manner that may elevate society as a whole. I use a writer for it serves as a prime example of how hatred can be a fuel to love and, as I am sure the audience is aware, a writer need not hate to help his performance. This portrayal shows love doing something hate cannot, the vise versa being shown by my opponent.

My opponent's third claim is that we have a subjective view of the situation and that one cannot logically justify love's superiority to hate.
I ask our judges, "Is the use of speech in a complex fashion superior to one of more simplicity?" They both can be used to communicate; however, many, including I, would attest the proposition to be true. This is chiefly due to the fact that a broader range of vocabulary can express a broader range of ideas, and the purpose of speech, to put it simply, is to express ideas. Weather we view something as superior or inferior is determined by how it serves to its higher purpose; this is the logical base to which I find love is superior to hate.


Now I clarify that hate is not useless, just as simple diction is not. As previously stated hate can be a fuel that drives a passion. It also serves its purposes in times of conflict and many other areas; however, the reason for its inferiority to love is due to the fact it does not serve our emotions' higher purpose to us as a society and a species. The purpose of our emotions being to further the survival of our species. I define our emotions' purpose as this due to the fact that we must survive to have any progression or to further any other objectives. Love serves its purpose in motivating one to coitus, thus producing more offspring, more workers, more productivity, and more security to us as a species. Hate, jealousy, and lust all serve their purpose in instigating a survival of the fittest conflict where the fittest should win and thus produce a higher quality offspring. While hate clearly serves a vital role in this paradigm love must be present for hate to be progressive.

perform: http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Prodigenius

Con

Prodigenius forfeited this round.
Ovat

Pro

Ovat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Prodigenius

Con

Prodigenius forfeited this round.
Ovat

Pro

Ovat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Prodigenius 4 years ago
Prodigenius
Any definition of love can be used.

You know it is the emotion of love obviously.

In my first speech I would be explaining the flaws in the most typical arguments pro usually offers in such a debate.
Posted by Ovat 4 years ago
Ovat
I would accept this challenge however two problems arise for me.

1. Semantics - you fail to define what "love" means -- is it the affection between people, the affection to a less animate object, the affection to a profession -- and I find myself with several definitions ranging from devotion to addiction.
2. Your position to negate and not prove - If the first round is for acceptance I would assume in the next round your position would be mute for I would have to start the argument. This is what I assume, and I as a challenger should not assume rules less we go into the semantics of the rules.

I may be over cautious, but to have a clear idea of what I'm getting myself into I'd like to clearly know whats about to go down.
No votes have been placed for this debate.