The Instigator
Curtis12
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
omelet
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Love isn't emotional. It is mere chemistry.

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 9 votes the winner is...
omelet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,015 times Debate No: 10456
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (9)

 

Curtis12

Pro

There are three core brain systems for "love:" 1. Lust: the sex drive; 2. Attraction: early stage of intense romantic love; 3. attachment: deep feelings of union.

Love can start off with any of these three feelings. Some people have sex with someone new and then fall in love. Some fall in love first, then have sex. Some feel a deep feeling of attachment to another, which then turns into romance and the sex drive. But the sex drive evolved to initiate mating with a range of partners; romantic love evolved to focus one's mating energy on one partner at a time; and attachment evolved to enable us to form a bond and rear children.
Reference: http://www.helenfisher.com...
omelet

Con

I thank my opponent for posting this debate challenge. May it be a good debate.

I would like to offer up some definitions first.

D1. Emotional: relating to the emotions. [1]
D2. Emotion: a strong feeling, such as joy or anger. [2]

It's a very strange thing my opponent has done. He claims in the resolution that love does not relate to the emotions, but in his argument backing this up he lists three different emotions, all of which he proceeds to relate to love. Rather than show us that love is not emotional, he's actually proven that it is!

My opponent makes another claim in the resolution as well - that love is mere chemistry. I do not disagree on this issue. All human emotions, including love and those relating to it, are the product of chemistry within the brain. This does not stop them from being emotions.

Love is very much emotional. The emotions relating to love are many - lust, attraction, attachment, happiness, jealousy, and likely others as well. My opponent has set up a false dichotomy between being emotional and being governed by chemistry. He has wrongly discounted the possibility that something can be both governed by chemistry and emotional at the same time, even though he himself explained love's emotional nature to us in his first round.

By negating one of the resolution's claims, that love is not emotional, I have negated the resolution.

Good luck to my opponent.

Sources
[1] http://www.askoxford.com...
[2] http://www.askoxford.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Curtis12

Pro

Well these brain systems can be tricky. Having sex, can drive up dopamine in the brain and push you over the threshold toward falling in love. And with orgasm, you experience a flood of oxytocin and vasopressin--giving you feelings of attachment. "Casual sex isn't always casual", "it can trigger a host of powerful feelings." In fact, men and women often engage in "hooking up" to unconsciously trigger these feelings of romance and attachment.

What happens when you fall in love? It begins when someone takes on "special meaning." "The world has a new center," "then you focus on him or her. You beloved's car is different from every other car in the parking lot, for example. People can list what they don't like about their sweetheart, but they sweep these things aside and focus on what they adore. Intense energy, elation, mood swings, emotional dependence, separation anxiety, possessiveness, a pounding heart and craving are all central to this madness. But most important is obsessive thinking."
omelet

Con

My opponent has done nothing to refute my argument, and he has made no further points toward attempting to affirm the resolution.

His own "arguments," most of which are contained in large quotes we can only assume are from the source he referenced in R1, do nothing to show that love isn't emotional - in fact, once again, they show that love is indeed emotional. Toward the end of R2 he lists many strong feelings - emotions - that are very involved with the feeling of love.

The resolution remains negated. I give the floor once again to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
Curtis12

Pro

Love isn't emotional in the sense that it is arbitrary. In a sense we don't decide upon our partners, our brains do. We could 'love' someone and simultaneously 'lust' after another person and 'attachment' to another. We aren't in control of whom we 'love' due to chemistry. Due to chemistry, we could 'love' anyone, regardless of not finding them attractive or even bearable to be in a room with.
omelet

Con

"In a sense we don't decide upon our partners, our brains do." This is what my opponent says. However, he fails to recognize that we ARE our brains.

More relevant to the topic, all emotions happen in the brain, so happening in the brain does not prevent love from being emotional - in fact, it is a requirement for being emotional.

My opponent also claims we're not in control of who we love, but we're not really in control of any of our emotions. We don't decide when we want to be happy and when we want to be sad or upset. More often than not, we are not in control of our when we feel what emotions toward whom.

I believe my argument still stands, and I hope I have shown you all this.

I thank my opponent for the debate and all of you for reading it.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
I love my mother, and I don't believe that is chemical. It may be electronic.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
Mongeese, you are making the same mistake he is making.

The resolution is putting forward the idea of something that is chemistry that ISN'T an emotion. Such things exist all over the place in nature - pretty much all of chemistry outside of certain brain chemistry.

The resolution is NOT trying to say that there is something that is emotional yet not chemistry, as both you and wjm seem to have wrongfully concluded.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
omelet, wjmelements is basically arguing by the notion that all squares are rectangles, not that some rectangles are squares. Because all emotions are chemistry, the resolution is contradictory.
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Arguments: Con.

Once Con accepted (in round one) that love is both chemistry and emotion. I was expecting Pro to explain why love was the former but not the latter. He never did that, he kept arguing under the assumption that he had to prove love was chemistry.

"... we don't decide upon our partners, our brains do." That's funny pro.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
Gah, I put that square rectangle analogy wrong. Square should be "emotional" and rectangle should be "chemistry." All emotional things are chemistry, but not all chemistry is emotional. Were the resolution true, it would be a rectangle that isn't a square.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
It can't not be a rectangle and still be a square, omelet.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
Actually, they aren't contradictory statements. It is possible to both be not emotional and be mere chemistry. An example of something that fits this description would be baking soda mixing with vinegar.

It's a square rectangle statement. It's true that some things are square rectangles, but love happens to be one of the rectangles that isn't square (square = unemotional, rectangle = mere chemistry).
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"Love isn't emotional. It is mere chemistry."

Contradictory statements. Emotions are chemistry.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Excuse me sir....are you a robot?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by The_Anarchist_Opposition 7 years ago
The_Anarchist_Opposition
Curtis12omeletTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Curtis12omeletTied
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 
Vote Placed by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
Curtis12omeletTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Curtis12omeletTied
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 
Vote Placed by zachrkhs 7 years ago
zachrkhs
Curtis12omeletTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:14 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Curtis12omeletTied
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 
Vote Placed by Curtis12 7 years ago
Curtis12
Curtis12omeletTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Curtis12omeletTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 7 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
Curtis12omeletTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07