The Instigator
BangBang-Coconut
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Andromeda_Z
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Loving is an art

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,498 times Debate No: 16934
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (8)

 

BangBang-Coconut

Pro

This is for Spinko's tournament.
Round 1 is for acceptance, rules, and clarifications
I will lay out the rules, and clarify what this round will entail, my opponent will ask questions to clarify what this round will entail in the comments section prior to accepting the round, and the debate will be adjusted accordingly until both of us are satisfied

Rules-
- No semantics
- No vulgarity

Clarifications
- Love, will be understood as not being exclusive to romantic love
- Art will be understood as a practice, or activity
Andromeda_Z

Con

I accept the debate, rules, and clarifications. This round is only for acceptance, so I'll post my argument in Round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate!
As a brief road-map, I will be offering Definitions, framework, and finally arguments.

Also as a clarifying note; through the course of this debate I will often quote the late German-American Psychologist and Social Philosopher "Erich Fromm" Citing, and expanding upon ideas expressed in his book "The Art of Loving"

= Definitions =
1. [1] Love: "Immature love says: 'I love you because I need you.' Mature love says 'I need you because I love you.'"
2. [2] Art: "A skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.

= Framework =
Obs1: The resolution states "Loving is an art" Since loving is in the present-perfect tense is present, we must assume that "Love" excludes fleeting moments of affection, (Immature love) as immature love is not one that ceases once a need is satisfied; but is instead in regards to unrequited love (Mature Love), since mature love is not a love that changes depending on the needs/desires of the individual at the moment.

Obs2: A divide must be made between love and affection. While love does encompass affection, affection does not necessarily encompass love. Affection is the feeling part of love; whereas love as a whole is a much more complex entity.

Obs3: the BOP in this debate is a reciprocal one, I as the pro must prove that Loving is an art, and my opponent must prove that loving is not an art.

= Arguments =

Contention 1: The justification of love-
There are many stages of love, an many different types of love. Ranging from brotherly, to motherly, to romantic, and beyond. And each different kind of love has certain stages that must happen for mature love to take place (i.e. the present-perfect tense of love) through practice, and patience an individual can become immensely better at these actions; thus it is an art.
It is also important to note that some different types of love do require certain stages; for instance motherly does require a "falling in love" process, it is a form of love that simply given.

Falling in love
The easiest stage, in fact it's an uncontrollable part, it does not happen at will; the moment when it seems as though a boundary is broken and two individuals are brought together and are closer to one another.
In brotherly love is takes the form of a friendship, in romantic love it takes the form of a relationship; but all the same this stage of love is near purely affection, The art of it comes in later

Maintaining love through a difficulty
Here is the bulk of my argument, the driving force as to why loving is an art; Where it just a passing feeling and nothing more, there would be no reason to reconcile a difference when a problem occurs. The two would go their separate ways and the love would die.
In the case this happens, it is not mature love but immature love as the two in the friend or relationship where in such for their own benefit; thus I am not bound to defend this.
However in the case that any action is taken to reconcile the damage between the two people; it has now become mature love. and also through this action of restoration, loving becomes an art; something that is a skill developed across time, and continual practice of the art.

Contention 2: The artisan continues the art-
[1]"If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism." -Erich Fromm
Now continuing the previous contention's line of thought; if all prongs are met for mature love to take place, but the love is only directed towards one person; it is not truly love, but a symbiotic attachment. In which case I am not bound to defend this manner of love as it does not fulfill the perfect-present tense that the resolution specifies.

"Just as love is an orientation which refers to all objects and is incompatible with the restriction to one object, so is reason a human faculty which must embrace the whole of the world with which man is confronted." -Erich Fromm
If loving is not an art, but simply something accessible by any-one at the drop of a hat, then the same love must also be accessible towards any other person. However we realize that this is not the case, we realize that to be able to love all is a fairly hefty deed.
It is something that requires practice, and repetition; it is one that requires the individual to continuously put aside their own needs and desires. It requires one to not seek to be loved, but to seek to love others.

Thus in conclusion, I see no avenue in which love (not the passive, immature, "love" or more rightly called affection) cannot be considered an art.
Vote Pro!
=Sources =
[1] Erich Fromm's "The Art of Loving"
[2] Google Dictionary
Andromeda_Z

Con

Rebuttal

Contention 1:

The Justification of Love: If there are different stages that must happen for mature love to take place as you say, then how does this require skill and practice? The roadmap is already laid out, all there is to do is follow it. It is a prescribed sequence of events.

Motherly love is not necessarily a form of love that is simply given. If so, then why would there be mothers who harm their children? If it is a given that you love them, then your definition of mature love would also state that you would need them.

Falling in Love- You've already stated that the art of it comes in later, so there isn't much for me to refute here.

Maintaining Love Through a Difficulty- Reconciling problems in a relationship is not required for love to be an art; if it were, then what about people who do not view their differences as problems? They need each other because they love each other, not because "He doesn't cheat on me" or "She always cleans her room". In this case, it is immature love. The mature love is present, the maintenance of the relationship is the art.

Contention 2:

"if all prongs are met for mature love to take place, but the love is only directed towards one person; it is not truly love, but a symbiotic attachment" A symbiotic attachment would require the person you love to love you back, which is not necessarily the case, meaning love of only one person is not necessarily of a symbiotic nature. It is still the same love, only on a more limited scale.

While it may be "a fairly hefty deed", that alone does not make it impossible, only improbable and difficult. If one practices and develops enough skill to love people, then it could be possible for them to love any person they encounter.

Arguments

Contention 1:

Mothers- Mothers love their children, but they do not need them. They can put them up for adoption, if they choose. Yet they don't because they love them without first needing them, making their love mature love. If a mothers love is simply given (as you said in your segment about falling in love), then they do not have to work at it, making it not an art.

Contention 2:

In the case of a person who loved their husband/wife, but still ended the relationship in a divorce, the love can meet the definition of mature love without meeting the definition of an art. Let's say there is a man who loved his wife very much, and he did not love her because he needed her, he needed her because he loved her. He loved many other people, so his love could not be considered a symbiotic attachment. His wife decided she no longer loved him back and she wanted a divorce. He tried to maintain the relationship because he loved her, but it didn't work. Although his mature love for her is still present, it is no longer a skill he practices, and so no longer an art.
Debate Round No. 2
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

I thank my opponent for her responses!
As a brief road-map, I will first be refuting the attacks made on my contentions, and I will proceed to attack my opponent's arguments

=Arguments=
Pro-
Contention 1:
Justification of love-
The fact that there are so many stages proves that it takes skill an practice.
immature love will stay immature love forever if it is allowed to, only with skill (Which comes over time) and Practice can immature love become mature love

Motherly Love-
When I say motherly love is a given is assumed in the context that the love is there in the first place.

Falling in love-
This point is conceded

Maintaining love through a difficulty-
- For those who do not view their differences as a problem, there is no problem to reconcile
- Of course they need each other because they love each other, which is why reconciliation of problem is so important.
Ultimately my opponent never really makes a valid argument here at all.

Contention 2: The Artisan continues the art-
- My opponent is attacking my quote from Erich Fromm out of context; and at that they don't even attack the full quote.
the symbiotic attachment isn't to another person, but to ego. Thus it isn't love.
- Honestly my the warrant behind my opponent's argument that it isn't a hefty deed proves that loving is an art; as she says "If one practices and develops enough skill to love people, then it could be possible for them to love any person they encounter."

Con-
Contention 1:
- My opponent's warrant is comprised of broken logic. "they don't need them, but love them anyway so it's not an art"? Simply by making such a statement, you do not prove that love is not an art; all you prove is that motherly love is a more beautiful art.
- My opponent claims that if love is simply given it is not an art, this is untrue as it is a correlation causation fallacy. The mother does not begin the process of loving when the child is born, but all throughout her life she is conditioned to love. She is groomed and give the necessary knowledge.

Contention 2:
- First in the case of the divorce, we must ask the question of whether there was any love in the first place. Many couples get married not out of love; but because they have a child on the way, because they feel they need to, for financial security, because one of them pressured the other into it.

- Next we must realize that if a spouse simply "falls out of love" for no reason, it is was more likely than not immature love in the first place; thus not inclusive to this round.

In conclusion, my opponent has given us no reason to believe that love is not an art; while I have shown reason to believe it is; Vote Pro!
Andromeda_Z

Con

Contention 1:

Justification of Love - Skill doesn't necessarily take time and practice, as is evidenced by people with Savant Syndrome. They have exceptional skill in one particular area of their lives, although they are of relatively low intelligence in other areas. [1] Particularly relevant are savants with artistic abilities. For these people, art comes naturally, they don't need to develop skill over time.

If skill and practice are not always necessary, then immature love will not always require skill and practice to become mature love.

Maintaining Love Through a Difficulty -
- In this case, it would be extremely difficult for them to met your definition of mature love. Although they may love one another, and unconditionally so, their relationship would not experience one of the stages my opponent says is important to developing mature love, and so would not be considered art.

Contention 2:
The quote says the love is directed at "only one other person", and I assumed this to mean it was someone else that the person loves. If it is referencing the love of ego, then it still could be love, only on a more limited scale. In the definitions of love Pro provided at the start of Round 2, no distinction on scale is made to differentiate immature and mature love.

Contention 1:
- The mother does begin the process of loving when the child is born, which was the point of this example. The love may change as the mother and child grow older, but at least some love must be present around the time of he child's birth, or there is no reason to raise the baby. If it is, then the love is present without first having skill and practice.

Contention 2:
- Not all couples do this, so it is also possible that they did get married out of love, which you have not disproven.
- The point of this example was to illustrate the case of someone who is in love with someone who does not necessarily love them back in the same way. The other person i the relationship is still in love.

Sources
[1] http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 3
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

Pro-
Contention 1: The Justification of love-
-First those with Savant Syndrome are not the norm, and thus the standard cannot be based on these people.
Second those with Savant Syndrome are skilled with an activity art (painting, sculpting, acting). Not something that envelopes a personality aspect.
With live there must always be skill and practice in place, because even if to the smallest amount; all people both need and are given love in order to survive to grow to be old enough to love in the first place.

- Maintaining love through a difficulty
My opponent has not refuted my prior argument, but has simply extended their own argument through.
Accordingly this argument is a drop.

Contention 2: The Artisan continues the art-
My opponent claims that egotistical self-love still counts as mature love, however as a direct quote from round 1, "If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love..."

It is not love, and my opponent's arguments are nothing but semantic attacks.

Con-
Contention 1-
- My opponent offers no warrant for this point. The mother may be raising her child simply to avoid the social implications of giving it up for adoption, or because she loves her husband. otherwise the love for the child is inherent, and again not bound to the burden of the round.

Contention 2-
- My opponent is missing the point of my argument, and has utterly dropped her own point here.
- Love doesn't have to be reciprocal to fall into the boundary of mature love.
Andromeda_Z

Con

Contention 1:

The Justification of Love - Although people with Savant syndrome cannot be considered the norm, to some degree everyone has something that they are good at with less effort than it would take for someone else to develop that same ability. These cases are extreme, and meant as examples and exceptions to show hat love is not necessarily an art.

Loving is an activity, it is something that is done.

Contention 2: If they are semantics, I will drop them as semantics are against the rules.

Contention 1: It is bound to the burden of the round, the definition of love is the one of mature love: "I need you because I love you". The mother needs her child because she loves her child.The inherent love is not an art.

Contention 2: I wasn't arguing that it had to be reciprocal, I was arguing that, although the relationship could not be maintained through a difficulty, it was still love. It was love without meeting your definition of art.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Merda 6 years ago
Merda
3:0 win to Pro. He successfully showed the similarities between what mature love is and what art is so that love could be seen as an art form.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
BangBang-CoconutAndromeda_ZTied
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: Counter WiredLocke untill he gets better RFD.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
BangBang-CoconutAndromeda_ZTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: BTC needs a life.
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
BangBang-CoconutAndromeda_ZTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: It definitely has a artistic element to it for sure!
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
BangBang-CoconutAndromeda_ZTied
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: If loving is a skill that requires training or practice than it could not be done without that. But Pro seems to concede that it can. others don't need practice to love their children. Arguments to Con. I suspect that Pro was thinking that practice helps perfect loving, but thats true of almost everything.
Vote Placed by baggins 6 years ago
baggins
BangBang-CoconutAndromeda_ZTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: 2:1 to Pro. I found it hard to follow the debate, as I am not comfortable with definition of either love or art. Pro wins as he puts more effort into the debate whereas Con appears to be in rush and contradicts herself at many points.
Vote Placed by TheNerd 6 years ago
TheNerd
BangBang-CoconutAndromeda_ZTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: While love can be an art, I don't think it was shown that love necessarily is an art.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
BangBang-CoconutAndromeda_ZTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: In the end of round 4 Andromeda makes a critical point that love is not *always* an art. Now this hinges the resolution, is it sufficient to argue one exception to negate or does it have to be shown in general? There is enough doubt cast here to deny an aggressive BoP but since it was noted to be equal I will give a very weak 3:2 (as it was close) win to BangBand but Andromeda could have taken it if she pushed hard on the exception negates.
Vote Placed by WiredLocke 6 years ago
WiredLocke
BangBang-CoconutAndromeda_ZTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: win